Am I the only one prepared to wait for a copy of the judgment* before deciding how it makes Johnson look? For all we know, it might not have been properly served on him.
(*I'll forgive the Guardian for adding another 'e' but the Private Eye should know better).
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
The only times Sturgeon and Drakeford get a free pass from certain quarters is when the PM of the UK with control over UK borders, the on-off nature of financial support for lockdown and direct oversight of the worst Covid death rate among the constituent UK nations is in danger of getting it in the neck.
Gee I wonder why Scotland with a population density of 65 / sq km has fewer deaths than England with a population density of 432 / sq km? 🤔
Its almost as if high population density helps spread Covid. Oh rate, it does!
Oh rate? Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
The only times Sturgeon and Drakeford get a free pass from certain quarters is when the PM of the UK with control over UK borders, the on-off nature of financial support for lockdown and direct oversight of the worst Covid death rate among the constituent UK nations is in danger of getting it in the neck.
Gee I wonder why Scotland with a population density of 65 / sq km has fewer deaths than England with a population density of 432 / sq km? 🤔
Its almost as if high population density helps spread Covid. Oh rate, it does!
Oh rate? Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
That's not what I said, so zero stars for illiteracy.
I said that relative to the contiguous sprawl between Liverpool and Manchester, there's large spaces of relatively nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of contiguous sprawl linking the two cities without a break.
Continuing the subject of ‘reactionary pastiche’ architecture. We do very occasionally allow it. Quinlan Terry’s Richmond Riverside is an example. Go there now and see the crowds in the sun and you can still hear the ghostly howls of anger from progressive architects
‘Built in 1987 by Quinlan and Francis Terry, The Richmond Riverside Development is universally hated by architects.’
Isn't that the one where you can see the new floors cutting the old windows in half?
That was one of the most preposterous objections, by ‘progressive’ architects, to Richmond Riverside. ‘It’s just a facade’. It’s ‘not real’
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Continuing the subject of ‘reactionary pastiche’ architecture. We do very occasionally allow it. Quinlan Terry’s Richmond Riverside is an example. Go there now and see the crowds in the sun and you can still hear the ghostly howls of anger from progressive architects
‘Built in 1987 by Quinlan and Francis Terry, The Richmond Riverside Development is universally hated by architects.’
Isn't that the one where you can see the new floors cutting the old windows in half?
That was one of the most preposterous objections, by ‘progressive’ architects, to Richmond Riverside. ‘It’s just a facade’. It’s ‘not real’
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
The only times Sturgeon and Drakeford get a free pass from certain quarters is when the PM of the UK with control over UK borders, the on-off nature of financial support for lockdown and direct oversight of the worst Covid death rate among the constituent UK nations is in danger of getting it in the neck.
Gee I wonder why Scotland with a population density of 65 / sq km has fewer deaths than England with a population density of 432 / sq km? 🤔
Its almost as if high population density helps spread Covid. Oh rate, it does!
Oh rate? Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
That's not what I said, so zero stars for illiteracy.
I said that relative to the contiguous sprawl between Liverpool and Manchester, there's large spaces of relatively nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of contiguous sprawl linking the two cities without a break.
That is true. It is 100% true.
Surely it's either "zero stars for literacy", or "five stars for illiteracy"?
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Isn't that Phillip's point, that the numbers need to be put in context?
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
The only times Sturgeon and Drakeford get a free pass from certain quarters is when the PM of the UK with control over UK borders, the on-off nature of financial support for lockdown and direct oversight of the worst Covid death rate among the constituent UK nations is in danger of getting it in the neck.
Gee I wonder why Scotland with a population density of 65 / sq km has fewer deaths than England with a population density of 432 / sq km? 🤔
Its almost as if high population density helps spread Covid. Oh rate, it does!
Oh rate? Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
That's not what I said, so zero stars for illiteracy.
I said that relative to the contiguous sprawl between Liverpool and Manchester, there's large spaces of relatively nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of contiguous sprawl linking the two cities without a break.
That is true. It is 100% true.
Surely it's either "zero stars for literacy", or "five stars for illiteracy"?
Continuing the subject of ‘reactionary pastiche’ architecture. We do very occasionally allow it. Quinlan Terry’s Richmond Riverside is an example. Go there now and see the crowds in the sun and you can still hear the ghostly howls of anger from progressive architects
‘Built in 1987 by Quinlan and Francis Terry, The Richmond Riverside Development is universally hated by architects.’
Isn't that the one where you can see the new floors cutting the old windows in half?
That was one of the most preposterous objections, by ‘progressive’ architects, to Richmond Riverside. ‘It’s just a facade’. It’s ‘not real’
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
Does explain why he can't just get a loan...
Have the PB’ers who maintain that his apparently chaotic disorganised nature is all an act, been asked to comment?
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
I recall a R4 program that explained how GDP is measured in different ways - for example, in the UK the ONS measures health output in terms of "operations performed" - which has fallen significantly because of COVID while Spain measures it in terms of "medical salaries paid"- which of course has gone up in the crisis!
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
The only times Sturgeon and Drakeford get a free pass from certain quarters is when the PM of the UK with control over UK borders, the on-off nature of financial support for lockdown and direct oversight of the worst Covid death rate among the constituent UK nations is in danger of getting it in the neck.
Gee I wonder why Scotland with a population density of 65 / sq km has fewer deaths than England with a population density of 432 / sq km? 🤔
Its almost as if high population density helps spread Covid. Oh rate, it does!
Oh rate? Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
That's not what I said, so zero stars for illiteracy.
I said that relative to the contiguous sprawl between Liverpool and Manchester, there's large spaces of relatively nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of contiguous sprawl linking the two cities without a break.
That is true. It is 100% true.
Surely it's either "zero stars for literacy", or "five stars for illiteracy"?
Pfizer jabs now being given to 16+ here in North Yorkshire... assume vaccination centres are struggling to get enough older people to use up batches...
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
It's lunchtime, on a beautiful day in Pembroke Dock, and I have to get back to my client, so I won't keep you long.
These issues are not trivial and they are adding up. I won't bore you with a critique of Carribbean Holidays, Wallpaper and CCJs, although if Johnson was an employee of say NatWest bank (owned in part by HMG) rather than HMG, he would be suspended pending investigation for any one of these issues.
Continuing the subject of ‘reactionary pastiche’ architecture. We do very occasionally allow it. Quinlan Terry’s Richmond Riverside is an example. Go there now and see the crowds in the sun and you can still hear the ghostly howls of anger from progressive architects
‘Built in 1987 by Quinlan and Francis Terry, The Richmond Riverside Development is universally hated by architects.’
Isn't that the one where you can see the new floors cutting the old windows in half?
That was one of the most preposterous objections, by ‘progressive’ architects, to Richmond Riverside. ‘It’s just a facade’. It’s ‘not real’
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
The existence of a middle dome of brickwork at St Paul's without which the cupola would not stay in the air demonstrates exactly that buildings - like St Pauls - do not comprise facade only.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
Does explain why he can't just get a loan...
Have the PB’ers who maintain that his apparently chaotic disorganised nature is all an act, been asked to comment?
It's an act. All part of the "Oops Prime Minister" sitcom.
“@sailorooscout A recent study shows that a single dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in HCWs previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 serves as an effective immune booster up to at least 11 months post infection and effectively neutralizes WT, and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern P.1, B.1.1.7, AND B.1.351!“ https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1392449876957536256
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Fully agree. But the idea that all the home nations have done about as well at keeping people alive, or that England has done about as well as similar foreign countries, is quite common.
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where there is zero chance of anything being accepted as "fair and balanced" when one of the key factors is differential rates between ethnic groups.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
It's lunchtime, on a beautiful day in Pembroke Dock, and I have to get back to my client, so I won't keep you long.
These issues are not trivial and they are adding up. I won't bore you with a critique of Carribbean Holidays, Wallpaper and CCJs, although if Johnson was an employee of say NatWest bank (owned in part by HMG) rather than HMG, he would be suspended pending investigation for any one of these issues.
Like I said, you're obsessed with petty, small-minded nonsense. That's unfortunate for you, because it means you're completely incapable of understanding anything about today's politics, but I can only lead the horse to water, not make it drink...
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Fully agree. But the idea that all the home nations have done about as well at keeping people alive, or that England has done about as well as similar foreign countries, is quite common.
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
Its absolutely 100% true when you compare like for like.
If you want to take dishonest out of context data you can twist it to get whatever outcome you want.
Brief thoughts on Batley and Spen, which has an odd history
1) If the Guardian is right that Jo Cox's sister might stand all bets are off
2) There is a huge wandering vote:
2019 15%+ voted HW and Brexit
2017 everyone voted Labour (in massive numbers) and Tory; no-one else much stood
2016 was a special case
2015 UKIP got 18% of the vote
Historically its a marginal, sometimes going Tory.
2017 is the only time Labour got over 50% of the vote. Corbyn mania.
Tories will take it on a 3.5% swing.
Last weeks elections showed a 50/50 split between Labour and Tory.
The size of that wandering vote (which is quite capable of voting for Jezza, but only once!) is obvs should be good for the Tories.
3) Conclusion : Tories should take it but won't - the evidence of last week's elections being the deciding factor. Especially they won't if anyone at all stands to the right of the Tories.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
Today's US inflation numbers are much stronger than expected. Much stronger. Uh-oh.
Worth remembering that Ed Miliband's brief time in the ascendancy came around the time of the inflation in 2011. Back then, the BoE resisted calls for interest rate rises as it "wasn't the right sort of inflation". It was driven by oil price rises.
Might be harder for central banks to resist interest rate rises this time.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
Just seen the CCJ issue. I agree it won't achieve any cut through outside Westminster (if at all) but it probably should. Failing to pay one of those after more than six months is a big deal, and it's hard to see how he could have missed it (you occasionally get stories about judgments made in absentia and the paperwork sent to the wrong address, but that seems unlikely when it's the Prime Minister). To say that this is not ideal behaviour of a PM is a fairly sizeable understatement.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
Does explain why he can't just get a loan...
Have the PB’ers who maintain that his apparently chaotic disorganised nature is all an act, been asked to comment?
It's an act. All part of the "Oops Prime Minister" sitcom.
With the studio audience full of Boris fanboys, just like Mrs Brown's Boys.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Fully agree. But the idea that all the home nations have done about as well at keeping people alive, or that England has done about as well as similar foreign countries, is quite common.
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
It's true enough for national comparisons, I'm afraid. Have a look at the Economist's tracker of excess deaths per 100K:
Even as things stand, we're only 26th in the world, behind the USA and Italy, and only slightly ahead of Spain. The pandemic is - God and science willing - over for us now, and so our relative position will only improve from here.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Fully agree. But the idea that all the home nations have done about as well at keeping people alive, or that England has done about as well as similar foreign countries, is quite common.
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
It's true enough for national comparisons, I'm afraid. Have a look at the Economist's tracker of excess deaths per 100K:
Even as things stand, we're only 26th in the world, behind the USA and Italy, and only slightly ahead of Spain. The pandemic is - God and science willing - over for us now, and so our relative position will only improve from here.
That the UK has a lower death rate than the USA, despite their population density, is absolutely stunning and shocking.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Reminds me of the Donald Trump quote, "I could kill someone on 5th Avenue and they'd still vote for me".
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Naah, he'd rather play truant from Cobra arranging his divorce...
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Continuing the subject of ‘reactionary pastiche’ architecture. We do very occasionally allow it. Quinlan Terry’s Richmond Riverside is an example. Go there now and see the crowds in the sun and you can still hear the ghostly howls of anger from progressive architects
‘Built in 1987 by Quinlan and Francis Terry, The Richmond Riverside Development is universally hated by architects.’
Isn't that the one where you can see the new floors cutting the old windows in half?
That was one of the most preposterous objections, by ‘progressive’ architects, to Richmond Riverside. ‘It’s just a facade’. It’s ‘not real’
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
The existence of a middle dome of brickwork at St Paul's without which the cupola would not stay in the air demonstrates exactly that buildings - like St Pauls - do not comprise facade only.
Buildings are not like a painting.
The upper walls of St Paul's are not even a facade, really, they are simply a beautiful screen to hide the real architecture
As for the dome
"When you look up, you have above you not one but three domes, ingeniously set one inside another by Wren, so that the inner dome could rise to the correct height in order to remain in proportion with the internal architecture, while the outside silhouette of the Cathedral could be adorned with something much larger and more impressive, to ride high above the roof-line of the seventeenth-century city."
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
During lockdowns the virus stops spreading as much between subpopulations, that's the point of lockdown, and why you end up with pockets of infections.
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
It's lunchtime, on a beautiful day in Pembroke Dock, and I have to get back to my client, so I won't keep you long.
These issues are not trivial and they are adding up. I won't bore you with a critique of Carribbean Holidays, Wallpaper and CCJs, although if Johnson was an employee of say NatWest bank (owned in part by HMG) rather than HMG, he would be suspended pending investigation for any one of these issues.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
We had the pox in Edinburgh very early (late Feb). In the city centre, right next to the main line stations with full train service stil running to Glasgow etc.
I don't think that Edin/Glasgow is a good example.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
Yes absolutely it is chalk and cheese. The population density of the M62 belt is much greater than that of the M8 one. Completely different.
The M62 belt has about 6 million people in it, not less than 1.5 million.
Liverpool City Region alone has more than you credited Glasgow, Edinburgh and the M8 belt combined. Greater Manchester alone has more than double what you credited Glasgow, Edinburgh and the M8 belt combined.
Without counting the population of Warrington (which alone is over 210k, close to half of Edinburgh all by itself) or the other towns on the M62 corridor.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
Also, it's not so much where people live as "how" people live. We know that the plague spreads easiest in multigenerational households containing large families.
This alone accounts for many of the racial differences in the UK.
It also explains why Italian Switzerland did considerably worse than German Switzerland in Wave 1
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Once again, an inability to distinguish small matters from great is what characterizes his critics. I'm pretty scrupulous about bills, but even I've forgotten to pay one, and I had rather less on my mind at the time than Boris did...
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
Downing Street say they are "looking into" the issue of Boris Johnson's unpaid debt, but have nothing to say on it yet. Should we be concerned about other debts? "You should not be concerned, no," says his press secretary, taking what is, I suspect, a slightly hopeful guess. https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1392468587659599872
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
This is exactly why an enquiry is needed. Why are the England figures worse? Is it because Johnson? Is it because higher BAME population in very poor cramped housing? Is it because London is a transport hub? The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power. I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
Fully agree. But the idea that all the home nations have done about as well at keeping people alive, or that England has done about as well as similar foreign countries, is quite common.
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
It's true enough for national comparisons, I'm afraid. Have a look at the Economist's tracker of excess deaths per 100K:
Even as things stand, we're only 26th in the world, behind the USA and Italy, and only slightly ahead of Spain. The pandemic is - God and science willing - over for us now, and so our relative position will only improve from here.
That the UK has a lower death rate than the USA, despite their population density, is absolutely stunning and shocking.
If you are not successful in life the USA is a terrible place to live
It is remarkable how the world has resisted inflation to date, given the money being printed and pumped, everywhere. Perhaps we have just run out of luck.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
I saw on the internet someone has worked out the “real experienced density” of various countries by looking at where people actually live.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
Indeed. The ONS heatmap of deaths per 100k almost exactly mirrors a heatmap of population density.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Devon, Cornwall and Somerset - yet that region has lower deaths than Wales, NI and Scotland. Funny that.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Once again, an inability to distinguish small matters from great is what characterizes his critics. I'm pretty scrupulous about bills, but even I've forgotten to pay one, and I had rather less on my mind at the time than Boris did...
Even you?! Surely not. No one gives a tuppenny fuck (no offence) if you forget to pay a bill. Boris is the Prime Minister. His government makes the effing laws.
You can't even say Islamophobic and homophobic stuff, deny the holocaust and become co leader of Aberdeen City Council any more. It's politically correct wokeism gone mad I tells ye!
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
During lockdowns the virus stops spreading as much between subpopulations, that's the point of lockdown, and why you end up with pockets of infections.
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
Buit the point I am making was that the virus spread between subpopulations is a different matter from that within subpopulations, which is inherently easier to slow down by lockdown. You only need a few unfortunate people, yuppie skiers, etcd. to seed the pox more or less simiultaneously between subpopulations, which is what happened.
The other point is that the relationships between the first and later peaks were very different in different nations even when they had similar first peaks. One prima facie reason for that is public policy, and another as you say is geographical difference. It's not possible to separate them out, yet, bvut it is plainly wrong to say that the pandemic acted evenly across the UK.
Re the Somerset comparison, you're comparing differently heterogeneous areas using stats hwich are inherently wieghted towards high-density urban areas. Intuitively, Wales is far more urbanised (in small part) and far emptier (in large part) than Somerset [which no longer contains the Clevedon-Bristol-Bath conurbation] and iin a sense it is the Valleys which you are comparing to Taunton, Bridgwater, Weston-s-Mare and Yeovil. Which are different on wealth, crowding, and so on. Yet the comparator is based on the assumption that total pop. density is meaningful.
I'd like to see some proper studies of this, in due course.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
You mean contiguous commuting between Glasgow (pop. 600k plus) and Edinburgh (pop. 488k) via M8 belt (pop. c400k) compared to Liverpool (pop. 498k) and Manchester (pop. 550k) via M62 belt (pop. nofuckingidea)? Chalk and cheese, obviously.
We had the pox in Edinburgh very early (late Feb). In the city centre, right next to the main line stations with full train service stil running to Glasgow etc.
I don't think that Edin/Glasgow is a good example.
It is not, but some people having chosen a bad example will stick to their guns à la HYUFD right to the bitter end.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
The UK was Denmark's biggest trading partner before the war, Germany then stepped in obvs, what with occupying Denmark etc - they joined the EEC on the same day as the UK and always felt the UK had their back - Denmark is not a socialist country it is a liberal country and relied on the UK to contain France and Germany's more mercantilist and insular instincts - they basically feel let down.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
People will fight you to get to live at Trellick Tower.
Reports Boris is about to announce in the HOC a full public enquiry into Covid
Begins in Spring 2022
An eternity away. "There is bound to be a resurgence in the Autumn" so all the more reason not to understand all that has gone right and all that has gone wrong beforehand.
He is delaying for one simple reason. He currently has a boost from the vaccine and wants to ride that as long as possible before the enquiry tears him apart.
Sorry but that is utter nonsense and he explained all the reasons and as you mention a resurgence in the Autumn was one of those reasons as he did not want to interfer on front line services while this could be a critical period
Also, with respect, you have absolutely no creditability if you think a full public enquiry could be set up, terms of reference agreed, take evidence and produce a conclusion by the Autumn
And if it does attack Boris, then Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster will all be in the same place as they more or less followed the same advice
Your hatred of Boris at times overwhelms what should be your common sense
Except.
England has done notably worse than the other home nations.
Going off the FT data, these are the current deaths per 100k: England 199 Wales 176 Scotland 140 (rather better than France) N Ireland 113 (almost as low as where Germany is likely to end up)
I think we can assume that the data are comparable in terms of what is and isn't counted as a Covid death. OK, that could be about geography, underlying health, whatever. But there were also critical differences in policy between the four nations. For an infection that doubles in less than a week when unchecked, you don't need big changes in policy to have big changes in outcome. For example, dithering about imposing a lockdown post-Christmas.
And whilst you can't convict PM Johnson on the basis of those figures alone, the idea that all the nation's leaders are in the same "awkward explaining to do" boat simply isn't borne out by the numbers.
What do you think of these numbers? Very relevant.
England 432 Wales 151 Northern Ireland 133 Scotland 65
Let me guess... population density. Am I right?
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre London is 5683 people per square kilometre Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt. After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
Yes its population density and its extremely relevant. As I said before which TUD misquoted, there's vast firebreaks within Scotland between its cities that doesn't exist to the same extent in eg Northwest England. From Liverpool to Manchester the population density is higher than Glasgow, but also the area inbetween is much more populated. Going from Liverpool to Widnes, Warrington, Wigan, Leigh, Manchester, Bury etc is all one great urban and suburban sprawl with no firebreak between them. Unlike eg from Glasgow to Edinburgh that has natural firebreaks.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
But people routinely commute between Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
During lockdown there would have been a fraction of the contiguous commuting between Glasgow and Edinburgh that there is between Liverpool and Manchester.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
The incidence of the pox is a function of the infection rate of individual subpopulations and that within each subpopulation once it is set off.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
During lockdowns the virus stops spreading as much between subpopulations, that's the point of lockdown, and why you end up with pockets of infections.
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
Buit the point I am making was that the virus spread between subpopulations is a different matter from that within subpopulations, which is inherently easier to slow down by lockdown. You only need a few unfortunate people, yuppie skiers, etcd. to seed the pox more or less simiultaneously between subpopulations, which is what happened.
The other point is that the relationships between the first and later peaks were very different in different nations even when they had similar first peaks. One prima facie reason for that is public policy, and another as you say is geographical difference. It's not possible to separate them out, yet, bvut it is plainly wrong to say that the pandemic acted evenly across the UK.
Re the Somerset comparison, you're comparing differently heterogeneous areas using stats hwich are inherently wieghted towards high-density urban areas. Intuitively, Wales is far more urbanised (in small part) and far emptier (in large part) than Somerset [which no longer contains the Clevedon-Bristol-Bath conurbation] and iin a sense it is the Valleys which you are comparing to Taunton, Bridgwater, Weston-s-Mare and Yeovil. Which are different on wealth, crowding, and so on. Yet the comparator is based on the assumption that total pop. density is meaningful.
I'd like to see some proper studies of this, in due course.
Actually the Bath, Bristol areas are comparable too. 'Bath and Northeast Somerset' has a death rate of 139/100k versus Scotland's 140/100k and Wales's 176/100k.
It could have a silver lining to be honest. It will make it easier to sort the housing market for instance without negative equity.
It's destabilising, though, because people start demanding large salary rises to get ahead of it, which fuels more inflation in turn - eventually, it requires higher interest rates and spending squeezing to damp down demand again.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill, if they bother to trouble their minds about the matter at all.
Fuckin' ell mate is there no action, illegal or unethical, that you won't forgive Boris?
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Once again, an inability to distinguish small matters from great is what characterizes his critics. I'm pretty scrupulous about bills, but even I've forgotten to pay one, and I had rather less on my mind at the time than Boris did...
Did you get a CCJ? or send a cheque in the post, like most people used to if they forgot to pay a bill?
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
People will fight you to get to live at Trellick Tower.
It could have a silver lining to be honest. It will make it easier to sort the housing market for instance without negative equity.
It's destabilising, though, because people start demanding large salary rises to get ahead of it, which fuels more inflation in turn - eventually, it requires higher interest rates and spending squeezing to damp down demand again.
Remember the 70s.
Oh indeed its a bad thing overall, but so too is deflation.
I don't remember the 70s, before my time, but I have no desire to go back there.
Inflation in the 60s was probably healthier. Moderate but higher than we've had for a while.
Breaking News: House Republicans voted to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from their leadership ranks for her refusal to stay quiet over Donald Trump’s election lies.
It could have a silver lining to be honest. It will make it easier to sort the housing market for instance without negative equity.
It's destabilising, though, because people start demanding large salary rises to get ahead of it, which fuels more inflation in turn - eventually, it requires higher interest rates and spending squeezing to damp down demand again.
Remember the 70s.
Oh indeed its a bad thing overall, but so too is deflation.
I don't remember the 70s, before my time, but I have no desire to go back there.
Inflation in the 60s was probably healthier. Moderate but higher than we've had for a while.
I think people saw how we escaped the credit crunch, with quantitative easing but not much inflation, so they've now turned it up to 11 because they think it's a free lunch.
I was just wondering whether it is unusual for Prime Ministers to have CCJs issued against them for a circa £500 debt? (Source, the Guardian)
On topic:
I was just wondering whether it's usual to suffer the worst local election results for a new Opposition leader in 40 years and go on to become Prime Minister?
Probably not, and whether Starmer stands or falls doesn't really concern me personally. It is unfortunate if the opposition are so inept that a Prime Minister cannot control his personal finances up to £600, and yet can continue to hold the purse strings of a nation, and remain unchallenged.
As you know I am witheringly thick, yet even someone so dull as myself, know that the application of a personal CCJ against my name would be very, very bad news.
As if to confirm my stupidity, I momentarily forgot that rules that apply to me do not apply to Johnson.
I have no idea whether or not you're stupid, but you are obsessed with small-minded irrelevancies. People with a normal sense of perspective can understand how a Prime Minister in the middle of the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years could have missed a bill...
I know it's got a bit out of hand, but even I think that a rather hyperbolic description of the wallpaper business.
The commission economic predictions for the UK definitely have a touch of jilted ex syndrome. The city consensus is noticeably higher and factors in little to no brexit related reduction in GDP. I think it would be fairly embarrassing for them to come in at ~7.5% where the city consensus is for the UK, though. Additionally it looks like their projections are done on a nominal GDP calculation basis but the GDP itself is the output model as preferred by the ONS. Most of the city has caught up with this and it's why there is expected to be a big bounceback as schools return to normal and health output picks up as the NHS works through a huge backlog.
It's interesting reading the economics editor of Berlingske today explaining how the UK economy fared worst of all economies last year "Unlike Denmark" - the whole piece is tinged with a "bastard british have left us at the mercy of the Germans" vibe - apparently there may be some short term bounce back over the summer but by Autumn the warning klaxons will be going off and the full error of Brexit will become visible - I don't know if that will happen but reading the piece it's clear he really wants it too because the UK 'abandoned' Denmark.
Another bit of jilted ex syndrome. Goldman Sachs have got UK growth this year penciled in at 7.8% which recovers all of our GDP by the end of 2021 based on the measure they use.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
I can't tell you the grief I get over the UK leaving the EU, mostly because I don't participate in gleefully hoping it all goes horribly wrong and saying Boris Johnson is an idiot and the electorate were tricked - Danes are mostly now looking on and suffering major jilted ex syndrome. They HATE the idea Brexit might not be that big a deal economically to the UK.
I really don't understand this! Why do they care at all?
Because they secretly fear we might be right.
Emotionally, there is a human need to justify to yourself, and others, that you have made the right decision. There are still a lot of remainers here who, emotionally, would quite like Brexit to be an unmitigated disaster - they may end up poorer but they will at least be able to tell themselves that they backed the right horse. (Remainers aren't alone in this and had the referendum gone the other way I'm quite sure there would have been just as many leavers willing Bremain to fail for exactly the same reason.) Similarly, can all unionists, hand on heart, say they would be delighted to see Scexit be a happy success for the Scots? Rationally we might wish it, but it would very much be a battle between head and heart. I say this as a man with a Scottish mother and a very Scottish grandmother whose early childhood holidays were there and who thinks fondly of the country and its people, and who is anyway unconvinced of the future of the union. If my feelings are mixed, how must a committed English unionist feel?
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
It could have a silver lining to be honest. It will make it easier to sort the housing market for instance without negative equity.
???
If you have healthy, moderate inflation, plus real wage growth, then it gives much more room to lower house price to earnings ratios without negative equity - if low housing inflation (eg due to construction) causes houses to rise in prices slower than wages increase.
If generalised inflation is 4% per annum, nominal house prices are only going up 1% per annum, with nominal incomes going up 5% per annum then house price to income ratios will be trending down without anyone facing negative equity.
If generalised inflation is 2%, with nominal incomes going up 3% then nominal house prices would need to be falling by 1% per annum to have the same impact on ratios. Meaning negative equity.
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there hinting at Goldfinger having trad tastes for himself.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three.
Erno Goldfinger gets worse, though more interesting, on closer examination
"Even James Bond creator Ian Fleming had a beef with poor old Ernő, naming one of his most famous villains, Auric Goldfinger, after the architect in revenge for his bulldozing of a number of Victorian villas in order to build his own modern home at Willow Road in Hampstead.
"Goldfinger – reportedly a humourless man – threatened to sue over the slur, but allegedly backed down when Fleming suggested changing the name to ‘Goldprick’ instead."
He bulldozed Victorian villas to build his piece-of-shit 30s home. And he had no sense of humour. I hope he is enjoying the architectonic vibrations in Hell
We remember Maggie as PM, where she was very good. Yet when she was opposition leader she didn’t come across very well at all. The narrowness of that first win, which followed few years of total mess of government, suggests as much?
As much as the “surely Starmer can’t actually win” is fun, the next election the Tories can still lose with run up to it Lab had in 79?
Goldfinger was based upon on a brutalist architect, if memory serves.
Such work is little more than desecration.
You can visit Erno Goldfinger's house at 2 Spring Road in Hampstead - it is owned by the National Trust.
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
The street in the sky that Erno Goldfinger DESIGNED
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
LOL. Bit of misinformation there.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three
Front
Example Room
Hideous
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
Breaking News: House Republicans voted to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from their leadership ranks for her refusal to stay quiet over Donald Trump’s election lies.
If their internal review said Good Things about the PM then it would have been published, front page gushing coverage in The Sun, Heil, Express etc. It won't be published because it's scathing.
So of course the official enquiry is being delayed 12 months to be published after the next general election. He's frit.
It could have a silver lining to be honest. It will make it easier to sort the housing market for instance without negative equity.
???
If you have healthy, moderate inflation, plus real wage growth, then it gives much more room to lower house price to earnings ratios without negative equity - if low housing inflation (eg due to construction) causes houses to rise in prices slower than wages increase.
If generalised inflation is 4% per annum, nominal house prices are only going up 1% per annum, with nominal incomes going up 5% per annum then house price to income ratios will be trending down without anyone facing negative equity.
If generalised inflation is 2%, with nominal incomes going up 3% then nominal house prices would need to be falling by 1% per annum to have the same impact on ratios. Meaning negative equity.
Oh, I see, you think wages will go up too. Don't hold your breath is what I'd say to that.
Comments
(*I'll forgive the Guardian for adding another 'e' but the Private Eye should know better).
Ok, one star for 'there's essentially nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh' man I'm afraid.
I said that relative to the contiguous sprawl between Liverpool and Manchester, there's large spaces of relatively nothing between Glasgow and Edinburgh instead of contiguous sprawl linking the two cities without a break.
That is true. It is 100% true.
Architecture is always unreal and consists almost entirely of facades. St Paul’s Cathedral is largely fake. It has three domes, Russian dolled. To make it look more impressive. As for the walls
‘The outer walls are built in two distinct storeys, but the upper storey is false, it simply acts as a screen to hide the flying buttresses that support the high vaults.’
https://someinterestingfacts.net/how-was-st-pauls-cathedral-built/
Except, if so, I don't think those numbers are as much of a slam dunk as you think. From a population point of view, Scotland is a densely populated central belt and a lot of mountains and lochs. From the point of view of a Covid virus, what matters is the density where people live.
According to the internet
Glasgow is 3400 people per square kilometre
London is 5683 people per square kilometre
Paris is 21067 people per square kilometre
But to be fair, all of those numbers depend on what you do and don't include. A simple population / area calculation for Havering would be misleading, because half of it is inhabited and the other half is green belt.
After all, we wouldn't want to bandy about numbers without meaningful context, would we?
That's the caricature of people travelling the world to take polaroids of themselves in front of backdrops.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/october-2000-may-2021-1.9795762?v=1620822719381
Does it work in reality?
The great danger is to pre-judge based on gut instinct. Hate Johnson/the tories/both? Its all Johnson's fault. Support Johnson/the tories/both - it would have been the same whoever was in power.
I hope for a fair, balanced report. It will not satisfy those who have already decided who was at fault, but I suspect short of imprisoning Johnson for the rest of his days, nothing would.
If you want to be stupid and ignore population density then you could try analysing deaths within England by local Council party control. I strongly suspect Labour controlled Councils have a higher death rate than Tory controlled Councils. Does that mean Tory Councils have done a better job?
Of course not, the virus targets dense population. Which England, especially in places like the Northwest, London etc has in abundance and Scotland does not to the same extent.
Also, there is a solution to being left at the mercy of Germany. 🤷♂️
These issues are not trivial and they are adding up. I won't bore you with a critique of Carribbean Holidays, Wallpaper and CCJs, although if Johnson was an employee of say NatWest bank (owned in part by HMG) rather than HMG, he would be suspended pending investigation for any one of these issues.
Buildings are not like a painting.
A recent study shows that a single dose of AstraZeneca’s vaccine in HCWs previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 serves as an effective immune booster up to at least 11 months post infection and effectively neutralizes WT, and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern P.1, B.1.1.7, AND B.1.351!“
https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1392449876957536256
Even after our really good vaccination programme, that's not really so.
If you want to take dishonest out of context data you can twist it to get whatever outcome you want.
1) If the Guardian is right that Jo Cox's sister might stand all bets are off
2) There is a huge wandering vote:
2019 15%+ voted HW and Brexit
2017 everyone voted Labour (in massive numbers) and Tory; no-one else much stood
2016 was a special case
2015 UKIP got 18% of the vote
Historically its a marginal, sometimes going Tory.
2017 is the only time Labour got over 50% of the vote. Corbyn mania.
Tories will take it on a 3.5% swing.
Last weeks elections showed a 50/50 split between Labour and Tory.
The size of that wandering vote (which is quite capable of voting for Jezza, but only once!) is obvs should be good for the Tories.
3) Conclusion : Tories should take it but won't - the evidence of last week's elections being the deciding factor. Especially they won't if anyone at all stands to the right of the Tories.
It's only the really remote communities (islands, in particular) that have more ort less escaped infection.
Also, the issue is not so much the spread of the virus between centres - it does - as how it develops within each centre. That.s where the stats come from and that's what the stats record.
Might be harder for central banks to resist interest rate rises this time.
The stats record that more dense areas have more deaths and that's consistent across the UK and across the world.
Being idiotic and taking figures out of context is what Trump supporters tried to do last year to say that GOP Governors had done better than Democrat Governors - because deaths were higher in the densely populated Democrat states. Its bullshit, just as it would be bullshit to "blame" Labour Councils for the fact that the worst death rates in England are in Labour controlled Councils.
It's just the 1960s and 1970s stuff was utterly shocking, together with the nihilistic vision, and the materials and the workmanship were poor too.
I'm not sure the 90s/00s glass and steel stuff will age well either, although it's better than rusting concrete.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Even as things stand, we're only 26th in the world, behind the USA and Italy, and only slightly ahead of Spain. The pandemic is - God and science willing - over for us now, and so our relative position will only improve from here.
Such work is little more than desecration.
We know from observation that the virus spreads very fast between subpopulations, except in the really extreme cases such as the Western Isles: see how quickly new variants pop up; the Kent variant appeared in Glasgow very quickly. So the first element doesn't sould likely to explain much variance unless really drastic public policy is undertaken, eg closing borders.
It's the second eleemnt that actually yields the stats.
It's certainly possible that later infection does help with reducing total infection numbers, but that is also subject to public policy in any case, so it's not possible to be sure either way without a proper study.
Listen, so he killed the bloke. So what? He was that very morning in a COBRA meeting trying to manage the greatest domestic crisis in a hundred years.
Chalk and cheese, obviously.
As for the dome
"When you look up, you have above you not one but three domes, ingeniously set one inside another by Wren, so that the inner dome could rise to the correct height in order to remain in proportion with the internal architecture, while the outside silhouette of the Cathedral could be adorned with something much larger and more impressive, to ride high above the roof-line of the seventeenth-century city."
It is done purely to impress. As I said
https://www.explore-stpauls.net/oct03/textMM/DomeConstructionN.htm
However the point I'm making is that, even during lockdown, the whole of the Northwest of England is one contiguous subpopulation. From Liverpool to Manchester there's no firebreak between the cities, so it can spread even during lockdown from Manchester to Leigh to Warrington to Widnes to Liverpool contiguously even while people are locked down and minimally moving.
That's why eg the Northwest and other large contiguous highly densely population regions have struggled more than eg places like Bath.
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Somerset, so comparing Somerset with Wales and NI is like-for-like. But Somerset has a lower death rate than Wales, NI or Scotland. Why do you think that is?
And the fed are going to ignore it???!
We had the pox in Edinburgh very early (late Feb). In the city centre, right next to the main line stations with full train service stil running to Glasgow etc.
I don't think that Edin/Glasgow is a good example.
Spain was surprisingly dense, for example, because people tend to live in very dense cities and towns.
I don’t have time to find it - I’m at work - but it would be interesting to see if someone has estimate this for E, S, W & NI.
https://www.democraticaudit.com/2020/05/12/if-there-is-a-public-inquiry-into-covid-19-what-will-it-look-like/
The M62 belt has about 6 million people in it, not less than 1.5 million.
Liverpool City Region alone has more than you credited Glasgow, Edinburgh and the M8 belt combined.
Greater Manchester alone has more than double what you credited Glasgow, Edinburgh and the M8 belt combined.
Without counting the population of Warrington (which alone is over 210k, close to half of Edinburgh all by itself) or the other towns on the M62 corridor.
So yes. Chalk and Cheese.
Wonderful.
This alone accounts for many of the racial differences in the UK.
It also explains why Italian Switzerland did considerably worse than German Switzerland in Wave 1
https://citymonitor.ai/fabric/these-maps-reveal-truth-about-population-density-across-europe-3625
He incorporated many of the things in the 1930s that were popularised 60-70 years later as making houses flexible and desirable. It's a gorgeous house.
Fleming was a bit of a petty minded bastard. Calling the villain Goldfinger caused Erno Goldfinger to get troll phone calls in the middle of the night. There was a court case about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/03/film.hayfestival2005
Best time to go is on the Open House weekend and visit some of the other superb modern architecture in the area; a good deal of private houses in Hampstead.
There are even some quite notable Council Estates and Flats. Some built at the behest of .... Ken Livingstone in the 1970s.
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1392468587659599872
This could derail any boom very quickly
Wales and NI have the same population density as eg Devon, Cornwall and Somerset - yet that region has lower deaths than Wales, NI and Scotland. Funny that.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc811/multimap/index.html
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1392435972244189185?s=20
The other point is that the relationships between the first and later peaks were very different in different nations even when they had similar first peaks. One prima facie reason for that is public policy, and another as you say is geographical difference. It's not possible to separate them out, yet, bvut it is plainly wrong to say that the pandemic acted evenly across the UK.
Re the Somerset comparison, you're comparing differently heterogeneous areas using stats hwich are inherently wieghted towards high-density urban areas. Intuitively, Wales is far more urbanised (in small part) and far emptier (in large part) than Somerset [which no longer contains the Clevedon-Bristol-Bath conurbation] and iin a sense it is the Valleys which you are comparing to Taunton, Bridgwater, Weston-s-Mare and Yeovil. Which are different on wealth, crowding, and so on. Yet the comparator is based on the assumption that total pop. density is meaningful.
I'd like to see some proper studies of this, in due course.
The street on the ground where Erno Goldfinger LIVED
There's a good map on the ONS website, though it only covers England and Wales: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc811/multimap/index.html
There is a clear correlation between the heatmap of death rates and population density. I think that's causation, you may shrug and disagree, do you?
Remember the 70s.
I don't remember the 70s, before my time, but I have no desire to go back there.
Inflation in the 60s was probably healthier. Moderate but higher than we've had for a while.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1392472746383323140?s=20
It's isn't.
This is all doubly true if before the event you made a living telling people publicly what a disaster it would be.
This isn't a particularly edifying human characteristic but I don't think we can deny that it is there.
If generalised inflation is 4% per annum, nominal house prices are only going up 1% per annum, with nominal incomes going up 5% per annum then house price to income ratios will be trending down without anyone facing negative equity.
If generalised inflation is 2%, with nominal incomes going up 3% then nominal house prices would need to be falling by 1% per annum to have the same impact on ratios. Meaning negative equity.
The House be built himself to live in - complete with garages downstairs and a better interior. It is a block of three.
Front
Example Room
"Even James Bond creator Ian Fleming had a beef with poor old Ernő, naming one of his most famous villains, Auric Goldfinger, after the architect in revenge for his bulldozing of a number of Victorian villas in order to build his own modern home at Willow Road in Hampstead.
"Goldfinger – reportedly a humourless man – threatened to sue over the slur, but allegedly backed down when Fleming suggested changing the name to ‘Goldprick’ instead."
He bulldozed Victorian villas to build his piece-of-shit 30s home. And he had no sense of humour. I hope he is enjoying the architectonic vibrations in Hell
https://www.idealhome.co.uk/news/erno-goldfinger-s-metro-central-heights-given-listed-building-status-42393
We remember Maggie as PM, where she was very good. Yet when she was opposition leader she didn’t come across very well at all. The narrowness of that first win, which followed few years of total mess of government, suggests as much?
As much as the “surely Starmer can’t actually win” is fun, the next election the Tories can still lose with run up to it Lab had in 79?
And, also, I said "the street where he lived". That IS the street where he lived. Willow Road. A lovely bit of old Hampstead that he made worse with his repulsive redbrick Kwikfit garage of a "house"
The test is now willingness to perpetuate those lies.
Meanwhile, the US military apes the French revolutionaries.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/11/retired-brass-biden-election-487374
"BREAKING. No10 admits internal Whitehall 'lessons learned' review on Covid has been conducted - but won't be published.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1392466569020809216
If their internal review said Good Things about the PM then it would have been published, front page gushing coverage in The Sun, Heil, Express etc. It won't be published because it's scathing.
So of course the official enquiry is being delayed 12 months to be published after the next general election. He's frit.