Unfortunately, positive tests (not cases) will probably rise today or tomorrow (thanks to a huge acceleration in testing), and that will be used by the Zero Covid psychopaths as evidence to delay the roadmap. You're going to be able to set your watch by them.
I don't really agree with you - we've been doing 1.5 million tests for a while now (at least a week). Yes we have had an apparent levelling off of the decrease in cases, but what new testing is going to be reported today?
POSITIVE TESTS
It looks to me that positive tests are going to show a small rise in the next few days, and that this will be leapt on by the 0CV19ers. It's just a guesstimate – we'll see.
The schools have been back a week and we have (as of yesterday)....
Indeed, we have seen dwindling falls. I expect positive tests (not cases, important difference) to show a notional week-on-week rise in the coming days. That's my reading of the trends. I might well be wrong and I hope very much that I am. An increase in positive cases is utterly meaningless when we are testing so many more per day –– yet it will be leapt upon by the Zero Covidians and parts of the media, who will deliberately conflate cases with positive tests. Mark my words.
Why are you so set on calling them positive tests rather than cases? How do you define a case? Are you concerned about false positives (there will be some at the rates we are testing)?
I'm with Anabobazina here. A case used to have a very specific meaning - broadly, it was symptomatic enough to seek medical attention. Therefore, asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, positive tests are not the same as cases. (Not least because the former include false positives, but that is a side issue.) This is relevant because there has been confusion between the Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. The CFR is how many people who become ill die; the infection is how many people who might test positive die. If 1% of infections result in deaths, that is clearly a lot more worrying than 1% of cases resulting in deaths. There was a lot of confusion between the two in the early months of the pandemic, and being clear about what we mean helps.
Fair enough. I would add though that as asymptomatic transmission is believed to be a significant issue, we need to count those people too. I'd be a lot happier if ALL lateral flow positive tests had to be confirmed by PCR to be counted.
You can get a haircut in Wales right now. You'll be able to get one in Scotland very soon. But here in England we have to wait until 12th April and even this is not 100% certain. What has Boris Johnson got against haircuts? Why are they being treated like a pawn in some game where only he and a small group of insiders know the rules?
Haircuts do not seem to be something that will be of personal relevance to Johnson for much longer.
Loss of hair could well be a portent of loss of election.
I've joked about Boris = Samson before, but the hair is such an important part of his brand that he needs to do something. And the Commons camera angles really don't help him.
But what does he do? If he goes for a Hauge look, he suddenly looks... tired, don't you think? But if he tries to cover it up, it risks playing into the "BoJo is a phoney" thing.
Tricky.
He could always go for a gloriously unrealistic Fabricant style syrup.
The sort of lie that's so blatant that nobody can accuse you of dissembling?
That could work.
The more it looks like something out of Constable's The Haywane the better.
Have you translated that right? Just read it from Google Translate and it seems the French Health Minister passing the buck to Macron, not the German one.
This was posted yesterday (or at least the German highlighting of these 7 cases). At the heart of the issue for me is that we are in a race against the virus. In the UK we are currently winning that race, and should look forward to a return to pretty much normal by June. In Germany they are not, and pausing use of the AZ vaccine because of fears for some patients is ignoring the risk to others of Covid itself. That's what angers and saddens me. I think they are not acting in the best interests of the population.
You can get a haircut in Wales right now. You'll be able to get one in Scotland very soon. But here in England we have to wait until 12th April and even this is not 100% certain. What has Boris Johnson got against haircuts? Why are they being treated like a pawn in some game where only he and a small group of insiders know the rules?
Haircuts do not seem to be something that will be of personal relevance to Johnson for much longer.
Loss of hair could well be a portent of loss of election.
I've joked about Boris = Samson before, but the hair is such an important part of his brand that he needs to do something. And the Commons camera angles really don't help him.
But what does he do? If he goes for a Hauge look, he suddenly looks... tired, don't you think? But if he tries to cover it up, it risks playing into the "BoJo is a phoney" thing.
Tricky.
It's very tricky. A bald "Boris" would haemorrhage votes. He'll need to stave that off and do something if he wants to run again in 24 (which I'm sure he does). A crewcut? I agree with you, it's hard to see that working on a man of his age. Seems to be no good options. The combover is widely disliked and there's a reason for that.
I did like Jasmine Murphy's observation: Must be a slow news day when cost budgeting makes the entertainment section
That’s way worse than Katie Hopkins and Jack Monroe, who managed to nearly bankrupt each other with legal bills over a Twitter spat.
The difference this time, is that the lawyers all know they can afford to pay the bills.
Indeed, the thing is that ever since the legal action began Mrs Rooney has been trying to argue that she was not accusing Mrs Vardy but accusing Mrs Vardy's Instagram account.
That's a great big pointer that Mrs Rooney defence is doomed.
Unfortunately, positive tests (not cases) will probably rise today or tomorrow (thanks to a huge acceleration in testing), and that will be used by the Zero Covid psychopaths as evidence to delay the roadmap. You're going to be able to set your watch by them.
I don't really agree with you - we've been doing 1.5 million tests for a while now (at least a week). Yes we have had an apparent levelling off of the decrease in cases, but what new testing is going to be reported today?
POSITIVE TESTS
It looks to me that positive tests are going to show a small rise in the next few days, and that this will be leapt on by the 0CV19ers. It's just a guesstimate – we'll see.
The schools have been back a week and we have (as of yesterday)....
Indeed, we have seen dwindling falls. I expect positive tests (not cases, important difference) to show a notional week-on-week rise in the coming days. That's my reading of the trends. I might well be wrong and I hope very much that I am. An increase in positive cases is utterly meaningless when we are testing so many more per day –– yet it will be leapt upon by the Zero Covidians and parts of the media, who will deliberately conflate cases with positive tests. Mark my words.
Why are you so set on calling them positive tests rather than cases? How do you define a case? Are you concerned about false positives (there will be some at the rates we are testing)?
I'm with Anabobazina here. A case used to have a very specific meaning - broadly, it was symptomatic enough to seek medical attention. Therefore, asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, positive tests are not the same as cases. (Not least because the former include false positives, but that is a side issue.) This is relevant because there has been confusion between the Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. The CFR is how many people who become ill die; the infection is how many people who might test positive die. If 1% of infections result in deaths, that is clearly a lot more worrying than 1% of cases resulting in deaths. There was a lot of confusion between the two in the early months of the pandemic, and being clear about what we mean helps.
Fair enough. I would add though that as asymptomatic transmission is believed to be a significant issue, we need to count those people too. I'd be a lot happier if ALL lateral flow positive tests had to be confirmed by PCR to be counted.
Well yes, we need to count them - at the very least to understand the significance of asymptomatic transmission - but it just helps if we are consistent in how we use language. (Note - I am not an expert - this is my understanding it there may be more to it than this.)
What we need is to get Ford to make EV engines in the UK, diesel will be gone in 10 years.
Ford expect Diesel engines in commercial vehicles to be around slightly longer.
I think the market will say otherwise, the cost of EVs is falling rapidly, the TCO of EVs will begin to become competitive with diesel and operators are rational and will move over to EVs much sooner than the likes of Ford and VW are hoping.
I don't understand why city buses are still mostly diesel. I'd've thought it'd be very cheap to put in charging wires at termini and strategic portions of roads along the main routes, along the model of newer tram systems (like the new Birmingham tram extension).
Unfortunately, positive tests (not cases) will probably rise today or tomorrow (thanks to a huge acceleration in testing), and that will be used by the Zero Covid psychopaths as evidence to delay the roadmap. You're going to be able to set your watch by them.
I don't really agree with you - we've been doing 1.5 million tests for a while now (at least a week). Yes we have had an apparent levelling off of the decrease in cases, but what new testing is going to be reported today?
POSITIVE TESTS
It looks to me that positive tests are going to show a small rise in the next few days, and that this will be leapt on by the 0CV19ers. It's just a guesstimate – we'll see.
The schools have been back a week and we have (as of yesterday)....
Indeed, we have seen dwindling falls. I expect positive tests (not cases, important difference) to show a notional week-on-week rise in the coming days. That's my reading of the trends. I might well be wrong and I hope very much that I am. An increase in positive cases is utterly meaningless when we are testing so many more per day –– yet it will be leapt upon by the Zero Covidians and parts of the media, who will deliberately conflate cases with positive tests. Mark my words.
Why are you so set on calling them positive tests rather than cases? How do you define a case? Are you concerned about false positives (there will be some at the rates we are testing)?
I'm with Anabobazina here. A case used to have a very specific meaning - broadly, it was symptomatic enough to seek medical attention. Therefore, asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, positive tests are not the same as cases. (Not least because the former include false positives, but that is a side issue.) This is relevant because there has been confusion between the Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. The CFR is how many people who become ill die; the infection is how many people who might test positive die. If 1% of infections result in deaths, that is clearly a lot more worrying than 1% of cases resulting in deaths. There was a lot of confusion between the two in the early months of the pandemic, and being clear about what we mean helps.
Fair enough. I would add though that as asymptomatic transmission is believed to be a significant issue, we need to count those people too. I'd be a lot happier if ALL lateral flow positive tests had to be confirmed by PCR to be counted.
This was posted yesterday (or at least the German highlighting of these 7 cases). At the heart of the issue for me is that we are in a race against the virus. In the UK we are currently winning that race, and should look forward to a return to pretty much normal by June. In Germany they are not, and pausing use of the AZ vaccine because of fears for some patients is ignoring the risk to others of Covid itself. That's what angers and saddens me. I think they are not acting in the best interests of the population.
I think Nigel buried the lede: cerebral thrombosis are a symptom of COVID and cause/effect is the key question here.
Unfortunately, positive tests (not cases) will probably rise today or tomorrow (thanks to a huge acceleration in testing), and that will be used by the Zero Covid psychopaths as evidence to delay the roadmap. You're going to be able to set your watch by them.
I don't really agree with you - we've been doing 1.5 million tests for a while now (at least a week). Yes we have had an apparent levelling off of the decrease in cases, but what new testing is going to be reported today?
POSITIVE TESTS
It looks to me that positive tests are going to show a small rise in the next few days, and that this will be leapt on by the 0CV19ers. It's just a guesstimate – we'll see.
The schools have been back a week and we have (as of yesterday)....
Indeed, we have seen dwindling falls. I expect positive tests (not cases, important difference) to show a notional week-on-week rise in the coming days. That's my reading of the trends. I might well be wrong and I hope very much that I am. An increase in positive cases is utterly meaningless when we are testing so many more per day –– yet it will be leapt upon by the Zero Covidians and parts of the media, who will deliberately conflate cases with positive tests. Mark my words.
Why are you so set on calling them positive tests rather than cases? How do you define a case? Are you concerned about false positives (there will be some at the rates we are testing)?
I'm with Anabobazina here. A case used to have a very specific meaning - broadly, it was symptomatic enough to seek medical attention. Therefore, asymptomatic, or mildly symptomatic, positive tests are not the same as cases. (Not least because the former include false positives, but that is a side issue.) This is relevant because there has been confusion between the Case Fatality Rate and the Infection Fatality Rate. The CFR is how many people who become ill die; the infection is how many people who might test positive die. If 1% of infections result in deaths, that is clearly a lot more worrying than 1% of cases resulting in deaths. There was a lot of confusion between the two in the early months of the pandemic, and being clear about what we mean helps.
Disagreed 100%.
A case never had that meaning. We've been doing asymptomatic testing and counting asymptomatic positives almost the entire time of the pandemic, except for the times when there were insufficient tests available. Whether it be routing testing of hospital staff, care staff or contacts via Test & Trace they all get counted if they are positive. Whether they are symptomatic enough to seek medical attention or not has never been an issue.
You can get a haircut in Wales right now. You'll be able to get one in Scotland very soon. But here in England we have to wait until 12th April and even this is not 100% certain. What has Boris Johnson got against haircuts? Why are they being treated like a pawn in some game where only he and a small group of insiders know the rules?
Haircuts do not seem to be something that will be of personal relevance to Johnson for much longer.
Loss of hair could well be a portent of loss of election.
I've joked about Boris = Samson before, but the hair is such an important part of his brand that he needs to do something. And the Commons camera angles really don't help him.
But what does he do? If he goes for a Hauge look, he suddenly looks... tired, don't you think? But if he tries to cover it up, it risks playing into the "BoJo is a phoney" thing.
Tricky.
It's very tricky. A bald "Boris" would haemorrhage votes. He'll need to stave that off and do something if he wants to run again in 24 (which I'm sure he does). A crewcut? I agree with you, it's hard to see that working on a man of his age. Seems to be no good options. The combover is widely disliked and there's a reason for that.
The answer costs a mere £2.49 from Amazon. The Scots would love it.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
I did like Jasmine Murphy's observation: Must be a slow news day when cost budgeting makes the entertainment section
That’s way worse than Katie Hopkins and Jack Monroe, who managed to nearly bankrupt each other with legal bills over a Twitter spat.
The difference this time, is that the lawyers all know they can afford to pay the bills.
Indeed, the thing is that ever since the legal action began Mrs Rooney has been trying to argue that she was not accusing Mrs Vardy but accusing Mrs Vardy's Instagram account.
That's a great big pointer that Mrs Rooney defence is doomed.
It’s quite probable that one or both of them were using social media management companies to respond to online posts, and reputation management companies to ‘liaise’ with press contacts, which potentially complicates things still further in terms of liability and muddying of waters.
I imagine these sort of companies love someone with no real job but the budget of a rock star as clients - about as much as lawyers do.
This was posted yesterday (or at least the German highlighting of these 7 cases). At the heart of the issue for me is that we are in a race against the virus. In the UK we are currently winning that race, and should look forward to a return to pretty much normal by June. In Germany they are not, and pausing use of the AZ vaccine because of fears for some patients is ignoring the risk to others of Covid itself. That's what angers and saddens me. I think they are not acting in the best interests of the population.
I don't disagree. I just hadn't noted those particular details previously.
This was posted yesterday (or at least the German highlighting of these 7 cases). At the heart of the issue for me is that we are in a race against the virus. In the UK we are currently winning that race, and should look forward to a return to pretty much normal by June. In Germany they are not, and pausing use of the AZ vaccine because of fears for some patients is ignoring the risk to others of Covid itself. That's what angers and saddens me. I think they are not acting in the best interests of the population.
Those are overwhelmingly women. And of all those who I have heard having side effects, women seem to suffer the most. Is it not an option simply alter the dosage down for smaller people, just on a judgement call of the jabber? This goes for all vaccines. You'd save a lot of vaccine and be able to jab more people too.
Giving us enough time to cover the south coast with fortifications, the largest ever public spending project in real terms, every penny money wasted.
If you can jump fifty years into the future and then come back and tell us exactly where we're wasting our money on today with the luxury of hindsight, we'd all appreciate it.
If we hadn't ever come to blows with Adolf you'd have been saying the same thing about home-chain radar.
What we need is to get Ford to make EV engines in the UK, diesel will be gone in 10 years.
Ford expect Diesel engines in commercial vehicles to be around slightly longer.
I think the market will say otherwise, the cost of EVs is falling rapidly, the TCO of EVs will begin to become competitive with diesel and operators are rational and will move over to EVs much sooner than the likes of Ford and VW are hoping.
I don't understand why city buses are still mostly diesel. I'd've thought it'd be very cheap to put in charging wires at termini and strategic portions of roads along the main routes, along the model of newer tram systems (like the new Birmingham tram extension).
Trolley buses!
See my avatar!
LOL, never zoomed in on it before.
My recent memory of these is when visiting my wife’s home town in Ukraine. They’re everywhere.
Surge Covid tests deployed in another area after more South Africa variant cases found
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed additional testing will be rolled out in the DY4 postcode of Sandwell
Was there ever any more info on the supposed private vaccinations going on in Birmingham? Was it all somebody sticking salt water in peoples arms for cash?
I did like Jasmine Murphy's observation: Must be a slow news day when cost budgeting makes the entertainment section
That’s way worse than Katie Hopkins and Jack Monroe, who managed to nearly bankrupt each other with legal bills over a Twitter spat.
The difference this time, is that the lawyers all know they can afford to pay the bills.
Indeed, the thing is that ever since the legal action began Mrs Rooney has been trying to argue that she was not accusing Mrs Vardy but accusing Mrs Vardy's Instagram account.
That's a great big pointer that Mrs Rooney defence is doomed.
It’s quite probable that one or both of them were using social media management companies to respond to online posts, and reputation management companies to ‘liaise’ with press contacts, which potentially complicates things still further in terms of liability and muddying of waters.
I imagine these sort of companies love someone with no real job but the budget of a rock star as clients - about as much as lawyers do.
Apropos of absolutely nothing.
Before she married Jamie Vardy and became famous the then Rebekah Godden sold her story to the tabloids about the time she bonked Peter Andre.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
But it's not going to get any more use-*full*, by having a load more never used warheads at its disposal. Powers that are scared of it are scared of the first few warheads, not the 255th.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
They're not aimed at anything, and haven't been since 1994, and are at a few days notice to fire.
But, they have the capability to fire at anything.
I also note we will now no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers to complicate the calculations for any potential hostile actor.
Surge Covid tests deployed in another area after more South Africa variant cases found
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed additional testing will be rolled out in the DY4 postcode of Sandwell
Was there ever any more info on the supposed private vaccinations going on in Birmingham? Was it all somebody sticking salt water in peoples arms for cash?
All I read that it was a reputable clinic that got ahead of itself but no vaccines had been injected or bought.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
But it's not going to get any more use-*full*, by having a load more never used warheads at its disposal. Powers that are scared of it are scared of the first few warheads, not the 255th.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
I think it's just an increase to a level that still achieves a minimum credible deterrent for all the threats we may face.
In light of how the global security situation has changed since 2010, I think that's reasonable.
Labour really have shit the bed on this one. Here's Tory Teesside PCC candidate Steve Turner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/steviet1610/status/1371848912512946183 Meanwhile the usually active Paul Williams is maintaining radio silence. Whether it is because he is elbows deep in Covid doing a shift at the hospital, or region have told him to go dark, the damage has been done.
Tory PCC leaflets will all be full of "Labour's candidate not interested in the job". Labour haven't a bloody clue how to do politics, the Tories on Teesside have an excellent spin machine, its another self-imposed red fuck-up.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
They're not aimed at anything, and haven't been since 1994, and are at a few days notice to fire.
But, they have the capability to fire at anything.
I also note we will now no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers to complicate the calculations for any potential hostile actor.
I believe @RochdalePioneers mistyped - he meant to say how do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and NOT Moscow.
He argues that all their warning systems would tell them is that we've launched one, potentially meaning they take reprisals before they realise that they are not the target.
I had wondered if the age of the individuals might be some sort of signal, but reading up on it, the median age for the condition is 37, and the female/male ratio around 3/1, so nothing particularly unusual here.
Of course there is a significant difference between the vaccinated cohorts in Germany and the UK - they haven't been using the AZN vaccine in older people, and we haven't got on to younger ones in any great numbers.
Metro elite political commentators queue up to pretend like they have a clue what is going on north of Highgate.
Pathetic.
Not sure you can a guy educated at a inner London comprehensive and raised by a single mother a member of the metro elite.
And I thought you believed social mobility was a real thing?
I do and it is.
I just get frustrated as (liberal) metropolitan elite being used as an insult by people who have no arguments/weak arguments.
Depending on your viewpoint I'm a fantastic example of immigrants and their families assimilating into the host country or I'm the perfect example of the (upper) middle classes getting all the best opportunities.
"In line with the Government’s manifesto position in favour of First Past the Post, which provides for strong and clear local accountability, and reflects that transferable voting systems were rejected by the British people in the 2011 nationwide referendum, the Home Office will work with the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to change the voting system for all Combined Authority Mayors, the Mayor of London and PCCs to First Past the Post. This change will require primary legislation, which we will bring forward when Parliamentary time allows."
That's daft. The post, for FPTP, is 326 MPs. There isn't a post in individual constituencies. It's just whoever gets the most votes, wins. So to say an election with one single constituency is FPTP makes no sense.
I think they mean moving from things like STV and AV, with prefs and multi rounds, to a simple case of each voter ticks one candidate, then a tally and winner takes all. Most votes wins, end of, no need to get 50% or any of that business - FPTP.
Well yes. But my point is they are using the wrong term for that. There is no post to be first past.
Ah ok. I've always thought of FPTP just to mean an election with vanilla counting rules. Biggest vote share wins. Wiki does too. I take your point though. There is no fixed "post" as such.
My wife has been working at a vaccine centre. Yesterday and into today there has been a massive uptick in refusals of AZ, especially amongst Asian communities.
If the EU has screwed this up, then sod them. There have to be consequences. It makes me angry.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
But it's not going to get any more use-*full*, by having a load more never used warheads at its disposal. Powers that are scared of it are scared of the first few warheads, not the 255th.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
I think it's just an increase to a level that still achieves a minimum credible deterrent for all the threats we may face.
In light of how the global security situation has changed since 2010, I think that's reasonable.
First you argue unconvincingly that Trident has a use against terrorists, then you claimed that these warheads could add breadth to our nuclear capability, which I agree could be a good idea, then you fail to back that idea. Now you attempt to claim that 260 Domesday weapons is the 'minimum credible deterrent' - so apparently we've been operating without a credible deterrent up until now?
You should try developing a minimum credible argument, because you don't have one at the moment.
Metro elite political commentators queue up to pretend like they have a clue what is going on north of Highgate.
Pathetic.
Not sure you can a guy educated at a inner London comprehensive and raised by a single mother a member of the metro elite.
And I thought you believed social mobility was a real thing?
I do and it is.
I just get frustrated as (liberal) metropolitan elite being used as an insult by people who have no arguments/weak arguments.
Depending on your viewpoint I'm a fantastic example of immigrants and their families assimilating into the host country or I'm the perfect example of the (upper) middle classes getting all the best opportunities.
Metro elite political commentators queue up to pretend like they have a clue what is going on north of Highgate.
Pathetic.
Not sure you can a guy educated at a inner London comprehensive and raised by a single mother a member of the metro elite.
And I thought you believed social mobility was a real thing?
I do and it is.
I just get frustrated as (liberal) metropolitan elite being used as an insult by people who have no arguments/weak arguments.
Depending on your viewpoint I'm a fantastic example of immigrants and their families assimilating into the host country or I'm the perfect example of the (upper) middle classes getting all the best opportunities.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.
As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.
Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.
Deception: because it won't work. Cruel: because it gives victims false hope. Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.
Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
As I said it costs money.
And Boris really is only interested in things where the money can be shown to have been spent. So we get new Police Offices (people until Saturday did like the idea of more Police Officers) but not courts and prisons for that isn't sexy and the Mail hates lawyers earning money.
The Garden Bridge waves hello. Boris is really only interested in a good headline and his mates getting money.
I know BBC Panorama takes a frame and fits their picture into it, however yesterday's rather poor expose of PPE contract corruption was nonetheless shocking. Gareth Davies from the NAO conceded Government secrecy regarding the procurement "fast lane" could look, dare I say it (my word, not his) dishonest.
A Labour Government/Administration would, quite rightly, be castigated as morally and fiscally corrupt. Why are this Government allowed a free pass?
Because everyone could see that it was a life and death emergency. But it cannot become the routine.
That is absolute rubbish!
It doesn't appear to be simply that Ministers panicked. It would seem that some people in authority positions got on the phone to friends who had absolutely no connection with medical quality PPE provision and said something to the effect of "do you want to make some free money, a lot of free money, and there will be absolutely no come-backs?" One was a high end, canned dog food supplier with connections to the Conservative Party.
One woman on the "fast track" list was given £400,000 of NHS money up front by the Government in order to purchase PPE from Hong Kong to sell to the NHS on receipt for £800,000. She didn't even have to dip her hand in her pocket to buy the merchandise in the first place! There was no notion of "speculate to accumulate", it was in some cases FREE money up front. We were talking of people making millions and millions of pounds overnight because of their "fast-track" political connections. One guy was on there bemoaning the fact that although he had made his millions on the masks he supplied, because they had ear straps they are now languishing unused in storage, because they did not fulfil the medical specifications required by the NHS.
Meanwhile, the schools testing is keeping the positive tests figure irritatingly high. We are just about clinging on to a notional fall, but we might not do for many more days.
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
But it's not going to get any more use-*full*, by having a load more never used warheads at its disposal. Powers that are scared of it are scared of the first few warheads, not the 255th.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
I think it's just an increase to a level that still achieves a minimum credible deterrent for all the threats we may face.
In light of how the global security situation has changed since 2010, I think that's reasonable.
First you argue unconvincingly that Trident has a use against terrorists, then you claimed that these warheads could add breadth to our nuclear capability, which I agree could be a good idea, then you fail to back that idea. Now you attempt to claim that 260 Domesday weapons is the 'minimum credible deterrent' - so apparently we've been operating without a credible deterrent up until now?
You should try developing a minimum credible argument, because you don't have one at the moment.
Meanwhile, the schools testing is keeping the positive tests figure irritatingly high. We are just about clinging on to a notional fall, but we might not do for many more days.
The first round big schools testing may well be broadly in the system now, as most first tests had been conducted by the middle of last week, and ought to be in the system. These should start sliding into the previous weeks' figures at some point, so we should start getting back to.like-for-like.
50/50 whether it turns positive or not, I think (goes away to look at when the reported test numbers first jumped)..
FPT @Luckyguy1983 - You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
You may be right, though I can see few circumstances where we would use Trident to flatten ISIS, when we would certainly be slaughtering several hundred innocents (at least) at the same time.
I am not anti-nuclear - I am in favour of keeping the capability, but it is a farce to have a strategic nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon an entirely different country, 'special relationship' or not. I would hate having an EU-wide nuclear deterrent on our soil too, but I cannot deny that it would actually have more sense (were we still members) than one we effectively share with the US. This feels like doubling down on additional expensive garments that the courtiers can pretend are covering the Emperor's wobbly bits.
Question. How do the Russians know that our SLBM is aimed at Raqqa and Moscow?
No idea - didn't know they did?
Thats the point, and the reason why strategic weapons like Trident cannot be used to attack terrorists. Upon detection there is no difference between a strike on Raqqa and a strike elsewhere in that general area - such as Russia. Its not until the missiles are at the top of their boost phase that they would have more of an idea where it / they were going. By which point they may not have waited and instead launched their own counter-force strike.
Trident is literally useless. Even in a nuclear war the likely role of sub launch systems is to ride out the first attack wave so that a second strike capability remains.
Trident is there to deter Putin, Xi, Jong Un and Iran, you can use cruise missiles and airstrikes on terrorists and terrorist bases
Yes, but Casino Royale's point was that it could be used on terrorist sites. It's not something I'd heard before, so I asked for clarification, and it would seem it cannot.
I really do not see the point of buying more warheads that we don't have a means of delivering, other than in a Domesday scenario. If that scenario happens, why will we care if we're firing 40 or 260 warheads? Altruistically, for the survival of any living creatures on the earth, surely 40 is preferable?
Nuclear deterrence stopped Saddam from using NBCs in the 1st Gulf War. And it doesn't matter if they're state or rogue state actors, few want to be obliterated.
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
But it's not going to get any more use-*full*, by having a load more never used warheads at its disposal. Powers that are scared of it are scared of the first few warheads, not the 255th.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
I think it's just an increase to a level that still achieves a minimum credible deterrent for all the threats we may face.
In light of how the global security situation has changed since 2010, I think that's reasonable.
First you argue unconvincingly that Trident has a use against terrorists, then you claimed that these warheads could add breadth to our nuclear capability, which I agree could be a good idea, then you fail to back that idea. Now you attempt to claim that 260 Domesday weapons is the 'minimum credible deterrent' - so apparently we've been operating without a credible deterrent up until now?
You should try developing a minimum credible argument, because you don't have one at the moment.
I've been very clear in my arguments.
You just don't agree with them.
Clear you may have been, convincing you have not been.
Comments
The difference this time, is that the lawyers all know they can afford to pay the bills.
That's a great big pointer that Mrs Rooney defence is doomed.
(And 1 in the Pfizer lot, also non-fatal)
(both on page 38 respectively)
A case never had that meaning. We've been doing asymptomatic testing and counting asymptomatic positives almost the entire time of the pandemic, except for the times when there were insufficient tests available. Whether it be routing testing of hospital staff, care staff or contacts via Test & Trace they all get counted if they are positive. Whether they are symptomatic enough to seek medical attention or not has never been an issue.
Surely?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fancy-Tartan-Shanter-Scottish-ginger/dp/B013FDJKR2
On the 'numbers' it could be that they are more numerous, but smaller, warheads. Generally, if you have a broader and more complex spectrum of threats you will need greater diversity of response options.
And I don't buy this "useless" thing. Trident isn't useless because it isn't actively used; it's useful because it prevents all sorts of nasty threats to British citizens and interests from ever developing, and downgrades those that do.
It's why we live in such a safe part of the world.
I imagine these sort of companies love someone with no real job but the budget of a rock star as clients - about as much as lawyers do.
I just hadn't noted those particular details previously.
If we hadn't ever come to blows with Adolf you'd have been saying the same thing about home-chain radar.
My recent memory of these is when visiting my wife’s home town in Ukraine. They’re everywhere.
Surge Covid tests deployed in another area after more South Africa variant cases found
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed additional testing will be rolled out in the DY4 postcode of Sandwell
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-agrees-fishing-catch-limits-with-eu-and-norway
That won't help the mood over the Channel.
Before she married Jamie Vardy and became famous the then Rebekah Godden sold her story to the tabloids about the time she bonked Peter Andre.
If indeed these are a range of warheads with a range of different defence applications and delivery systems, yes, that makes sense. If they are adding to Trident, it doesn't. Is that a fair summation?
But, they have the capability to fire at anything.
I also note we will now no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers to complicate the calculations for any potential hostile actor.
In light of how the global security situation has changed since 2010, I think that's reasonable.
https://twitter.com/steviet1610/status/1371848912512946183
Meanwhile the usually active Paul Williams is maintaining radio silence. Whether it is because he is elbows deep in Covid doing a shift at the hospital, or region have told him to go dark, the damage has been done.
Tory PCC leaflets will all be full of "Labour's candidate not interested in the job". Labour haven't a bloody clue how to do politics, the Tories on Teesside have an excellent spin machine, its another self-imposed red fuck-up.
He argues that all their warning systems would tell them is that we've launched one, potentially meaning they take reprisals before they realise that they are not the target.
Of course there is a significant difference between the vaccinated cohorts in Germany and the UK - they haven't been using the AZN vaccine in older people, and we haven't got on to younger ones in any great numbers.
I just get frustrated as (liberal) metropolitan elite being used as an insult by people who have no arguments/weak arguments.
Depending on your viewpoint I'm a fantastic example of immigrants and their families assimilating into the host country or I'm the perfect example of the (upper) middle classes getting all the best opportunities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#:~:text=In a first-past-the,(irrespective of vote share).
If the EU has screwed this up, then sod them. There have to be consequences. It makes me angry.
You should try developing a minimum credible argument, because you don't have one at the moment.
NEW THREAD
(channeling Tarrant)
It doesn't appear to be simply that Ministers panicked. It would seem that some people in authority positions got on the phone to friends who had absolutely no connection with medical quality PPE provision and said something to the effect of "do you want to make some free money, a lot of free money, and there will be absolutely no come-backs?" One was a high end, canned dog food supplier with connections to the Conservative Party.
One woman on the "fast track" list was given £400,000 of NHS money up front by the Government in order to purchase PPE from Hong Kong to sell to the NHS on receipt for £800,000. She didn't even have to dip her hand in her pocket to buy the merchandise in the first place! There was no notion of "speculate to accumulate", it was in some cases FREE money up front. We were talking of people making millions and millions of pounds overnight because of their "fast-track" political connections. One guy was on there bemoaning the fact that although he had made his millions on the masks he supplied, because they had ear straps they are now languishing unused in storage, because they did not fulfil the medical specifications required by the NHS.
It's only public money spent in a pandemic.
P.S. Hi there nurses! How does a 1% raise sound?
That’s ludicrously low.
Meanwhile, the schools testing is keeping the positive tests figure irritatingly high. We are just about clinging on to a notional fall, but we might not do for many more days.
You just don't agree with them.
50/50 whether it turns positive or not, I think (goes away to look at when the reported test numbers first jumped)..
Are they operating under an emergency authorisation in the EU? Or have they been fully authorised?