This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
With a massive split in the Leave vote. I'd anticipate only a quarter to a third of the BXP vote will go back to Labour - if half goes to the Tories then its game over. Its thanks to Nigel Farage that Labour cleared the 200 seats mark...
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
I'd heard that the average age at death of people dying from covid was greater than the average age at death of the population in general. This doesn't seem to tally with an average of ten years lost?
This apparent contradiction is because at year X the average age of deaths in that year is a number, probably a bit over 80. Call it Y.
For any individual, A, who actually reaches age Y we know a vital fact about them; namely that they are not yet dead. We also know that from that point, age Y, they, on average are going to carry on living a determinable average length of time.
Covid can't kill all those very unhealthy people in the cohort that the individual A is in, because through eating drinking smoking betting and taking no exercise they have already died of something else and have never heard of Covid.
Even at age 103 (the age a friend of mine was recently), while the probability is that you are in fact already dead, if you aren't, the probability also is that you will live till the day after tomorrow.
Fun/horrifying fact. Prior to 1966, the most common age at death in the UK was....
Similarly, it is the most common score at cricket. I'm kind of surprised that it isn't still 0, advances in medicine aside. What is it now? My guess: 91.
Demographics is fascinating. Most people in the UK who make it to adulthood now make it to 90. Almost no-one gets to 100.
For those who don't know - one of the critical points in the start of WWI was the invasion of Belgium. The Germans had convinced themselves that they had to invade Belgium to invade France successfully. Because this was so vital to their plans, they had convinced themselves that the British government would ignore the treaty violation.
The British government was divided - up to an invasion of Belgium. If Belgium was not invaded, half the cabinet would not vote for war. If Belgium was invaded, then it was 100%. This was because the Belgian treaty was universally seen, in Britain, as part of the foundations of the European order.
Edward Grey, the Foreign Sec. had a meeting with the German Ambassador. If he had stated unequivocally that invading Belgium = War, then the Germans (especially the Kaiser) *might* have stopped... The problem was that Grey used too much diplomatic language.
Wasn't another part of the problem that military alliances were also secret?
Maaaaybe.
But this was a definite turning point.
1) The Kaiser didn't want war if it went World War (UK getting involved, mainly) 2) So the German military (and the hawks in their Foreign Office) convinced themselves that the UK wouldn't fight 3) Anything other than a forthright declaration from the UK was taken as evidence that the UK wouldn't fight.
The depth of the UK-French alliance was supposed to be secret - but the Germans largely knew. But (2) was very strong.
Just like WWII - Hitler persuaded himself that "fellow Aryan" (sic) Brits would leave Germany to run the Continent while they ran their Empire.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
Off you go for a skydive without a reserve parachute. It's a skydive you almost certainly won't die from.
To be honest, Andy, I am amazed you ever left the house BEFORE covid.
Then you really don't know me at all. Just because I made sure I had a reserve parachute for all 149 skydives, and just because I always make pre-flight checks before piloting a microlight doesn't make me scared. Just realistic.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
For those who don't know - one of the critical points in the start of WWI was the invasion of Belgium. The Germans had convinced themselves that they had to invade Belgium to invade France successfully. Because this was so vital to their plans, they had convinced themselves that the British government would ignore the treaty violation.
The British government was divided - up to an invasion of Belgium. If Belgium was not invaded, half the cabinet would not vote for war. If Belgium was invaded, then it was 100%. This was because the Belgian treaty was universally seen, in Britain, as part of the foundations of the European order.
Edward Grey, the Foreign Sec. had a meeting with the German Ambassador. If he had stated unequivocally that invading Belgium = War, then the Germans (especially the Kaiser) *might* have stopped... The problem was that Grey used too much diplomatic language.
Wasn't another part of the problem that military alliances were also secret?
Maaaaybe.
But this was a definite turning point.
1) The Kaiser didn't want war if it went World War (UK getting involved, mainly) 2) So the German military (and the hawks in their Foreign Office) convinced themselves that the UK wouldn't fight 3) Anything other than a forthright declaration from the UK was taken as evidence that the UK wouldn't fight.
The depth of the UK-French alliance was supposed to be secret - but the Germans largely knew. But (2) was very strong.
Just like WWII - Hitler persuaded himself that "fellow Aryan" (sic) Brits would leave Germany to run the Continent while they ran their Empire.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Hermann Kahn, In On Thermonuclear War, opined the one of the most important things was to make utterly clear what the red lines were, and to be very, vocal about consequences for crossing them, for this reason.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
In this case I don't think it any worse calling it the British variant, than calling others Brazilian and SA.
I accept that - so can we call it the Chinese virus then?
For some strange reason that was a no no
I'm just pointing out that in the UK we constantly talk about SA and Brazil variants, so we shouldn't try to take the high ground over the B117 variant...
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
It's typical tough talking and would be amusing if the stakes were not so high, but the thing is the UK really has not been looking for a fight on this issue (it hasn't needed one), whereas the EU's protestations that they do not want a fight with the UK do not accord with their actions over the last few months, where they repeatedly sought to bring the UK into its dispute with AZ as with the Article 16 stuff, and its current rhetoric which is focused on 'fairness' and crass comparisons of 'EU' exports vs UK exports.
They really do want a fight, and unfortunately if one side really wants that it is hard to avoid a fight.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
This is wrong.
The better way to achieve the objective would be for compulsory hotel quarantine on return, with no exceptions.
Then people are free to make their own choices, but it is made clear that they have consequences, and the quarantine protects us from variants while that is necessary.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
I'd heard that the average age at death of people dying from covid was greater than the average age at death of the population in general. This doesn't seem to tally with an average of ten years lost?
This apparent contradiction is because at year X the average age of deaths in that year is a number, probably a bit over 80. Call it Y.
For any individual, A, who actually reaches age Y we know a vital fact about them; namely that they are not yet dead. We also know that from that point, age Y, they, on average are going to carry on living a determinable average length of time.
Covid can't kill all those very unhealthy people in the cohort that the individual A is in, because through eating drinking smoking betting and taking no exercise they have already died of something else and have never heard of Covid.
Even at age 103 (the age a friend of mine was recently), while the probability is that you are in fact already dead, if you aren't, the probability also is that you will live till the day after tomorrow.
Fun/horrifying fact. Prior to 1966, the most common age at death in the UK was....
Similarly, it is the most common score at cricket. I'm kind of surprised that it isn't still 0, advances in medicine aside. What is it now? My guess: 91.
Demographics is fascinating. Most people in the UK who make it to adulthood now make it to 90. Almost no-one gets to 100.
That makes it appear that, with current nutrition, environments and medicine, we are hitting some kind of biological asymptote with regards to age
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
In this case I don't think it any worse calling it the British variant, than calling others Brazilian and SA.
I accept that - so can we call it the Chinese virus then?
For some strange reason that was a no no
I'm just pointing out that in the UK we constantly talk about SA and Brazil variants, so we shouldn't try to take the high ground over the B117 variant...
What on earth is "into the potatoes, out of the potatoes" supposed to mean?
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
Perhaps it's because UHC were defined so widely - e.g. high blood pressure - that most older people have at least one?
This isn't about definitions, this is about data. The average age of death being 80 with an average life lost of around 10 years implies that the only thing that really matters is age.
What I mean is - exaggerating to make the point - if all old people have a UHC (because it's so widely defined) then UHC correlates to age so closely that it becomes irrelevant as an independent and additional factor.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
This is wrong.
The better way to achieve the objective would be for compulsory hotel quarantine on return, with no exceptions.
Then people are free to make their own choices, but it is made clear that they have consequences, and the quarantine protects us from variants while that is necessary.
Precisely, if the UK govt thinks the current rules on people entering the country aren't tight enough then tighten the rules, rather than introduce a new draconian offence that will probably make very little difference.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
I assume you didn't see the risk of deafness in people who survive Covid then?
What point are you making? We all know that Covid kills and Covid can have myriad long-term effects when it doesn't kill. Vaccines are (were?) the silver bullet to restore civil liberties. We have the vaccines - they never were never going to be 100% effective - and some people were always going to refuse them/unable to have them - now give us our liberties back - and allow individuals to take responsibility for one's own health.
You can tell when someone has a good reputation and good press at such moments. Some earlier reports was the Germans were backing tough talk, and indeed that the Commission/Council's harsher proposals had their roots in Berlin. But when you get gratitude for 'steering away' from trouble when you were helping steer into it in the first place? Genius.
Maybe they have learned something from Boris after all.
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
Perhaps it's because UHC were defined so widely - e.g. high blood pressure - that most older people have at least one?
This isn't about definitions, this is about data. The average age of death being 80 with an average life lost of around 10 years implies that the only thing that really matters is age.
Because that is how it was calculated!
The calculation to get to 10 years was done by only taking into account age, you're now taking that calculation as gospel to prove the only thing that matters is age. But the calculation was done by only looking at age in the first place. This is circular logic.
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
The Welsh poll (linked to by @Big_G_NorthWales ) is telling you the answer, assuming it is accurate.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
The big change from 2016 is basically adding UKIP to the Tories.
Problem with voting for UKIP/BXP/RefUK/Etc is you can pretty much guarantee they won't be called that by the time of the next election, and the members will probably have jumped ship to someone else by then as well. So why bother?
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
With a massive split in the Leave vote. I'd anticipate only a quarter to a third of the BXP vote will go back to Labour - if half goes to the Tories then its game over. Its thanks to Nigel Farage that Labour cleared the 200 seats mark...
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
Whilst it is a by-election, don't lose sight of the Super Thursday nature of it. A stand alone by-election would definitely have lower turnout. But this is a council election, a mayoral election, a PCC election AND a parliamentary by-election. There is no way that Tories are staying home, they will be out to ensure Ben Houchen stays as mayor and that they win the PCC election.
For those who don't know - one of the critical points in the start of WWI was the invasion of Belgium. The Germans had convinced themselves that they had to invade Belgium to invade France successfully. Because this was so vital to their plans, they had convinced themselves that the British government would ignore the treaty violation.
The British government was divided - up to an invasion of Belgium. If Belgium was not invaded, half the cabinet would not vote for war. If Belgium was invaded, then it was 100%. This was because the Belgian treaty was universally seen, in Britain, as part of the foundations of the European order.
Edward Grey, the Foreign Sec. had a meeting with the German Ambassador. If he had stated unequivocally that invading Belgium = War, then the Germans (especially the Kaiser) *might* have stopped... The problem was that Grey used too much diplomatic language.
Wasn't another part of the problem that military alliances were also secret?
Maaaaybe.
But this was a definite turning point.
1) The Kaiser didn't want war if it went World War (UK getting involved, mainly) 2) So the German military (and the hawks in their Foreign Office) convinced themselves that the UK wouldn't fight 3) Anything other than a forthright declaration from the UK was taken as evidence that the UK wouldn't fight.
The depth of the UK-French alliance was supposed to be secret - but the Germans largely knew. But (2) was very strong.
Just like WWII - Hitler persuaded himself that "fellow Aryan" (sic) Brits would leave Germany to run the Continent while they ran their Empire.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Hermann Kahn, In On Thermonuclear War, opined the one of the most important things was to make utterly clear what the red lines were, and to be very, vocal about consequences for crossing them, for this reason.
I think one issue with your WWI example is that if, say, the British had made it absolutely clear that invasion of Belgium was a red line, if they didn't then make the same declaration for France, that would be tantamount to giving the go-ahead to a German invasion via a different route - and essentially end the alliance with France at a stroke.
So the British calculation was that being clear would have made war more likely, as it would have told Germany how to wage a war that would be tolerated by Britain.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
With a massive split in the Leave vote. I'd anticipate only a quarter to a third of the BXP vote will go back to Labour - if half goes to the Tories then its game over. Its thanks to Nigel Farage that Labour cleared the 200 seats mark...
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
Whilst it is a by-election, don't lose sight of the Super Thursday nature of it. A stand alone by-election would definitely have lower turnout. But this is a council election, a mayoral election, a PCC election AND a parliamentary by-election. There is no way that Tories are staying home, they will be out to ensure Ben Houchen stays as mayor and that they win the PCC election.
He only won by a couple of percent last time, is he that much of a shoo-in?
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
It's typical tough talking and would be amusing if the stakes were not so high, but the thing is the UK really has not been looking for a fight on this issue (it hasn't needed one), whereas the EU's protestations that they do not want a fight with the UK do not accord with their actions over the last few months, where they repeatedly sought to bring the UK into its dispute with AZ as with the Article 16 stuff, and its current rhetoric which is focused on 'fairness' and crass comparisons of 'EU' exports vs UK exports.
They really do want a fight, and unfortunately if one side really wants that it is hard to avoid a fight.
Can't see how 'fairness' helps them anyway. Given the very large disparity between the EU and UK populations, even if they seize all our vaccine, it will not make much of a dent in the EU shortfall - though it might impact us significantly.
Unless their intention is solely to hold us back to their pace of vaccination, then it is pointless. And risks damage both to the rate of vaccine production, and increasing vaccine scepticism in Europe.
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
The Welsh poll (linked to by @Big_G_NorthWales ) is telling you the answer, assuming it is accurate.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
What's driving the shift from UKIP/BXP to tory? best way to get rid of Drakeford vote?
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
The big change from 2016 is basically adding UKIP to the Tories.
Problem with voting for UKIP/BXP/RefUK/Etc is you can pretty much guarantee they won't be called that by the time of the next election, and the members will probably have jumped ship to someone else by then as well. So why bother?
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
For those who don't know - one of the critical points in the start of WWI was the invasion of Belgium. The Germans had convinced themselves that they had to invade Belgium to invade France successfully. Because this was so vital to their plans, they had convinced themselves that the British government would ignore the treaty violation.
The British government was divided - up to an invasion of Belgium. If Belgium was not invaded, half the cabinet would not vote for war. If Belgium was invaded, then it was 100%. This was because the Belgian treaty was universally seen, in Britain, as part of the foundations of the European order.
Edward Grey, the Foreign Sec. had a meeting with the German Ambassador. If he had stated unequivocally that invading Belgium = War, then the Germans (especially the Kaiser) *might* have stopped... The problem was that Grey used too much diplomatic language.
Wasn't another part of the problem that military alliances were also secret?
Maaaaybe.
But this was a definite turning point.
1) The Kaiser didn't want war if it went World War (UK getting involved, mainly) 2) So the German military (and the hawks in their Foreign Office) convinced themselves that the UK wouldn't fight 3) Anything other than a forthright declaration from the UK was taken as evidence that the UK wouldn't fight.
The depth of the UK-French alliance was supposed to be secret - but the Germans largely knew. But (2) was very strong.
Just like WWII - Hitler persuaded himself that "fellow Aryan" (sic) Brits would leave Germany to run the Continent while they ran their Empire.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Hermann Kahn, In On Thermonuclear War, opined the one of the most important things was to make utterly clear what the red lines were, and to be very, vocal about consequences for crossing them, for this reason.
I think one issue with your WWI example is that if, say, the British had made it absolutely clear that invasion of Belgium was a red line, if they didn't then make the same declaration for France, that would be tantamount to giving the go-ahead to a German invasion via a different route - and essentially end the alliance with France at a stroke.
So the British calculation was that being clear would have made war more likely, as it would have told Germany how to wage a war that would be tolerated by Britain.
Indeed, which is why in negotiation theory you never make red lines precise, and you make sure there is a high degree of uncertainty about the scale, scope and timing of your retaliation (but not the fact that there will be retaliation - that should be certain).
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I would never describe myself as conservative or libertarian, but I also find myself horrified by this law.
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
The big change from 2016 is basically adding UKIP to the Tories.
Problem with voting for UKIP/BXP/RefUK/Etc is you can pretty much guarantee they won't be called that by the time of the next election, and the members will probably have jumped ship to someone else by then as well. So why bother?
This is why I expect the Cons to win Hartlepool. And why, if I'm wrong, it will for me be a sign that GE24 will be competitive and Labour are in with a good chance of forming the next government.
Some people thought I was spinning with that, trying to pretend a turd was chocolate, but I was perfectly serious.
This byelection up there in a few weeks is going to be such a tell either way.
Except that Lab won Hartlepool 16 months ago when such figures would have been comparable.
Other than that . . .
You stick with your analysis, Philip, and I'll stick with mine. Mine says if Labour hold this Brexit Central seat without the distraction of Farage, and with Brexit not only delivered but looking great due to EU vaxgate, it will be a sign that the Tory ownership of the WWC Leave political identity is not secure - which opens up a route for Labour being at the very least competitive at the next GE.
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Todays polling in Wales is a real wakeup call for Drakeford and Labour
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
The Welsh poll (linked to by @Big_G_NorthWales ) is telling you the answer, assuming it is accurate.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
What's driving the shift from UKIP/BXP to tory? best way to get rid of Drakeford vote?
Probably because the Tories are no longer led by Cameron. The 2016 election was pre-referendum.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
The government is pursuing this because it can. Liberal principles are being junked. Populism rules.
I would be interested to see how the models deal with
The UK vaccination program hasn't been about reducing cases but about reducing deaths / serious illness - so in that sense the German modellers are probably correct about the lockdown being the primary driver of case reduction.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I don't agree with you about being "trapped on this island". There's enough to do and see on this island to keep anyone occupied for many years.
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
I'd heard that the average age at death of people dying from covid was greater than the average age at death of the population in general. This doesn't seem to tally with an average of ten years lost?
This apparent contradiction is because at year X the average age of deaths in that year is a number, probably a bit over 80. Call it Y.
For any individual, A, who actually reaches age Y we know a vital fact about them; namely that they are not yet dead. We also know that from that point, age Y, they, on average are going to carry on living a determinable average length of time.
Covid can't kill all those very unhealthy people in the cohort that the individual A is in, because through eating drinking smoking betting and taking no exercise they have already died of something else and have never heard of Covid.
Even at age 103 (the age a friend of mine was recently), while the probability is that you are in fact already dead, if you aren't, the probability also is that you will live till the day after tomorrow.
Fun/horrifying fact. Prior to 1966, the most common age at death in the UK was....
Similarly, it is the most common score at cricket. I'm kind of surprised that it isn't still 0, advances in medicine aside. What is it now? My guess: 91.
Demographics is fascinating. Most people in the UK who make it to adulthood now make it to 90. Almost no-one gets to 100.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I don't agree with you about being "trapped on this island". There's enough to do and see on this island to keep anyone occupied for many years.
Maybe for you but not for me. If we are not permitted to leave this should be of concern to everyone regardless of whether you take up this right. It's a matter of basic principle.
Edit: And what are you suggesting? That we are prevented from leaving for "many years"?
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
I'd heard that the average age at death of people dying from covid was greater than the average age at death of the population in general. This doesn't seem to tally with an average of ten years lost?
Why not? The age you have to achieve to have an average of ten years left is pretty much 80. The average age of death is also pretty much 80, although the most common age at death is 85.
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
The Welsh poll (linked to by @Big_G_NorthWales ) is telling you the answer, assuming it is accurate.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
What's driving the shift from UKIP/BXP to tory? best way to get rid of Drakeford vote?
We have left the EU. For many, if not the majority, of UKIP/BXP voters that is job done.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I would never describe myself as conservative or libertarian, but I also find myself horrified by this law.
Agreed.
Btw, can you elucidate the German idiom 'rein in die Kartoffeln - raus aus den Kartoffeln' ? It seems loosely to mean to chop and change, but I don't think that quite grasps it ?
In this case I don't think it any worse calling it the British variant, than calling others Brazilian and SA.
I accept that - so can we call it the Chinese virus then?
For some strange reason that was a no no
I'm just pointing out that in the UK we constantly talk about SA and Brazil variants, so we shouldn't try to take the high ground over the B117 variant...
I'm pointing out hat there is hypocrisy involved here - why could the disease not be named after place first found - but its perfectly ok to use country names for mutations?
Doubt this is right. Ministers and PHE officials will still be urging caution this time next year.
Hodges is absolutely right about this. It is getting ridiculous now. The vaccine works. Confirm the roadmap dates, lockdown borders to risky countries if you have to, but end the earnest, sanctimonious "words of caution" schtick. I offer the same advice to the PB Lockdownistas – we see it daily on here. It's depressing in the extreme.
The road map is working. However -
The opening of schools caused a massive slowdown in the decline of cases in the unvaccinated groups. No, this is not "tests" - the adults will have received PCR tests.
That opening the schools would increase R was expected and debated. What I did not expect, and am rather glad to see, is that the increase in R has not resulted in a net rise in cases.
If we open up further, cases will rise. Until we are vaccinating down to 50 (and preferably below) that means an increase in hospitalisations.
I don't deny that the roadmap is working, indeed I support the roadmap and have said so repeatedly on here. What I don't like is the endless earnest lecturing about "caution" when the vaccines clearly work.
By the way, not sure I understand your point about cases/test. The rapid rise in the young is due to their being tested. Had they not been tested, most of them would be none the wiser as they are mostly asymptomatic surely?
Look at the other groups - *all* of them "turn" at pretty much the same time.
That schools going back would increase R was taken as a given. It was debated. A number of people said it was too early. The results so far suggest it was judged correctly.
We have given a first vaccine to most of those at risk of death from COVID. However, the hospitalisation high risk cohort goes to a younger age - down to below 50. So until we have vaccinated enough people to get that cohort protected, we need to be cautious.
At the moment. we have vaccinated, at least once, something like 40% of the whole UK population*. Herd immunity starts to kick in at about double that. Israel is at 77%...
*You need too include children when talking about herd immunity.
Does it not depend partly on what we're aiming for? If we're aiming to eliminate the possibility of the NHS collapsing under pressure, then we might be there already. If it's about reducing the risk for any one individual to an acceptable level, well, we need to talk about what is an acceptable level.
Yes, I guess, this is at the heart of the matter. It's worth remembering that younger people with UHC have already been vaxxed AIUI.
I honestly don't know what the truth is, but there is a disconnect between the claim that the average amount of life lost being 10 years and underlying health issues counting for much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think both can be true.
A large part of why the elderly are more vulnerable is that with time so many more of them have a health condition, and if you are in later retirement with a serious condition your expectancy is likely less than ten years. The fewer younger people with serious conditions likely have longer expectancy and ten years seems reasonable as an overall average, especially when you consider over half our deaths (first wave, anyhow) were in care homes where average expectancy is one or two years at most
These things can get complicated but as I understand it, roughly, the average age of deaths is 80 and the average life lost is 10 years. The ONS estimate that on average an 80 year old will live for 10 more years. This is why I struggle to see how underlying health conditions really make much difference (unless having diabetes etc. doesn't actually reduce life expectancy, which I doubt).
The problem with averages is that you average out data that is extremely relevant.
The average 80 year old may have 10 years of life on average, but that's an average. A specific 80 year old won't be the average.
A healthy and active 80 year old non-smoker, living in their own home, with no major conditions besides those you'd expect in an 80 year old will not have the same life expectancy as an 80 year old living in a care home with dementia and Stage 4 cancer.
Conditions for the individual matter.
Well, yes, but we are talking about averages. I get that there are plenty of 88 year olds (ONS estimate average of 5 years left) dying, but the figure repeated by (I think) @Foxy is that on average, the amount of life lost to COVID is 10 years.
I don't see how underlying health conditions can matter all that much if the average life lost broadly matches the average life left of those dying.
I'd heard that the average age at death of people dying from covid was greater than the average age at death of the population in general. This doesn't seem to tally with an average of ten years lost?
This apparent contradiction is because at year X the average age of deaths in that year is a number, probably a bit over 80. Call it Y.
For any individual, A, who actually reaches age Y we know a vital fact about them; namely that they are not yet dead. We also know that from that point, age Y, they, on average are going to carry on living a determinable average length of time.
Covid can't kill all those very unhealthy people in the cohort that the individual A is in, because through eating drinking smoking betting and taking no exercise they have already died of something else and have never heard of Covid.
Even at age 103 (the age a friend of mine was recently), while the probability is that you are in fact already dead, if you aren't, the probability also is that you will live till the day after tomorrow.
Fun/horrifying fact. Prior to 1966, the most common age at death in the UK was....
Similarly, it is the most common score at cricket. I'm kind of surprised that it isn't still 0, advances in medicine aside. What is it now? My guess: 91.
Demographics is fascinating. Most people in the UK who make it to adulthood now make it to 90. Almost no-one gets to 100.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Yes, I can get behind that assuming you are referring to the road map timetable. 17 May international travel permitted. 21 June all legal restriction removed.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
Would you prefer the Australian method of banning them from returning to the country?
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
I have problems with mandatory limits on internal movements too. But, as I said, the ban on leaving the country is the ultimate, not only, no no. Because if you really don't like lockdown, and you are permitted to leave the country, you at least have the option (admittedly at a very high price) of choosing to emigrate or leave temporarily. If you ban exit, there is no escape.
Like I said before. Drakeford closed the pubs, Johnson vaccinated the people. Not my view, but the view on the street.
Is it possible for the Tories to win in Wales.... (would make a good thread)
It is possible but expect Plaid to hold the balance of power with Plaid FM
A Plaid FM is unlikely. They have said they won't work with the Tories, so on the basis of a Tory administration with a puppet PC FM that would be a sell out of 2010 LD proportions, and look where that got them.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Lifting all those restrictions is still an if though, Philip. Right now, as of today, as of the reality on the ground, never mind what we are being told, when was the last time the people of Britain were so shackled?
For those who don't know - one of the critical points in the start of WWI was the invasion of Belgium. The Germans had convinced themselves that they had to invade Belgium to invade France successfully. Because this was so vital to their plans, they had convinced themselves that the British government would ignore the treaty violation.
The British government was divided - up to an invasion of Belgium. If Belgium was not invaded, half the cabinet would not vote for war. If Belgium was invaded, then it was 100%. This was because the Belgian treaty was universally seen, in Britain, as part of the foundations of the European order.
Edward Grey, the Foreign Sec. had a meeting with the German Ambassador. If he had stated unequivocally that invading Belgium = War, then the Germans (especially the Kaiser) *might* have stopped... The problem was that Grey used too much diplomatic language.
Wasn't another part of the problem that military alliances were also secret?
Maaaaybe.
But this was a definite turning point.
1) The Kaiser didn't want war if it went World War (UK getting involved, mainly) 2) So the German military (and the hawks in their Foreign Office) convinced themselves that the UK wouldn't fight 3) Anything other than a forthright declaration from the UK was taken as evidence that the UK wouldn't fight.
The depth of the UK-French alliance was supposed to be secret - but the Germans largely knew. But (2) was very strong.
Just like WWII - Hitler persuaded himself that "fellow Aryan" (sic) Brits would leave Germany to run the Continent while they ran their Empire.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Hermann Kahn, In On Thermonuclear War, opined the one of the most important things was to make utterly clear what the red lines were, and to be very, vocal about consequences for crossing them, for this reason.
I think one issue with your WWI example is that if, say, the British had made it absolutely clear that invasion of Belgium was a red line, if they didn't then make the same declaration for France, that would be tantamount to giving the go-ahead to a German invasion via a different route - and essentially end the alliance with France at a stroke.
So the British calculation was that being clear would have made war more likely, as it would have told Germany how to wage a war that would be tolerated by Britain.
No - if they had said the the invasion of Belgium would have automatically started a war, that wouldn't have necessarily meant not fighting if just France had been invaded.
There was also the military calculus - that an invasion of France without going through Belgium wouldn't work according to military theory. Not enough space.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I'm surprised. To me the ultimate freedom is the freedom to do what you want within your own country. Freedom to visit other countries is number two on the list.
Maybe this attitude explains why a lot of people didn't seem too bothered with the national lockdown last March as long as they were still able to travel abroad.
Like I said before. Drakeford closed the pubs, Johnson vaccinated the people. Not my view, but the view on the street.
Is it possible for the Tories to win in Wales.... (would make a good thread)
It is possible but expect Plaid to hold the balance of power with Plaid FM
A Plaid FM is unlikely. They have said they won't work with the Tories, so on the basis of a Tory administration with a puppet PC FM that would be a sell out of 2010 LD proportions, and look where that got them.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I would never describe myself as conservative or libertarian, but I also find myself horrified by this law.
Yesterday people were queuing up to say how reasonable it was. They were quoting the UN's explanatory note on UDHR Art.13
(1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.)
which mentions as an exemption example not letting people leave an Ebola-ridden village.
The majority on here, I'd say, were applauding the idea of making it illegal to leave the country.
PB. Home of the independent, questioning spirit. Not.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Yes, I can get behind that assuming you are referring to the road map timetable. 17 May international travel permitted. 21 June all legal restriction removed.
No I don't.
21 June all domestic legal restrictions is more important than international travel.
If international travel in May jeopardises removing domestic restrictions on 21 June then we should say no to international travel. Getting rid of domestic restrictions must be our first priority. Once we can ensure domestic restrictions aren't coming back, then we should lift travel/quarantine restrictions.
I'd possibly have travel restrictions on America lifted before the EU given the state of the vaccine programmes too.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Lifting all those restrictions is still an if though, Philip. Right now, as of today, as of the reality on the ground, never mind what we are being told, when was the last time the people of Britain were so shackled?
First things first is removing that if. It needs to happen. No ifs, no excuses, no buts.
If foreign travel jeopardises lifting domestic restrictions then it can wait. Domestic restrictions need to end, no ifs, no buts. Then we can lift travel restrictions.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
This is just the latest in a list of authoritarian, illiberal laws, mostly unconnected with Covid, which have shown the Government in their true colours. Anyone who thinks Johnson is a liberal or a small state advocate is deluded.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
Would you prefer the Australian method of banning them from returning to the country?
Short answer, yes. But I'd prefer the option of mandatory and enforced quarantine upon return at the traveller's expense.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I agree.
But at the same time, I'm not altogether despondent about the collective acceptance of 'the rules' because not a single person I know is now obeying all the rules - and thank God there doesn't seem to be any of the bolshy enforcement that there was. Positively, no-one I know is taking the piss.
The government are going to quickly find themselves behind the pace, I think, if opening up isn't hastened. We can't be forever restricted by those who are utterly in fear of Covid despite the vaccination programme.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
Would you prefer the Australian method of banning them from returning to the country?
Short answer, yes. But I'd prefer the option of mandatory and enforced quarantine upon return at the traveller's expense.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I'm surprised. To me the ultimate freedom is the freedom to do what you want within your own country. Freedom to visit other countries is number two on the list.
Maybe this attitude explains why a lot of people didn't seem too bothered with the national lockdown last March as long as they were still able to travel abroad.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I would never describe myself as conservative or libertarian, but I also find myself horrified by this law.
Yesterday people were queuing up to say how reasonable it was. They were quoting the UN's explanatory note on UDHR Art.13
(1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.)
which mentions as an exemption example not letting people leave an Ebola-ridden village.
The majority on here, I'd say, were applauding the idea of making it illegal to leave the country.
PB. Home of the independent, questioning spirit. Not.
Before all this I can remember HYUFD saying that this site had a liberal bias. I agreed. But wow the pandemic has exposed this as false - and some. We have conservative authoritarians and mean-spirited curtain twitchers on one side and hectoring moralising collectivists on the other. Liberals caught in a pincer movement and the LibDems have left the battle field...
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I agree.
But at the same time, I'm not altogether despondent about the collectable acceptance of 'the rules' because not a single person I know is now obeying all the rules - and thank God there doesn't seem to be any of the bolshy enforcement that there was. Positively, no-one I know is taking the piss.
The government are going to quickly find themselves behind the pace, I think, if opening up isn't hastened. We can't be forever restricted by those who are utterly in fear of Covid despite the vaccination programme.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I agree.
But at the same time, I'm not altogether despondent about the collectable acceptance of 'the rules' because not a single person I know is now obeying all the rules - and thank God there doesn't seem to be any of the bolshy enforcement that there was. Positively, no-one I know is taking the piss.
The government are going to quickly find themselves behind the pace, I think, if opening up isn't hastened. We can't be forever restricted by those who are utterly in fear of Covid despite the vaccination programme.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I though that was the case until I experienced this pandemic Cookie.
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
If people feel safe and provided for I think freedom has always been a lesser priority than we think it is. It's part of why authoritarian regimes can last for so long before they need to ramp up the aggression when safety and prosperity are at risk (though many keep that going regardless, just to be safe)
Yes. As if isn't enough that I feel terrified by being trapped on this island, I'm utterly dejected by the things my fellow citizens are accepting. Hitting the pause button on our system of living was only ever legitimate if temporary, the vaccines persuaded me to elongate my patience on this. But now what do we see? As I suspected (and pointed out here weeks ago) people in positions of influence are finding new fears to excuse prolonging this. It's unbelievable.
I agree.
But at the same time, I'm not altogether despondent about the collectable acceptance of 'the rules' because not a single person I know is now obeying all the rules - and thank God there doesn't seem to be any of the bolshy enforcement that there was. Positively, no-one I know is taking the piss.
The government are going to quickly find themselves behind the pace, I think, if opening up isn't hastened. We can't be forever restricted by those who are utterly in fear of Covid despite the vaccination programme.
I agree. The vaccinated in particular are pretty much returning to a normal social life, insofar as visiting others’ homes is concerned. Only that most venues are still closed restricts more social interaction.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
Would you prefer the Australian method of banning them from returning to the country?
Yes. Make it clear that anyone leaving the country is doing so at their own risk and will not be allowed back in until it is clear they are not contagious or until the country deems it safe to have people return. That is reasonable.
Banning people from leaving in the first place is, as others have quite rightly said, what North Korea and other dictatorships do.
Went for my (extended) annual Mole Clinic check up in central London this morning. Some observations:
1. Plenty of traffic, far fewer pedestrians although enough about. 2. Quite sad to see all the shops shut. How many will reopen? Can't believe the Bristol showroom is shut, looks like permanently. 3. Lots of marshalls around and about - not sure to what end. 4. About 40 people in two full teams (could - just - have been schoolchildren) in tabards playing footie in Hyde Park. 3. For people who so desire I'd say post-lockdown will be an orgy of sex. Just about everyone I engaged with my eyes was flirty. in particular, the one other woman d'un age certain (but fit, micro skirt, etc) in the clinic waiting room. As though people can't wait to jump each other.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I would never describe myself as conservative or libertarian, but I also find myself horrified by this law.
Agreed.
Btw, can you elucidate the German idiom 'rein in die Kartoffeln - raus aus den Kartoffeln' ? It seems loosely to mean to chop and change, but I don't think that quite grasps it ?
Sounds like 'plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose', but the internet is telling me 'chopping and changing'
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
I'm surprised. To me the ultimate freedom is the freedom to do what you want within your own country. Freedom to visit other countries is number two on the list.
Maybe this attitude explains why a lot of people didn't seem too bothered with the national lockdown last March as long as they were still able to travel abroad.
The thinking is presumably if they give themselves the power to prevent you escaping, then you are subject to whatever else they might choose to impose ?
It doesn't impact me directly, as I had already decided not to travel abroad this year, but I can understand the concern.
Also, of course, it's a great deal easier to prevent people travelling abroad than to constrain internal movement.
I started answering this post saying that the big question to answer is where the BXP vote goes. But I've already changed my mind. Questions to answer include: - what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much? - where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.) - what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power. - what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
The Welsh poll (linked to by @Big_G_NorthWales ) is telling you the answer, assuming it is accurate.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
What's driving the shift from UKIP/BXP to tory? best way to get rid of Drakeford vote?
I am not sure most people in Wales even notice Drakeford, or care enough about him to want to get rid of him. He is like a drippy nose, a bit annoying but not needing serious medical treatment.
pb.com is unusual in having a Drakeford Fan Club (Hon. Sec., @kinabalu) and the International Society for the Suppression of Drakefords (Hon. Sec., @Big_G_NorthWales).
I think the Welsh poll is just showing that the Big Welsh UKIP vote (12 %) from 2016 has got to go somewhere. And the Tories will get between a third & a half of it. That will be enough to turn some of the North East Walian seats blue.
The Tories could do with removing Ken Skates in Clwyd South, as that will knock out Drakeford's likely successor.
And also, Drakeford isn't as good as Carwyn, so the Labour vote from 2016 is going to unwind anyhow. But, the electoral system will save Labour from huge loses. As they lose constituency seats, they will gain list seats.
I expect Labour -4 to -6.Labour will surely still be largest party.
There is a massive anti AstraZeneca vaccine campaign that goes way, way beyond the EU and Brexit.
Do a Google for "adverse reaction AstraZeneca covid vaccine trial". You get a whole bunch of news stories about problems with the AstraZeneca trial, from reputable sources such as Statnews, CNN and others.
Now, switch AstraZeneca for Moderna.
Suddenly there's essentially nothing. A quarter of the number of links. And no stories suggesting any negative trial issues whatsoever.
Bear in mind that this search is for the trial. This is long before the EU had even fucked up vaccine procurement.
Now, Google for "issues AstraZeneca vaccine trial". Again. Tonnes of links: NYTimes. Statnews. And a whole bunch of serious medical sites.
Now, do the same for Modera.
And there's almost nothing.
There is almost no serious anti-Moderna (or even anti-Pfizer) news.
There is tonnes of anti-AstraZeneca.
You're at risk of spoiling the Brexiters' fun..
If you think that is our idea of fun, then it is no surprise you were "beaten by a bus".
Leon isn't the only one who jumps on any anti-EU angle with palpable enthusiasm.
Having a go at a disinformation campaign by Big Pharma isn't nearly so satisfying.
So the attempt to wreck the peace on Ireland, the threats to ban exports, the 8% efficacy and Macron's smears - none of it happened?
WE are trying to wreck the peace in NI. The hardline Unionists are the threat, not the IRA, and they are up in arms about the GB - NI border which WE decided to impose.
What absolute tosh.
NI was used the whole way throiugh the negotiation as a ransom point and still is. This was led by the posh boys Varadkar and Coveney who kept poking the sleeping dogs despite people telling them to leave it. A generation of politicans with no understanding of the North did what they did in the hope of personal advancement and bigger jobs . They fked up and now will fk off leaving their mess behind them for others to clear up.
The border has to go somewhere. We knew that going into Brexit. We knew that it couldn't go onto the Island of Ireland. We offered fanciful technological solutions that we insisted were only a few months away. When offered a delay of a few months to develop and implement them, we did of course refuse - we were lying.
We had an agreement with the EU which would have avoided the Irish Sea border and chose to bin it. This was our choice. We could have then chosen to stay aligned - which we have done with every single "new" trade deal signed by Liz Truss which rolls over the status quo ante. We instead insisted on third country terms - again our choice.
Then the border should be between the EU and the UK. NI is part of the UK.
But no the border doesn't need to be somewhere. You can rely upon trust and self enforcement across the border accepting that may violate the "integrity" of the market.
So we are back to how we have both a fully open border on Ireland and a functioning external EU border. We kept offering up technology solutions like the drones that everyone was laughing at yesterday. But when offered that we wait before implementing our exit for this to be put in place we refused. Why? Because we knew that such a thing was sci-fi.
We *absolutely* could go on trust and self-enforcement. Our standards are the EU's standards. Our animal welfare is their animal welfare. We have literally handcuffed ourselves to the EU by signing all of these continuity EU trade deals. But politically the government need to keep up the pretence of having departed massively, hence our insistence on 3rd country status and all that means.
So yes. Ring the EU. Sign an enlarged alignment and co-operation deal. Reopen the UK to our biggest trading markets. Fix the NI border crisis. But we can't do that as it would be seen by Tory backbenchers as capitulation. They demand the right to have babies even though we can't have babies.
We refused because that's entirely wrong. You don't "wait" for a solution, solutions don't take time, you invent the damned solution and that takes effort and both sides to require it.
When the Government announced the furlough scheme it didn't say "we will do this, once a solution has been invented", they said "we are doing this" and told their team to get on with it. Necessity is the mother of invention.
The right solution to NI was always to say to the EU "we are leaving the EU Single Market and Customs Union on this date, now lets work together to develop as many mitigations as possible to keep the border open".
They need skin in the game and your notion that "the UK broke it, the UK can fix it" and that the EU can just stand back and wait for a solution is not how life works.
So why don't we work together? We haven't actually deviated from EEA standards. We haven't actually changed any CU practices. And we aren't going to do either for a Long Time.
Why can't we agree a deal with them where we both mutually drop our checks - the ones we are dropping anyway as we didn't bother to build customs posts or hire customs officers?
You and I both know the reason is politics. We can't admit that despite all the hooey spoken we haven't actually left the side of the dock. It would look Bad for Boris. So instead we have this charade of claiming to be sovereign and different despite having decided to use that sovereignty to keep doing what we were doing before.
We have left the Single Market and Customs Union already. If they want a deal where we both mutually drop our checks, but without us signing up to SM or CU standards, then I have no objection to that. Are they offering that?
Have we asked? I would involve us stating openly that we have maintained all of the standards and customs practices we had before we left the EEA and CU. Whilst it is correct it does rather make a mockery of what Shagger and his government have been saying.
Err no it would not involve us stating that. The whole point of us leaving the EEA and CU is to diverge, what part of that are you not understanding? We've already diverged a bit and are planning to diverge much more.
If we are going to diverge a lot more then why are we signing so many deals that mean we don't diverge? We can enhance EEA standards - thats no problem. Its only if we drop our standards that we would run into trouble and ministers are insistent that no dropping of standards will happen.
We haven't signed a single deal that means we won't diverge. Name one deal that we've signed that prevents divergence please.
None - that wasn't what I said. We've signed a stack of continuity deals. Which at some point in the future if we diverge we will need to replace with genuine new deals. No deal is forever, but signing continuity deals and parading them as new deals shows the slim to none likelihood of them being replaced at any time soon.
I don't think it does. Signing continuity because the transition period is short and there was all the garbage about "Ooooooh no no no !! You can't negotiate early !!" allows continuation.
It's really an artefact of an exit process designed to make it very difficult to exit.
Going abroad from Britain will soon be illegal. Illegal. Against the law. Like in North Korea presumably.
Wow.
But hey. You have a vaccine that protects you from a disease you almost certainly wouldn't die from.
So that's alright then.
It won't be if you have a reasonable excuse.
You shouldn't really need one to leave a country. To come back in, perhaps. Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
I agree with you about criminalising leaving the country. I guess the thinking is that if you are a British citizen and/or resident then you can't be stopped from coming back in, but I do think it's a bad law.
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, the ultimate test of authoritarianism is when a country bans its citizens from leaving the country. This is the ultimate no no as far as I am concerned and it appalls me that the UK is pursuing it, regardless of exigency.
How about forbidding people from leaving their homes?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
I have problems with mandatory limits on internal movements too. But, as I said, the ban on leaving the country is the ultimate, not only, no no. Because if you really don't like lockdown, and you are permitted to leave the country, you at least have the option (admittedly at a very high price) of choosing to emigrate or leave temporarily. If you ban exit, there is no escape.
I believe emigration is allowed still isn't it? It is holidays that are not, which quite reasonably fall under the Ebola exemption considering we're under lockdown.
If you want to escape by emigrating then fair enough. If you want to "escape" for a week, weekend or even a fortnight then come back then that's different. It is the coming back that is the issue more than the leaving, so quarantine is important if people do leave.
It's typical tough talking and would be amusing if the stakes were not so high, but the thing is the UK really has not been looking for a fight on this issue (it hasn't needed one), whereas the EU's protestations that they do not want a fight with the UK do not accord with their actions over the last few months, where they repeatedly sought to bring the UK into its dispute with AZ as with the Article 16 stuff, and its current rhetoric which is focused on 'fairness' and crass comparisons of 'EU' exports vs UK exports.
They really do want a fight, and unfortunately if one side really wants that it is hard to avoid a fight.
Can't see how 'fairness' helps them anyway. Given the very large disparity between the EU and UK populations, even if they seize all our vaccine, it will not make much of a dent in the EU shortfall - though it might impact us significantly.
Unless their intention is solely to hold us back to their pace of vaccination, then it is pointless. And risks damage both to the rate of vaccine production, and increasing vaccine scepticism in Europe.
But that is precisely their intention. It is not to benefit EU citizens, it's to stop the UK making the EU look bad by comparison. It's to stop anyone else thinking of following the example of Brexit.
Comments
- what the baseline conditions are. Ordinarily that would be GE2019, adjusted to current polls - but we know there hasn't been UNS since 2019. Has the Con advantage over Lab been eroded less in Hartlepool than UNS? I would instinctively think so - but by how much?
- where the BXP vote goes (my guess is almost none to Labour. People motivated to vote BXP aren't going to be voting for Paul Williams. A chunk, but certainly not all to the Tories. I'd say the bulk would go to not voting or to Richard Tice, if he stands.)
- what the Con vote does. Traditionally, in by-elections, it stays at home, particularly when the Tories are in power.
- what the lab vote does. Traditionally it turns out a bit more enthusiastically than the Con vote when the Tories are in power. And will the non-Tory vote unite behind Paul Williams? Usually, in a relatively tight race, you would expect that to happen.
My expectation is that enough of the Con vote will stay at home, and enough of the non-Con vote will unite behind Paul Williams, and baseline conditions will be sufficient, to offset any advantage the Cons might receive from BXP splitting in their favour. Therefore Lab hold. But there is more uncertainty here than is usual in a by-election.
I'm kind of surprised that it isn't still 0, advances in medicine aside. What is it now? My guess: 91.
Demographics is fascinating. Most people in the UK who make it to adulthood now make it to 90. Almost no-one gets to 100.
He did not anticipate that Britain "would have his neck, or perish in the attempt".
Just because I made sure I had a reserve parachute for all 149 skydives, and just because I always make pre-flight checks before piloting a microlight doesn't make me scared. Just realistic.
For some strange reason that was a no no
Which is not a prediction btw. I fear and expect the opposite and that's where my money is. I'm on Cons to win Hartlepool @ evens, Cons largest party at next GE @ 1.8, Johnson to be PM for a long time @ various. These are all bets I'd be happy to lose but expect to win.
Just as you shouldn't really need one to go to Wales, or to see your parents.
We all decide how far state extension of powers is too far, and to what extent current circumstances justify this changing. Contrarian just draws his line slightly further along the scale.
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/1374334535933030400?s=20
https://twitter.com/tom_nuttall/status/1374335326152503298?s=20
If replicated in May Drakeford would lose his seat
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1374300099820597253?s=19
Now I think there are plenty who will accept and defend any restriction and privation if enough 'experts' and propaganda are thrown their way to justify it.
I thought people cared about their freedom. They don't. I've lost count of the times I have thought 'people just aren't going to accept this'. They always do.
They really do want a fight, and unfortunately if one side really wants that it is hard to avoid a fight.
The better way to achieve the objective would be for compulsory hotel quarantine on return, with no exceptions.
Then people are free to make their own choices, but it is made clear that they have consequences, and the quarantine protects us from variants while that is necessary.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/top-saudi-official-issued-death-threat-against-uns-khashoggi-investigator
Maybe they have learned something from Boris after all.
The calculation to get to 10 years was done by only taking into account age, you're now taking that calculation as gospel to prove the only thing that matters is age. But the calculation was done by only looking at age in the first place. This is circular logic.
There was a big UKIP/BXP vote in the Senedd (7 seats and 12 % of the vote) in 2016.
Some have stuck with Reform (3 %) or Abolish (3%), but a big chunk has now gone to the Tories,
The Court of Appeal has quashed the convictions of the Salisbury 24 (nearly 50 years too late).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56494701
So the British calculation was that being clear would have made war more likely, as it would have told Germany how to wage a war that would be tolerated by Britain.
Given the very large disparity between the EU and UK populations, even if they seize all our vaccine, it will not make much of a dent in the EU shortfall - though it might impact us significantly.
Unless their intention is solely to hold us back to their pace of vaccination, then it is pointless. And risks damage both to the rate of vaccine production, and increasing vaccine scepticism in Europe.
For first time since September we do not have excess deaths
Edit: And what are you suggesting? That we are prevented from leaving for "many years"?
How about forbidding people from gathering with others?
To me, as a small c conservative libertarian, what has happened over the past 12 months is absolutely horrendous and needs to be reversed. If keeping quarantine or travel restrictions for a few months more allows all other restrictions to be lifted, then that's much more liberal than lifting everything then resuming lockdowns.
Btw, can you elucidate the German idiom 'rein in die Kartoffeln - raus aus den Kartoffeln' ?
It seems loosely to mean to chop and change, but I don't think that quite grasps it ?
RT as FM would provide tremendous comedy value.
There was also the military calculus - that an invasion of France without going through Belgium wouldn't work according to military theory. Not enough space.
Maybe this attitude explains why a lot of people didn't seem too bothered with the national lockdown last March as long as they were still able to travel abroad.
I do not see RT as FM
(1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.)
which mentions as an exemption example not letting people leave an Ebola-ridden village.
The majority on here, I'd say, were applauding the idea of making it illegal to leave the country.
PB. Home of the independent, questioning spirit. Not.
21 June all domestic legal restrictions is more important than international travel.
If international travel in May jeopardises removing domestic restrictions on 21 June then we should say no to international travel. Getting rid of domestic restrictions must be our first priority. Once we can ensure domestic restrictions aren't coming back, then we should lift travel/quarantine restrictions.
I'd possibly have travel restrictions on America lifted before the EU given the state of the vaccine programmes too.
If foreign travel jeopardises lifting domestic restrictions then it can wait. Domestic restrictions need to end, no ifs, no buts. Then we can lift travel restrictions.
But at the same time, I'm not altogether despondent about the collective acceptance of 'the rules' because not a single person I know is now obeying all the rules - and thank God there doesn't seem to be any of the bolshy enforcement that there was. Positively, no-one I know is taking the piss.
The government are going to quickly find themselves behind the pace, I think, if opening up isn't hastened. We can't be forever restricted by those who are utterly in fear of Covid despite the vaccination programme.
Banning people from leaving in the first place is, as others have quite rightly said, what North Korea and other dictatorships do.
Went for my (extended) annual Mole Clinic check up in central London this morning. Some observations:
1. Plenty of traffic, far fewer pedestrians although enough about.
2. Quite sad to see all the shops shut. How many will reopen? Can't believe the Bristol showroom is shut, looks like permanently.
3. Lots of marshalls around and about - not sure to what end.
4. About 40 people in two full teams (could - just - have been schoolchildren) in tabards playing footie in Hyde Park.
3. For people who so desire I'd say post-lockdown will be an orgy of sex. Just about everyone I engaged with my eyes was flirty. in particular, the one other woman d'un age certain (but fit, micro skirt, etc) in the clinic waiting room. As though people can't wait to jump each other.
It doesn't impact me directly, as I had already decided not to travel abroad this year, but I can understand the concern.
Also, of course, it's a great deal easier to prevent people travelling abroad than to constrain internal movement.
pb.com is unusual in having a Drakeford Fan Club (Hon. Sec., @kinabalu) and the International Society for the Suppression of Drakefords (Hon. Sec., @Big_G_NorthWales).
I think the Welsh poll is just showing that the Big Welsh UKIP vote (12 %) from 2016 has got to go somewhere. And the Tories will get between a third & a half of it. That will be enough to turn some of the North East Walian seats blue.
The Tories could do with removing Ken Skates in Clwyd South, as that will knock out Drakeford's likely successor.
And also, Drakeford isn't as good as Carwyn, so the Labour vote from 2016 is going to unwind anyhow. But, the electoral system will save Labour from huge loses. As they lose constituency seats, they will gain list seats.
I expect Labour -4 to -6.Labour will surely still be largest party.
It's really an artefact of an exit process designed to make it very difficult to exit.
Then deals will be updated and improved.
Then Blue Stilton can conquer the world.
If you want to escape by emigrating then fair enough. If you want to "escape" for a week, weekend or even a fortnight then come back then that's different. It is the coming back that is the issue more than the leaving, so quarantine is important if people do leave.
It is not to benefit EU citizens, it's to stop the UK making the EU look bad by comparison. It's to stop anyone else thinking of following the example of Brexit.