£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
Thank you for the thread Mike. One point - it's clear now that UK voting patterns are increasingly mirroring the US ie driven mainly by cultural factors, not economic ones. I can't really see the culture wars losing steam before the next election and, thanks to Megan and Harry, you now have a huge amount of new gasoline poured on their.
Prediction right now - SKS and Labour will do badly again in the Red Wall seats.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
RocNation are excellent at PR, better than the official opposition, each time they wait....and then go all guns blazing once they have built a case file they can deploy and the government have painted itself into a corner.
For the "it was an emergency! the pandemic justifies taking risks!" crowd I have one, to me, very obvious question: the successful pandemic projects have been those where money was given to groups with expertise (vaccine development most obviously) and they were told to do whatever it takes. Why was the T&T money not given (even in part) to the existing public health infrastructure, which already had experience in this area on a smaller scale?
Smaller scale is really underplaying it. The existing public health system has nothing like the capability required to deal with COVID-19. We are doing an absolutely incredible amount of testing now, and not any old rubbish but gold-standard PCR tests. So even if you used the public health teams, you would still need to spend a fortune on testing, and still need to recruit tens of thousands of people to expand the existing services.
Could you do Test & Trace cheaper and better? For sure. How about much cheaper and much better? Probably not. If you wanted a much cheaper and better Test & Trace you would have had to start from a completely different position to the one we were in.
In fact, the reason that they went outside the existing infrastructure for testing was that the people running the existing test infrastructure said they couldn't expand to mass testing - it would take multiple years.
Sure, but then they appear to have ignored the existing expertise when it came to the "trace" part of the T&T system. It’s no accident that local authorities, with no money, managed to vastly outperform the national T&T system; eventually the disparity became so obvious that the government allocated funding directly to local authorities for the purpose.
It’s also not clear (as others have rightly pointed out) that all that testing infrastructure was necessary - what’s the point in testing 100,000s of people daily if you can’t act on the results? None.
The justification for T&T was that it would come into it’s own after the initial lock down & prevent another surge. It utterly failed at this, at vast expense. People defending this baffle me.
Test and trace is pointless without effective isolation. The hotel industry is on it’s knees with thousands of empty rooms. People have been trusted to self isolate. Case numbers prove that many haven’t. It’s still not too late to ensure secure isolation in hotels for confirmed cases and all travellers from overseas. An earlier end to lockdown, so that we are back in business before the rest of Europe would pay for it. But it’s probably a different budget, so can’t be done.
Testing is not pointless. Tracing without more coercive isolation might be. The alternative, for a free liberal society, is of course encouraging people to isolate by other means but that was clearly deemed to be unworkable.
Pay them 3-5x their salary or a lump sum.
£1k per week and GPS tracking bracelets. Boom.
The cobra effect. Give someone £1000 pw and folk will be out there trying to catch it or be within 2m of someone who has it.
This imo is one of those ideas that sounds good but yet isn't. Not in practice. You just know it isn't going to work out and so best to leave it. There are many ideas like this in life generally and the pandemic has seen quite a few. The "app" for example. My preferred "just leave it" approach to that would have saved tens of billions of public money. Course one person's ruthless realism is another's defeatism and lack of ambition.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
Rayner should have stood. Whilst she has got her (many) faults, her background and story would have resonated with a fair few of Labour's target voters. I also reckon BJ would haven't been able to show his patronising manner in its full glory against a working class, northern woman.
Anyway, why did you cut off two words from my reply?
They were not relevant to the maths
So? It removes context from the comment thread, same for removing the earlier replies. It's not helpful.
Sometimes it is helpful when responding to a particular point in what might be a lengthy series of points (not that I have ever written such a tedious screed myself of course) to truncate the quoted element to its relevant part to be clear what is being responded to or disputed. But it was a pretty brief post.
Ha, didn't know about the hole bored for the fag, probably didn't help the structural integrity of the helmet even in those simpler days. They don't make 'em like that any more, much to the regret of the tobacco industry.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
Rayner should have stood. Whilst she has got her (many) faults, her background and story would have resonated with a fair few of Labour's target voters. I also reckon BJ would haven't been able to show his patronising manner in its full glory against a working class, northern woman.
Rayner would not have gained any more Leave voting Tories but would also not have won the 2019 LD voters who are now voting for Starmer
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
RocNation are excellent at PR, better than the official opposition, each time they wait....and then go all guns blazing once they have built a case file they can deploy and the government have painted itself into a corner.
I'm not sure they will go in guns blazing on this one at least now. It might be the case down the line but there are obvious risks for their client. Inn any event, the Royal Family stuff has somewhat pushed it off the front page.
On a different topic, I think what the Govt should do is give a flat-rate one-off tax free bonus instead, let's say £1500. Yes, costs close to £2bn (I think) but doesn't have a multiplier effect and disproportionately benefits lower paid staff.
Ha, didn't know about the hole bored for the fag, probably didn't help the structural integrity of the helmet even in those simpler days. They don't make 'em like that any more, much to the regret of the tobacco industry.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
One of the ladies, they needed something different than a dull London lawyer. We live in a world dominated by personality and SKS does not have one. Boris has many faults, and he is a marmite figure, but those like my wife who like him, really like him and will always vote for him. There is no way that SKS will beat him.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
Rayner should have stood. Whilst she has got her (many) faults, her background and story would have resonated with a fair few of Labour's target voters. I also reckon BJ would haven't been able to show his patronising manner in its full glory against a working class, northern woman.
Rayner would not have gained any more Leave voting Tories but would also not have won the 2019 LD voters who are now voting for Starmer
I think she would have gotten a few of the Labour ones, particularly on the women side. LD ones less sure about.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
One of the ladies, they needed something different than a dull London lawyer. We live in a world dominated by personality and SKS does not have one. Boris has many faults, and he is a marmite figure, but those like my wife who like him, really like him and will always vote for him. There is no way that SKS will beat him.
Not always, the dull Hollande beat the charismatic Sarkozy in 2012, the dull Biden beat the charismatic Trump in 2020 and the dull May beat the more charismatic Corbyn in 2017 as the dull Major beat the more charismatic Kinnock in 1992.
Merkel is also pretty dull but has won lots of elections
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
RocNation are excellent at PR, better than the official opposition, each time they wait....and then go all guns blazing once they have built a case file they can deploy and the government have painted itself into a corner.
I'm not sure they will go in guns blazing on this one at least now. It might be the case down the line but there are obvious risks for their client. Inn any event, the Royal Family stuff has somewhat pushed it off the front page.
On a different topic, I think what the Govt should do is give a flat-rate one-off tax free bonus instead, let's say £1500. Yes, costs close to £2bn (I think) but doesn't have a multiplier effect and disproportionately benefits lower paid staff.
At the moment, it is only government submission to the panel, the panel will then make a recommendation, and the government have to choose to accept it or overrule it. From RocNation point of view, sensible to wait until the process is complete the government say paints into in a corner of its 1%, thats it and in the meantime you build up a file of nurses struggling with cost of living, lack of child care, etc.
If they go to fast it looks like they are getting involved in party political bickering.
Instead I can see them once the process is complete, run some sort "donate to support help nurses get..."
Sputnik and Sinovac presumably looking to market in places other than Europe.
From the number of approved or soon to be approved vaccines, out of gods alone knows how many trialled versions, we have gotten lucky that national attutides to other places probably won't be too problematic, as if Sputnik for instance does work but americans are reluctant, they have alternatives. It's interesting to think what might have happened if only one or two vaccines had been ready by now.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
I may be wrong, but I think Rashford has decided to focus his efforts on food (free school meals, food banks, improving social security so neither are required, perhaps) rather than to become the Leader of the Opposition more generally as some on twitter would like and pretend he is.
This is because it's something he has experience of.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
Labour ought to be spending a great deal of their time looking into where the £38bn went.
If the vaccination project has the desired effect then almost everybody will be spending the Summer partying, on holidays and generally breathing a massive, extended sigh of relief. Spending on test and trace, along with everything else to do with the Plague, will disappear into the black hole of a public inquiry which will take years to deliberate and report, and which the great mass of the public will invest no time or interest in at all.
The pandemic is going to join Brexit as a settled topic which most voters want to put behind them. If Labour is to have a future then it has to look to the future, not the past.
To get back into the game Labour needs three things: for the Conservatives to stuff up the economic recovery, to detoxify itself with small-c conservative voters, and a clear alternative vision of what it would do differently. It can't do anything about point 1, and points 2 and 3 are both big challenges that require careful thought. Devoting undue time to criticisms that the Government can easily swat away would be pointless.
I agree with your 3 points but for me 2 and 3 are closely linked. A clear and attractive answer to what they would do differently is in itself the best way to detoxify the party in the eyes of voters for whom a detoxification is both needed and possible. These are the voters who are not averse to a clear left economic message but have got the idea that Labour are not patriotic and pander to minorities. Other than with policies, the detox can only be of perception rather than reality. Labour can better explain how they are patriotic, and how promoting social justice does not equate to pandering to minorities, but they can't and shouldn't junk core values in a chase for voters who genuinely don't share them. Seems an obvious thing to say, but it's worth saying because much of the advice to Labour from those who would never in a million years vote for them boils down to exactly that.
What was your view of the Rochdale Pioneers thread from the other day as an answer to 2 and 3? I thought it was quite an attractive vision (or pre-vision, perhaps). But I probably fall outside the sweet spot of the electorate to whom Labour is pitching its offer.
It had much I agree with but he and I are not on the same page when it comes to the lessons of GE19. He thinks there is no appetite for left economic radicalism, whereas I don't accept that. If it was offered again (details different but spirit intact) in an election with no Corbyn and no Brexit, and was decisively rejected, then I might well change my mind.
Re your other post, lockdown, maybe our locales do differ in how much is going on. And no, I'm not really saying it's how it should be, just my impression of how it is. In any case, it's nearly over now. April 12th is just around the corner. Sort of.
Many of them do now appear to be in the ballpark of where the UK is in daily rollout which is encouraging, albeit we have been a bit slower in the last few weeks.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
It does matter if they go out once or many times since there is a sliding scale of risk. It isn't zero risk or 100%. If risk reduces by 90% or even 50% then that will still significantly reduce R.
Disappear? No I don't, but I think it would massively reduce the
You're letting the lack of perfection be the enemy of the good. You're making the same logical mistake as those who said masks don't work because you can still be infected. Yes masks don't protect 100% but they help. Yes isolation isn't 100% but it still helps.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
So who should have won the leadership race?
One of the ladies, they needed something different than a dull London lawyer. We live in a world dominated by personality and SKS does not have one. Boris has many faults, and he is a marmite figure, but those like my wife who like him, really like him and will always vote for him. There is no way that SKS will beat him.
That is a problem all the candidates would have had.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
I may be wrong, but I think Rashford has decided to focus his efforts on food (free school meals, food banks, improving social security so neither are required, perhaps) rather than to become the Leader of the Opposition more generally as some on twitter would like and pretend he is.
This is because it's something he has experience of.
Perhaps he will branch out more in time. But he is either well advised, smart, or both, as being focused on a specific thing, for now at least, and maintaining a reasonable tone, has, frankly, made him look very good whereas some very passionate campaigners of worthy causes can trip up.
Labour should be miles clear after the year the Government has had. SKS was a terrible choice as leader. OGH is celebrating a poll where Labour are 6 points behind.
Not really. The pandemic crisis is likely to be benefitting the Government and flattering its poll ratings.
There's no 'could' about it, it will have deadly consequences. Unlike some choices in the pandemic which will have proven deadly, this one has no possible justification.
Politically though calculating the deadliness of the consequence is difficult, and we'll all be swimming in vaccines soon, so impact is lessened.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
It's all a case of multi-millionaires' problems.
I think it's more than that here: I think Meghan wanted to be the centre of attention, on an equal standing with The Queen. I suspect she wanted to be the new Diana (she certainly dressed that way, and matched the mannerisms) and be that the new fresh face of the monarchy for the 21st Century, with an adoring public and press fawning over her. Harry would have been comfortable with that too as he's still clearly suffering from the loss of his mother, and sees something of a replacement in her for that.
When she discovered that wasn't what it was like - that you have to win people over on your own merits through your own actions and behaviour - she put it all down to victimisation and racism, and now thinks that anyone in the institution is a fair target in her paranoid tale of elaborate conspiracy.
I think at heart she has a narcissistic personality disorder, and issues as deep-rooted as Harry. Where I agree with them is that they both need help, and clearly still do.
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
I may be wrong, but I think Rashford has decided to focus his efforts on food (free school meals, food banks, improving social security so neither are required, perhaps) rather than to become the Leader of the Opposition more generally as some on twitter would like and pretend he is.
This is because it's something he has experience of.
That would be fair enough and make sense. Probably also a lot smarter strategy
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
I may be wrong, but I think Rashford has decided to focus his efforts on food (free school meals, food banks, improving social security so neither are required, perhaps) rather than to become the Leader of the Opposition more generally as some on twitter would like and pretend he is.
This is because it's something he has experience of.
That would be fair enough and make sense. Probably also a lot smarter strategy
The UC returning to pre-covid battle will be back in a few months.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
It does matter if they go out once or many times since there is a sliding scale of risk. It isn't zero risk or 100%. If risk reduces by 90% or even 50% then that will still significantly reduce R.
Disappear? No I don't, but I think it would massively reduce the
You're letting the lack of perfection be the enemy of the good. You're making the same logical mistake as those who said masks don't work because you can still be infected. Yes masks don't protect 100% but they help. Yes isolation isn't 100% but it still helps.
Actually isolation would be (all but) 100%, if done properly. The issues are that we can't get to people quickly enough (because of the delay from infection/being infectious to testing, and then the shorter one to results) and then we can't enforce it after that, and there are lots of people who don't have enough support to do it properly. Or just plain can't be bothered.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
I disagree a bit with this. I was forced to isolate back in October, from a student where we had lots of protective equipment in place and 2m distancing. If allowed I would have disputed it but you can't. I did my time, save on four occasions walking the dog in the woods and avoiding contact with people.
Now this was not complying in full, but was very little risk of onwards transmission.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
I remember in 2010 when all the talk from the government was that was the last census for the same reasons.
“As we come out of the European Union and the pandemic, we will require these snapshots more regularly. The question is how accurately we can do it, and if we can do it accurately enough to not need a 2031 Census.”
What has leaving the EU got to do with needing more snapshots?
Personal view is that this won't happen. I can't see Manchin going back, Sinema possibly but she has made her stance clear and Hassan from New Hampshire is also being targeted about the filibuster issue post-the news that the Republican Governor there, John Sununu, is considering a 2022 Senate bid which suddenly puts the NH seat more into play. I suspect this is more to put pressure on the Republicans to pass some of the agenda items by issuing the threat but there is no way I can see any of them voting for HR1 for example.
Also worthwhile keeping an eye on this and maybe related to Nevada's Senator calling for reform to the filibuster, also has implications for the 2022 NV Senate race,
Labour ought to be spending a great deal of their time looking into where the £38bn went.
If the vaccination project has the desired effect then almost everybody will be spending the Summer partying, on holidays and generally breathing a massive, extended sigh of relief. Spending on test and trace, along with everything else to do with the Plague, will disappear into the black hole of a public inquiry which will take years to deliberate and report, and which the great mass of the public will invest no time or interest in at all.
The pandemic is going to join Brexit as a settled topic which most voters want to put behind them. If Labour is to have a future then it has to look to the future, not the past.
To get back into the game Labour needs three things: for the Conservatives to stuff up the economic recovery, to detoxify itself with small-c conservative voters, and a clear alternative vision of what it would do differently. It can't do anything about point 1, and points 2 and 3 are both big challenges that require careful thought. Devoting undue time to criticisms that the Government can easily swat away would be pointless.
I agree with your 3 points but for me 2 and 3 are closely linked. A clear and attractive answer to what they would do differently is in itself the best way to detoxify the party in the eyes of voters for whom a detoxification is both needed and possible. These are the voters who are not averse to a clear left economic message but have got the idea that Labour are not patriotic and pander to minorities. Other than with policies, the detox can only be of perception rather than reality. Labour can better explain how they are patriotic, and how promoting social justice does not equate to pandering to minorities, but they can't and shouldn't junk core values in a chase for voters who genuinely don't share them. Seems an obvious thing to say, but it's worth saying because much of the advice to Labour from those who would never in a million years vote for them boils down to exactly that.
What was your view of the Rochdale Pioneers thread from the other day as an answer to 2 and 3? I thought it was quite an attractive vision (or pre-vision, perhaps). But I probably fall outside the sweet spot of the electorate to whom Labour is pitching its offer.
It had much I agree with but he and I are not on the same page when it comes to the lessons of GE19. He thinks there is no appetite for left economic radicalism, whereas I don't accept that. If it was offered again (details different but spirit intact) in an election with no Corbyn and no Brexit, and was decisively rejected, then I might well change my mind.
Re your other post, lockdown, maybe our locales do differ in how much is going on. And no, I'm not really saying it's how it should be, just my impression of how it is. In any case, it's nearly over now. April 12th is just around the corner. Sort of.
London is very busy compared with not-London. I passed through a not-London market square/pedestrianised walkway recently and it was dead as a dodo save for the five farmers' market stalls. In London, however, you'd be pressed to tell the difference wrt lockdown.
I remember in 2010 when all the talk from the government was that was the last census for the same reasons.
“As we come out of the European Union and the pandemic, we will require these snapshots more regularly. The question is how accurately we can do it, and if we can do it accurately enough to not need a 2031 Census.”
What has leaving the EU got to do with needing more snapshots?
Didn't you get the memo, everything is to do with Brexit.... everything....
You are despeerately trying to push the agenda for SKS. The latest polls must drive you mad.
It's a bit of a poor measure to use but the comments in the news sites suggest this 1% pay increase issue hasn't really caught fire. There are a fair few people pointing out that they at least have a safe job and a pay rise at a time when many don't.
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
I may be wrong, but I think Rashford has decided to focus his efforts on food (free school meals, food banks, improving social security so neither are required, perhaps) rather than to become the Leader of the Opposition more generally as some on twitter would like and pretend he is.
This is because it's something he has experience of.
That would be fair enough and make sense. Probably also a lot smarter strategy
The UC returning to pre-covid battle will be back in a few months.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
Nothing. There are only a handful of nerds breathlessly tracking all this crap in detail.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
I remember in 2010 when all the talk from the government was that was the last census for the same reasons.
“As we come out of the European Union and the pandemic, we will require these snapshots more regularly. The question is how accurately we can do it, and if we can do it accurately enough to not need a 2031 Census.”
What has leaving the EU got to do with needing more snapshots?
Didn't you get the memo, everything is to do with Brexit.... everything....
Are we sure this isn't just a statistician wanting it to be more regular so they have a stable income or something?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
Stick to Aristotle's 'To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true' and you can't go far wrong.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Labour ought to be spending a great deal of their time looking into where the £38bn went.
If the vaccination project has the desired effect then almost everybody will be spending the Summer partying, on holidays and generally breathing a massive, extended sigh of relief. Spending on test and trace, along with everything else to do with the Plague, will disappear into the black hole of a public inquiry which will take years to deliberate and report, and which the great mass of the public will invest no time or interest in at all.
The pandemic is going to join Brexit as a settled topic which most voters want to put behind them. If Labour is to have a future then it has to look to the future, not the past.
To get back into the game Labour needs three things: for the Conservatives to stuff up the economic recovery, to detoxify itself with small-c conservative voters, and a clear alternative vision of what it would do differently. It can't do anything about point 1, and points 2 and 3 are both big challenges that require careful thought. Devoting undue time to criticisms that the Government can easily swat away would be pointless.
I agree with your 3 points but for me 2 and 3 are closely linked. A clear and attractive answer to what they would do differently is in itself the best way to detoxify the party in the eyes of voters for whom a detoxification is both needed and possible. These are the voters who are not averse to a clear left economic message but have got the idea that Labour are not patriotic and pander to minorities. Other than with policies, the detox can only be of perception rather than reality. Labour can better explain how they are patriotic, and how promoting social justice does not equate to pandering to minorities, but they can't and shouldn't junk core values in a chase for voters who genuinely don't share them. Seems an obvious thing to say, but it's worth saying because much of the advice to Labour from those who would never in a million years vote for them boils down to exactly that.
What was your view of the Rochdale Pioneers thread from the other day as an answer to 2 and 3? I thought it was quite an attractive vision (or pre-vision, perhaps). But I probably fall outside the sweet spot of the electorate to whom Labour is pitching its offer.
It had much I agree with but he and I are not on the same page when it comes to the lessons of GE19. He thinks there is no appetite for left economic radicalism, whereas I don't accept that. If it was offered again (details different but spirit intact) in an election with no Corbyn and no Brexit, and was decisively rejected, then I might well change my mind.
Re your other post, lockdown, maybe our locales do differ in how much is going on. And no, I'm not really saying it's how it should be, just my impression of how it is. In any case, it's nearly over now. April 12th is just around the corner. Sort of.
London is very busy compared with not-London. I passed through a not-London market square/pedestrianised walkway recently and it was dead as a dodo save for the five farmers' market stalls. In London, however, you'd be pressed to tell the difference wrt lockdown.
Worth a trip down to London then on 29 March by the sounds of it.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
Is this likely to happen? The rates are still significantly lower, and they are at a much lower base.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
I remember in 2010 when all the talk from the government was that was the last census for the same reasons.
“As we come out of the European Union and the pandemic, we will require these snapshots more regularly. The question is how accurately we can do it, and if we can do it accurately enough to not need a 2031 Census.”
What has leaving the EU got to do with needing more snapshots?
Didn't you get the memo, everything is to do with Brexit.... everything....
Are we sure this isn't just a statistician wanting it to be more regular so they have a stable income or something?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
It's all a case of multi-millionaires' problems.
I think it's more than that here: I think Meghan wanted to be the centre of attention, on an equal standing with The Queen. I suspect she wanted to be the new Diana (she certainly dressed that way, and matched the mannerisms) and be that the new fresh face of the monarchy for the 21st Century, with an adoring public and press fawning over her. Harry would have been comfortable with that too as he's still clearly suffering from the loss of his mother, and sees something of a replacement in her for that.
When she discovered that wasn't what it was like - that you have to win people over on your own merits through your own actions and behaviour - she put it all down to victimisation and racism, and now thinks that anyone in the institution is a fair target in her paranoid tale of elaborate conspiracy.
I think at heart she has a narcissistic personality disorder, and issues as deep-rooted as Harry. Where I agree with them is that they both need help, and clearly still do.
The press though. The obsession with the royals, "pass the sick bucket" servility and brutal "let's get her" targeting in equal measure. Cesspit.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
There's perhaps a philosophical argument to be had re truth vs fact, as Dr Henry Jones Jr once talked about, but that doesn't seem to be what it is about as it seems to be used in relation to events which people then want responded to as hard facts.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
H&M's untruths and attacks are doing very serious damage to the monarchy and Britain's reputation in the world, and undermining the Commonwealth.
And I don't think they will stop either. It's the only way they get global attention.
No, the New York Times has always hated the monarchy and the UK ever since Brexit.
H & M are just tools for their left liberal agenda (the NYT is the voice of the liberal coastal elite not middle America) and even the author says he has wanted to scrap the monarchy since 2013, 8 years ago
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
Stick to Aristotle's 'To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true' and you can't go far wrong.
Socrates and Plato got there before him, but yes indeed.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
In a society where we claim to believe that people are equal no-one should be - or should think themselves - immune from criticism, regardless of where they are in any hierarchy.
If you listen to Meghan's interviews, one of her main complaints is that her son couldn't have the title of a royal prince, so titles are clearly important to her.
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
It's all a case of multi-millionaires' problems.
I think it's more than that here: I think Meghan wanted to be the centre of attention, on an equal standing with The Queen. I suspect she wanted to be the new Diana (she certainly dressed that way, and matched the mannerisms) and be that the new fresh face of the monarchy for the 21st Century, with an adoring public and press fawning over her. Harry would have been comfortable with that too as he's still clearly suffering from the loss of his mother, and sees something of a replacement in her for that.
When she discovered that wasn't what it was like - that you have to win people over on your own merits through your own actions and behaviour - she put it all down to victimisation and racism, and now thinks that anyone in the institution is a fair target in her paranoid tale of elaborate conspiracy.
I think at heart she has a narcissistic personality disorder, and issues as deep-rooted as Harry. Where I agree with them is that they both need help, and clearly still do.
The press though. The obsession with the royals, "pass the sick bucket" servility and brutal "let's get her" targeting in equal measure. Cesspit.
The things she was criticised over compared to others is compelling enough to indicate that, while I am not particularly persuaded by much of this story and a level of press intrusion is part and parcel of the institution, she was definitely particularly pooly treated by the media.
Though if that is the main point, the family members being shits is a distraction.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
Depends. "This picture is shit" is perfectly legitimate art criticism without having to go through the rigmarole of saying well it's not actually shit, it's just that I don't happen to like it while accepting it has artistic merit, etc, etc, blah, blah. as it's all understood.
I can live with "my truth" as my lived experience which will differ from yours when we both look at the same thing (I used fear or not fear of clowns as an example yesterday).
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
Is this likely to happen? The rates are still significantly lower, and they are at a much lower base.
Not sure - depends how many people jump into the pool of vaccines once we are all swimming in them. But atm the answer from Boris/the Cons to "you're shit at this virus" is "vaccines". That may not be a constant, in future.
Hmm. He may have crossed a line re commenting on claims of mental health issues, but in general I'm fine with him or anyone else stating they don't believe her claims as that is opinion, and her assertions are not required to be accepted.
But I also cannot say that it is unfair for her to lodge a complaint with ITV. Lots of people did that. They then wanted him to apologise, he didn't want to, so they've parted ways. Seems all above board to me as an employer issue. Did she need to complain, given many others already did? No, but anyone can lodge a complaint. Should ITV have sought to have him apologise? Maybe not, but its their programme and they can require that of their presenters if they wish to.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
Stick to Aristotle's 'To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true' and you can't go far wrong.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
Depends. "This picture is shit" is perfectly legitimate art criticism without having to go through the rigmarole of saying well it's not actually shit, it's just that I don't happen to like it while accepting it has artistic merit, etc, etc, blah, blah. as it's all understood.
I can live with "my truth" as my lived experience which will differ from yours when we both look at the same thing (I used fear or not fear of clowns as an example yesterday).
There is no "could" about deadly consequences. Roughly 1% of people are infected per week when the pandemic is raging, and roughly 1% of those will die. So that's 100 deaths per week per million of population. If your processes or public statements delay vaccine uptake when it is most needed then people will die, and in significant numbers.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
Just say her/his "recollection", "understanding" or "belief" then. There are plenty of options already. And anyone who says "lived experience" can be put through the Room 101 trapdoor.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Remember when we had 1 week in September where testing capacity didn't meet demand with schools returning and lots of people deciding well I will try to get one just to make sure, the media had a meltdown.
The number of tests barely gets any mention now, the numbers are colossal and simply pass over the heads of most people. Does it cost a lot? Yeah, doing gazillions of state of the art tests ain't cheap!
The government literally can't win on this. Don't do a gazillion tests, its all we should be like Germany, do more tests than Germany, well thats a waste of money...
Strawman. The waste of money was not testing, but persisting with the system they had despite mounting evidence of its lack of effectiveness in reducing case numbers, and pursuing only headline numbers of tests.
They could (for example) have seriously trialled lateral flow tests on an area basis much earlier, rather than the single test they conducted in Liverpool. They are massively cheaper than PCR, so you can run big numbers, and test everyone rather than waiting for someone to report symptoms. If they'd done that, alongside trialling versions of @MaxPB 's isolation ideas, it might have kept cases under control after last summer.
They might even have developed some useful domestically produced rapid antigen tests, rather than importing them.
Don't forget it was last summer that they realised how many infected people just weren't self isolating.
One thing which has been a positive is the funding that has gone into Oxford Nanopore, which gives the UK a world class mass sequencing technology.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
Labour ought to be spending a great deal of their time looking into where the £38bn went.
If the vaccination project has the desired effect then almost everybody will be spending the Summer partying, on holidays and generally breathing a massive, extended sigh of relief. Spending on test and trace, along with everything else to do with the Plague, will disappear into the black hole of a public inquiry which will take years to deliberate and report, and which the great mass of the public will invest no time or interest in at all.
The pandemic is going to join Brexit as a settled topic which most voters want to put behind them. If Labour is to have a future then it has to look to the future, not the past.
To get back into the game Labour needs three things: for the Conservatives to stuff up the economic recovery, to detoxify itself with small-c conservative voters, and a clear alternative vision of what it would do differently. It can't do anything about point 1, and points 2 and 3 are both big challenges that require careful thought. Devoting undue time to criticisms that the Government can easily swat away would be pointless.
I agree with your 3 points but for me 2 and 3 are closely linked. A clear and attractive answer to what they would do differently is in itself the best way to detoxify the party in the eyes of voters for whom a detoxification is both needed and possible. These are the voters who are not averse to a clear left economic message but have got the idea that Labour are not patriotic and pander to minorities. Other than with policies, the detox can only be of perception rather than reality. Labour can better explain how they are patriotic, and how promoting social justice does not equate to pandering to minorities, but they can't and shouldn't junk core values in a chase for voters who genuinely don't share them. Seems an obvious thing to say, but it's worth saying because much of the advice to Labour from those who would never in a million years vote for them boils down to exactly that.
What was your view of the Rochdale Pioneers thread from the other day as an answer to 2 and 3? I thought it was quite an attractive vision (or pre-vision, perhaps). But I probably fall outside the sweet spot of the electorate to whom Labour is pitching its offer.
It had much I agree with but he and I are not on the same page when it comes to the lessons of GE19. He thinks there is no appetite for left economic radicalism, whereas I don't accept that. If it was offered again (details different but spirit intact) in an election with no Corbyn and no Brexit, and was decisively rejected, then I might well change my mind.
Re your other post, lockdown, maybe our locales do differ in how much is going on. And no, I'm not really saying it's how it should be, just my impression of how it is. In any case, it's nearly over now. April 12th is just around the corner. Sort of.
London is very busy compared with not-London. I passed through a not-London market square/pedestrianised walkway recently and it was dead as a dodo save for the five farmers' market stalls. In London, however, you'd be pressed to tell the difference wrt lockdown.
Maybe that's it then. I'm extrapolating from what I'm seeing. Certainly round here, lockdown is over. Just waiting for the shops and the pubs in due course.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
Here's another thought experiment.
What would have happened had Dido Harding been running the vaccines effort ?
Comments
Funnily enough - and apologies if I missed it - but I am surprised we haven't heard the wisdom of Marcus Rashford on this. Maybe his PR people are telling him it might not be the best image for a highly paid footballer to weigh in on a pay dispute.
Welcome to the PB Tory club - so are we!
Prediction right now - SKS and Labour will do badly again in the Red Wall seats.
https://twitter.com/YourWullie/status/1369627897095462916?s=20
She claimed this was "taken away" from him by HMQ, whilst being granted to Prince George, and suggested there must be a bit of racism there, but that's also untrue.
The letters patent issued by King George V were that the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns were entitled to the HRH style. HMQ changed this in 2012 (over four years before Harry met Meghan) to include all of William's children. Prince George would have got it anyway but she changed it after the Perth Agreement of 2011 to give all his sons and daughters equality in the line of succession in accordance with the upcoming Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, it wasn't "taken away" from Archie, it's just that same privilege wasn't extended to him in 2019 as well, as that's because he's not in the direct line of succession - not because the Queen doesn't like non-white people; he will in any event get the HRH title when Charles ascends to the throne. Automatically.
I won't go into the wholly contradictory fact that Archie is entitled to use the title "Earl of Dumbarton" as a courtesy but that the Sussexes decided he shouldn't use that title as they wanted him to grow up as a "private citizen". I wouldn't want to accuse them of racism as well.
On a different topic, I think what the Govt should do is give a flat-rate one-off tax free bonus instead, let's say £1500. Yes, costs close to £2bn (I think) but doesn't have a multiplier effect and disproportionately benefits lower paid staff.
https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369628517718167554
Merkel is also pretty dull but has won lots of elections
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/vaccinated-spread-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-vaccines-questions?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_scheduler&utm_term=COVID-19&utm_content=05/03/2021+21:30&fbclid=IwAR0YQJRPIsVQFphg6FhdYlK70GCoVdoKEpzZlLniQ4aFovMI3XVxtgzaqh4
H&M's untruths and attacks are doing very serious damage to the monarchy and Britain's reputation in the world, and undermining the Commonwealth.
And I don't think they will stop either. It's the only way they get global attention.
Is he the best leader Labour could have, absolutely not. But compared to everyone else standing, yes he was, miles ahead.
I don't feel the same shame I sometimes felt defending Corbyn at the end of it all, I often think about that.
If they go to fast it looks like they are getting involved in party political bickering.
Instead I can see them once the process is complete, run some sort "donate to support help nurses get..."
From the number of approved or soon to be approved vaccines, out of gods alone knows how many trialled versions, we have gotten lucky that national attutides to other places probably won't be too problematic, as if Sputnik for instance does work but americans are reluctant, they have alternatives. It's interesting to think what might have happened if only one or two vaccines had been ready by now.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
This is because it's something he has experience of.
Re your other post, lockdown, maybe our locales do differ in how much is going on. And no, I'm not really saying it's how it should be, just my impression of how it is. In any case, it's nearly over now. April 12th is just around the corner. Sort of.
https://theferret.scot/leslie-evans-flights/
Disappear? No I don't, but I think it would massively reduce the
You're letting the lack of perfection be the enemy of the good. You're making the same logical mistake as those who said masks don't work because you can still be infected. Yes masks don't protect 100% but they help. Yes isolation isn't 100% but it still helps.
Politically though calculating the deadliness of the consequence is difficult, and we'll all be swimming in vaccines soon, so impact is lessened.
When she discovered that wasn't what it was like - that you have to win people over on your own merits through your own actions and behaviour - she put it all down to victimisation and racism, and now thinks that anyone in the institution is a fair target in her paranoid tale of elaborate conspiracy.
I think at heart she has a narcissistic personality disorder, and issues as deep-rooted as Harry. Where I agree with them is that they both need help, and clearly still do.
Now this was not complying in full, but was very little risk of onwards transmission.
I remember in 2010 when all the talk from the government was that was the last census for the same reasons.
What has leaving the EU got to do with needing more snapshots?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/filibuster-senate-democrats-biden_n_60480954c5b65bed87d6d373?ri18n=true
Personal view is that this won't happen. I can't see Manchin going back, Sinema possibly but she has made her stance clear and Hassan from New Hampshire is also being targeted about the filibuster issue post-the news that the Republican Governor there, John Sununu, is considering a 2022 Senate bid which suddenly puts the NH seat more into play. I suspect this is more to put pressure on the Republicans to pass some of the agenda items by issuing the threat but there is no way I can see any of them voting for HR1 for example.
Also worthwhile keeping an eye on this and maybe related to Nevada's Senator calling for reform to the filibuster, also has implications for the 2022 NV Senate race,
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/nevada-democratic-party-staff-quits-en-masse-after-socialists-win-leadership-roles/
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
(See Page 31)
https://twitter.com/timesredbox/status/1369615265604902915?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^embeddedtimeline|twterm^list:PaulGoodmanCH:news_tweets&ref_url=https://www.conservativehome.com/
https://twitter.com/andrew_croxford/status/1369321715910774796
No doubt he`ll be strung up for saying so.
H & M are just tools for their left liberal agenda (the NYT is the voice of the liberal coastal elite not middle America) and even the author says he has wanted to scrap the monarchy since 2013, 8 years ago
Though if that is the main point, the family members being shits is a distraction.
I can live with "my truth" as my lived experience which will differ from yours when we both look at the same thing (I used fear or not fear of clowns as an example yesterday).
But I also cannot say that it is unfair for her to lodge a complaint with ITV. Lots of people did that. They then wanted him to apologise, he didn't want to, so they've parted ways. Seems all above board to me as an employer issue. Did she need to complain, given many others already did? No, but anyone can lodge a complaint. Should ITV have sought to have him apologise? Maybe not, but its their programme and they can require that of their presenters if they wish to.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/the-death-of-truth-how-we-gave-up-on-facts-and-ended-up-with-trump
Also, The Left: "We're re-defining truth to include things that are not necessarily true, but we think they're really important anyway."
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
The waste of money was not testing, but persisting with the system they had despite mounting evidence of its lack of effectiveness in reducing case numbers, and pursuing only headline numbers of tests.
They could (for example) have seriously trialled lateral flow tests on an area basis much earlier, rather than the single test they conducted in Liverpool.
They are massively cheaper than PCR, so you can run big numbers, and test everyone rather than waiting for someone to report symptoms.
If they'd done that, alongside trialling versions of @MaxPB 's isolation ideas, it might have kept cases under control after last summer.
They might even have developed some useful domestically produced rapid antigen tests, rather than importing them.
Don't forget it was last summer that they realised how many infected people just weren't self isolating.
One thing which has been a positive is the funding that has gone into Oxford Nanopore, which gives the UK a world class mass sequencing technology.
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
What would have happened had Dido Harding been running the vaccines effort ?