Reposted FPT (where I eventually realised I was the only one left):
Apologies for raising the W-word on what appears to have otherwise been an evening free from the war-on-Woke but this article from Friday's Guardian got me thinking and is, I feel, well worth a read.
The paradox it highlights is that Britain is a fundamentally conservative country, usually run by Conservative govenments, and yet over the past 70 years social attitudes have tranformed dramatically in a most un-conservative direction. Maybe it doesn't really matter what hue of government we elect?
Remember the modern Tories combine followers of Burke (“change to conserve”) and fans of Macauley (“reform to preserve”). It’s not really surprising - they are very good at navigating the long flow
Yes, I think you are right there.
What's interesting to me is what is driving 'the long flow'?
Fauci, Daszak, Andersen, several members of the Wellcome Trust: all going to prison
"Andersen's letter was perhaps even more effective in shaping the narrative than Daszak's letter. Fauci famously cited it while standing next to Trump on Apr 17, omitting that he himself was involved in instigating it even feigning not to know Andersen."
You just make yourself look all the more crazy when you share conspiracy theory Tweets while banging on about Fauci going to prison. Not going to happen, any more than aliens landing. 😕
There might be something to it being a lab leak, but it does the theory little credit to be banging on about Fauci going to prison and other claptrap. Tars everything as being insane when you do that.
Maybe, I am happy and drunk. I have just painted my bedroom HAGUE BLUE and it looks good
But I do think some of these dudes are going down. This is too big to hide, but they tried to hide it, and they failed
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
Reposted FPT (where I eventually realised I was the only one left):
Apologies for raising the W-word on what appears to have otherwise been an evening free from the war-on-Woke but this article from Friday's Guardian got me thinking and is, I feel, well worth a read.
The paradox it highlights is that Britain is a fundamentally conservative country, usually run by Conservative govenments, and yet over the past 70 years social attitudes have tranformed dramatically in a most un-conservative direction. Maybe it doesn't really matter what hue of government we elect?
Remember the modern Tories combine followers of Burke (“change to conserve”) and fans of Macauley (“reform to preserve”). It’s not really surprising - they are very good at navigating the long flow
From on here, you'd think modern Tories combined the worst of Burke and Hare.....
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
Fauci, Daszak, Andersen, several members of the Wellcome Trust: all going to prison
"Andersen's letter was perhaps even more effective in shaping the narrative than Daszak's letter. Fauci famously cited it while standing next to Trump on Apr 17, omitting that he himself was involved in instigating it even feigning not to know Andersen."
You just make yourself look all the more crazy when you share conspiracy theory Tweets while banging on about Fauci going to prison. Not going to happen, any more than aliens landing. 😕
There might be something to it being a lab leak, but it does the theory little credit to be banging on about Fauci going to prison and other claptrap. Tars everything as being insane when you do that.
Maybe, I am happy and drunk. I have just painted my bedroom HAGUE BLUE and it looks good
But I do think some of these dudes are going down. This is too big to hide, but they tried to hide it, and they failed
We are painting the living room in our new house that colour
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
Fauci, Daszak, Andersen, several members of the Wellcome Trust: all going to prison
"Andersen's letter was perhaps even more effective in shaping the narrative than Daszak's letter. Fauci famously cited it while standing next to Trump on Apr 17, omitting that he himself was involved in instigating it even feigning not to know Andersen."
You just make yourself look all the more crazy when you share conspiracy theory Tweets while banging on about Fauci going to prison. Not going to happen, any more than aliens landing. 😕
There might be something to it being a lab leak, but it does the theory little credit to be banging on about Fauci going to prison and other claptrap. Tars everything as being insane when you do that.
Maybe, I am happy and drunk. I have just painted my bedroom HAGUE BLUE and it looks good
But I do think some of these dudes are going down. This is too big to hide, but they tried to hide it, and they failed
We are painting the living room in our new house that colour
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
A clever government operation would have found some fudge before getting to this stage. The obvious being that a load of money spent on vaccinations around the world is all counted as part of the aid budget and / or condition that no reduction but a load ring fenced money for supporting vaccine roll outs.
This is pretty significant, if you're following the Source of Covid story
One of the main virologists defending the "natural origins" thesis is K G Anderson
Weirdly enough, he mentioned a possible "engineered" aspect to the virus to Anthony Fauci, in a FOIA'd email back in January 2020. Four days later he was on board with natural zoonosis, 100%, with no obvious data interim to change his mind. Why?
Who knows. But ever since he has been furiously denouncing "lab leak" and presenting concepts for "wet market" - or whatever
Until this week. For the last few hours he has been deleting tweets en masse, and now he has deleted his entire account, as citizen journalists probe what he has said
It's a cover up. It came from the lab. Enough
"Kristian G. Anderson in a January 31, 2020 email to Anthony Fauci:
“…Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
The hypocrisy of these people is simply stunning."
I don't think that we will ever know the origin, as there is no objective source of information that is credible to the world. Even when there is, it is hard to prove causation eg ebola, HIV or BSE. Some things are just unknowable.
Personally, I would like to see Chinese wet markets closed down. They are an offence against animals, and particularly against threatened species. If the Chinese were serious then they should do that.
Close the wet markets, AND prohibit "gain of function" research
I shan't bore PBers understandably obsessed with the recent polling in Bodmin West, and a possible shift of Mebyon Kernow to fifth place to fourth, BUT the latest news on Lab Leak suggest Anthony Fauci might go to jail
Why might he go to jail?
The evidence now is this:
1. Fauci funded gain of function research in Wuhan on bat coronaviruses (he admits this), he gave it directly to Daszak who has explicitly said Wuhan was manufacturing new, more virulent SARS-like viruses
2. Fauci did this without telling Trump (because Obama had banned it, as dangerous)
3. When the news of the virus broke, Fauci was told: in an email: this virus was very possibly engineered, in Wuhan (via "gain of function")
4. Fauci convened, over the next weekend, everyone he knew, to come out with a different story: it had to be natural zoonosis, not the lab (personally inverting the evidence of his scientists).
Now, it is possible Fauci believed this, but he had no new evidence to suddenly say this, other than his desire to get a different narrative "out there"
5. Fauci thereafter contradicted Trump, and Fauci said "lab leak" was clownish, even as the evidence of lab-leak remained, and then surged
6. Fauci in the last week suddenly changes his mind. Lab leak is possible
He PAID for the gain-of-function research, Fauci is culpable for Covid, and he knows it
Thanks, I'm too tired and lazy to go through the documents myself.
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
We do have
Using your own formula
Yes, but that's not an official calculation and it's still pretty crude as it includes all hospital patients rather than patients rated as severe by the NHS and doesn't take into account infection timeframes, only when they were admitted.
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Absolutely. I think that things are becoming very stretched. It is very difficult to introduce new tasks and general changes under the current situation, and that's not taking account of the difficulty of recruiting and integrating new staff. But on an individual level people don't care about that.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
I think if you look at the hospitalisation numbers for the young and the old separately, then you would see R > 1 for the young for severe Covid leading to hospitalisations, and R < 1 for the same for the old. This is purely a function of the vaccination coverage for the two age groups, based on the progress of the vaccination program down the age groups.
What this means is that we know that we can get R < 1 for the young age groups too, once the vaccination program completes. The question then is what size of bump you would expect to experience in the intervening period, and what you are willing to tolerate.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
We do have
Using your own formula
I'm not sure hospital admissions alone are a good indicator. It's been observed that admissions seem to be rising (slowly) but actual hospital numbers appear flat. Suggesting that a significant proportion of admissions are people presenting with mild symptoms and being turned around quickly.
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
On topic, I have a point of view 21st is now less about science, thanks largely to the vaccines, it’s now about managing the politics.
As Sandy and Alex implies, doing the right thing by science and going full English on Freedom can have people unhappy with government, water it down too much can leave others unhappy with government. Maintain masks and 2 metre rule indoors business won’t be happy, in fact many will be screwed, so it’s a question as we get closer if sage supports that one.
It’s got nothing to do with vaccines not working so 3rd wave as bad as first and second. The third wave, thanks largely to vaccines, ain’t going to be as horrific as that. But - politically it could get messy enough. The government poll well on are they managing pandemic well, and any lifting reapplying more lifting more reapplying will dent that, perhaps permanently, it’s politics of protecting those poll numbers from here, keeping it tidy and sense of in control, in which case “extending directive to work from home wherever possible reviewed again in one month” is a no brainier as low hanging fruit to protect poll ratings isn’t it?
In this new betting market the differential is working out the low hanging fruit.
This is a betting post. Bet on “extending directive to work from home wherever possible reviewed again in one month”
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
This is pretty significant, if you're following the Source of Covid story
One of the main virologists defending the "natural origins" thesis is K G Anderson
Weirdly enough, he mentioned a possible "engineered" aspect to the virus to Anthony Fauci, in a FOIA'd email back in January 2020. Four days later he was on board with natural zoonosis, 100%, with no obvious data interim to change his mind. Why?
Who knows. But ever since he has been furiously denouncing "lab leak" and presenting concepts for "wet market" - or whatever
Until this week. For the last few hours he has been deleting tweets en masse, and now he has deleted his entire account, as citizen journalists probe what he has said
It's a cover up. It came from the lab. Enough
"Kristian G. Anderson in a January 31, 2020 email to Anthony Fauci:
“…Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”
The hypocrisy of these people is simply stunning."
I don't think that we will ever know the origin, as there is no objective source of information that is credible to the world. Even when there is, it is hard to prove causation eg ebola, HIV or BSE. Some things are just unknowable.
Personally, I would like to see Chinese wet markets closed down. They are an offence against animals, and particularly against threatened species. If the Chinese were serious then they should do that.
Close the wet markets, AND prohibit "gain of function" research
I shan't bore PBers understandably obsessed with the recent polling in Bodmin West, and a possible shift of Mebyon Kernow to fifth place to fourth, BUT the latest news on Lab Leak suggest Anthony Fauci might go to jail
Why might he go to jail?
The evidence now is this:
1. Fauci funded gain of function research in Wuhan on bat coronaviruses (he admits this), he gave it directly to Daszak who has explicitly said Wuhan was manufacturing new, more virulent SARS-like viruses
2. Fauci did this without telling Trump (because Obama had banned it, as dangerous)
3. When the news of the virus broke, Fauci was told: in an email: this virus was very possibly engineered, in Wuhan (via "gain of function")
4. Fauci convened, over the next weekend, everyone he knew, to come out with a different story: it had to be natural zoonosis, not the lab (personally inverting the evidence of his scientists).
Now, it is possible Fauci believed this, but he had no new evidence to suddenly say this, other than his desire to get a different narrative "out there"
5. Fauci thereafter contradicted Trump, and Fauci said "lab leak" was clownish, even as the evidence of lab-leak remained, and then surged
6. Fauci in the last week suddenly changes his mind. Lab leak is possible
He PAID for the gain-of-function research, Fauci is culpable for Covid, and he knows it
Glad to see PB catching up with LS and related sites after 15 months of this utter shit-show. WHO/pharma corruption in the H1N1 outbreak was documented in a 2010 report, which was received but never acted on.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
30 Tory rebels now committed to vote with the opposition and against the government on overseas aid cuts and more have privately promised support, making a government defeat likely now
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
We do have
Using your own formula
I'm not sure hospital admissions alone are a good indicator. It's been observed that admissions seem to be rising (slowly) but actual hospital numbers appear flat. Suggesting that a significant proportion of admissions are people presenting with mild symptoms and being turned around quickly.
If admissions stay stable you would expect the numbers in hospital to continue to decline until they reach a new equilibrium, as the numbers in hospital would have been a result of the higher level of admissions before the decline in admissions stabilised. So I don't think that stable numbers in hospital mean that the increase in admissions is of less severe admissions, it's more a function of hospitalisations being an integration of admissions over a period of time, and so naturally lagging behind a change in direction.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Absolutely. I think that things are becoming very stretched. It is very difficult to introduce new tasks and general changes under the current situation, and that's not taking account of the difficulty of recruiting and integrating new staff. But on an individual level people don't care about that.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
It does depend on which public sector as well: I’m not expecting to teach from home again (though marking and preparation will still happen, but that is not a change).
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
You do know that many millions of people having been working on site throughout the pandemic ?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Passive training and other hive mind knowledge share has gone off the edge of a cliff. Anthropologists have been telling us for decades, solving each problem has its own narrative completely outside of instruction manuals and scripts, and those narratives are shared passively in coffee shops, diners and office space where people work together.
Now as we go towards more mixed and even full on remote, will managers be switched on to realise what is being lost and how to compensate for it?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
I guess the SAGE worst case modelling was so utterly worst case that even indie SAGE couldn't find a way of being more pessimistic.
I would like to see some medium to long term forecasts for what SARS-CoV-2 might do. I've not heard or read much about it, but there must be people thinking 5, 10, 20 years or more ahead. What does a really bad pandemic look like?
Something with a 10% mortality rate, that affects both the youngest and the oldest? That would be quite bad.
Something that, in broad terms, hits hardest those other than in God’s waiting room?
Something that hits both. And covid hasn't only hit those in God's waiting room.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
That’s fair enough. I’m fairly relaxed about Covid generally, but see where you are coming from. I’ve already been in a few times because I’m bored at home every day. As it is, my second jab is this week so I’ll be inoculated by 21 June in any case - realise that’s not the case for younger people.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
How come you got AZ? I thought the first dose programme for it had stopped almost completely. Then yes, you're in for at least 8 weeks.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
A mix is going to be the new normal for us. 2/3 or 3/2. Mind, that is what I was doing before Covid anyway, but many people were 5 days in the office so it will be a permanent change for them.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
You do know that many millions of people having been working on site throughout the pandemic ?
Yes, but I don't see why that is relevant to increasing my risk unnecessarily.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Yes. A friend of mine didn't receive her letter until five (5) hours after her stated appointment time.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Yes. A friend of mine didn't receive her letter until five (5) hours after her stated appointment time.
I don't understand why they don't just use texts and the same national booking system as England, Wales and NI. It just seems obtuse.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
A mix is going to be the new normal for us. 2/3 or 3/2. Mind, that is what I was doing before Covid anyway, but many people were 5 days in the office so it will be a permanent change for them.
There are interesting tangential questions about WFH. I'm now going into the office most days in part because my work environment is causing problems for my lower back. I want an office chair with good size screens at an office desk etc. I haven't got any of that at home, and there's no way i'm going to accept destroying my living room in my flat my importing them.
So if i'm forced to work from home, then they've got a problem with potential workplace related injury claims.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Absolutely. I think that things are becoming very stretched. It is very difficult to introduce new tasks and general changes under the current situation, and that's not taking account of the difficulty of recruiting and integrating new staff. But on an individual level people don't care about that.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
In my industry a lot of companies are quite happy to let professional staff work from home - they they know what they are doing; it is obvious how well or not they are performing by their outputs, and the job has always involved a lot of travelling around, so working remotely is not that unusual.
I think it is different where people are employed in an administrative/customer service capacity. I would want them in the office I think.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
How come you got AZ? I thought the first dose programme for it had stopped almost completely. Then yes, you're in for at least 8 weeks.
I guess someone has to be the last to receive an AZ first dose. I just hope that it wasn't someone too much longer after me. The vaccination program in Scotland does seem to have been a bit less well organised in general, which has been a bit annoying, but won't make a huge difference by the end of the process.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
I find your comment about the "chocolate teapot class" disgusting.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate, which is always a good thing.
If you have the useless drone types - well, even the keener chaps in Papua New Guinea have standards.....
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Absolutely. I think that things are becoming very stretched. It is very difficult to introduce new tasks and general changes under the current situation, and that's not taking account of the difficulty of recruiting and integrating new staff. But on an individual level people don't care about that.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
In my industry a lot of companies are quite happy to let professional staff work from home - they they know what they are doing; it is obvious how well or not they are performing by their outputs, and the job has always involved a lot of travelling around, so working remotely is not that unusual.
I think it is different where people are employed in an administrative/customer service capacity. I would want them in the office I think.
In finance - the traders and sales are in, already. No-one trusts them an inch.....
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Yes, i've said before that i think this is what is driving significant levels of support for extending restrictions. Many people see ending restrictions as resulting in a significant deterioration in their quality of life. Nothing to do with Covid.
As an employer, WFH has led to, let’s be charitable, mixed performance levels. The motivated continue to perform, others less so. HR behaves as you would expect for the spiritual home of the chocolate teapot class.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Absolutely. I think that things are becoming very stretched. It is very difficult to introduce new tasks and general changes under the current situation, and that's not taking account of the difficulty of recruiting and integrating new staff. But on an individual level people don't care about that.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
In my industry a lot of companies are quite happy to let professional staff work from home - they they know what they are doing; it is obvious how well or not they are performing by their outputs, and the job has always involved a lot of travelling around, so working remotely is not that unusual.
I think it is different where people are employed in an administrative/customer service capacity. I would want them in the office I think.
In finance - the traders and sales are in, already. No-one trusts them an inch.....
And i do wonder about the extent to which home-working might have made fraud a lot easier over the last year...
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
We do have
Using your own formula
I'm not sure hospital admissions alone are a good indicator. It's been observed that admissions seem to be rising (slowly) but actual hospital numbers appear flat. Suggesting that a significant proportion of admissions are people presenting with mild symptoms and being turned around quickly.
So an R calculation based on the increase/decrease of hospital numbers?
NYT ($) Yellen Won a Global Tax Deal. Now Comes the Hard Part. The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
That seems mad. The system here is so simple. Get a text, go to the booking system, enter your NHS number and then book the most convenient appointment location and time available.
NYT ($) Yellen Won a Global Tax Deal. Now Comes the Hard Part. The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
Pretty certain Sunak qualifies within the category of "G7 finance ministers..."
NYT ($) Yellen Won a Global Tax Deal. Now Comes the Hard Part. The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
The NYT has a certain reputation when it comes to stories involving the UK.
NYT ($) Yellen Won a Global Tax Deal. Now Comes the Hard Part. The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
The NYT has a certain reputation when it comes to stories involving the UK.
So the Times, Guardian & etc. all gave mention to Janet Yellen and her role?:
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
That seems mad. The system here is so simple. Get a text, go to the booking system, enter your NHS number and then book the most convenient appointment location and time available.
Normally when I disagree with someone, or something, I can at least see the chain of logic they have followed and the reasons that they have, even though I disagree with the relative importance that they've placed on different factors for making their choice. But I simply cannot explain what the supposed advantages of the Scottish system are, and have heard many stories of the problems it has caused.
NYT ($) Yellen Won a Global Tax Deal. Now Comes the Hard Part. The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
Pretty certain Sunak qualifies within the category of "G7 finance ministers..."
According to story, he & etc. were persuadees NOT persuaders.
Anyway, according to British press he was surely the key player?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
That seems mad. The system here is so simple. Get a text, go to the booking system, enter your NHS number and then book the most convenient appointment location and time available.
Normally when I disagree with someone, or something, I can at least see the chain of logic they have followed and the reasons that they have, even though I disagree with the relative importance that they've placed on different factors for making their choice. But I simply cannot explain what the supposed advantages of the Scottish system are, and have heard many stories of the problems it has caused.
I thought the advantage was that it allowed them to send out blue envelopes?
My point re: Yellen, Sunak and internet tax agreement is not who should be credited, but instead tendency of national media to focus on their own nationals.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
So let me get this straight, under-30s can make electronic appointments but over-40s must await a letter through the post? Are you sure? That seems like an utterly bonkers system.
My point re: Yellen, Sunak and internet tax agreement is not who should be credited, but instead tendency of national media to focus on their own nationals.
I think British media tended to focus on (elements of the) EU opposition/scepticism.
My point re: Yellen, Sunak and internet tax agreement is not who should be credited, but instead tendency of national media to focus on their own nationals.
I think British media tended to focus on (elements of the) EU opposition/scepticism.
Focus on PB appeared to be attacking Ireland, apparently on general PB principles.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
That seems mad. The system here is so simple. Get a text, go to the booking system, enter your NHS number and then book the most convenient appointment location and time available.
Normally when I disagree with someone, or something, I can at least see the chain of logic they have followed and the reasons that they have, even though I disagree with the relative importance that they've placed on different factors for making their choice. But I simply cannot explain what the supposed advantages of the Scottish system are, and have heard many stories of the problems it has caused.
I thought the advantage was that it allowed them to send out blue envelopes?
Or has that finished now?
Yes, they're still blue envelopes. There's a code on the corner of the envelope "blue Cov". Maybe some special people receive the envelopes in different colours?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
That seems mad. The system here is so simple. Get a text, go to the booking system, enter your NHS number and then book the most convenient appointment location and time available.
Normally when I disagree with someone, or something, I can at least see the chain of logic they have followed and the reasons that they have, even though I disagree with the relative importance that they've placed on different factors for making their choice. But I simply cannot explain what the supposed advantages of the Scottish system are, and have heard many stories of the problems it has caused.
I thought the advantage was that it allowed them to send out blue envelopes?
Or has that finished now?
Yes, they're still blue envelopes. There's a code on the corner of the envelope "blue Cov". Maybe some special people receive the envelopes in different colours?
That must annoy the Celtic fans.
It does seem a particularly contrived way to go about things. You wouldn't have thought it would survive any sort of review.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
So let me get this straight, under-30s can make electronic appointments but over-40s must await a letter through the post? Are you sure? That seems like an utterly bonkers system.
What matters is what works, not what makes sense. Presumably Scotland are blazing a trail or they might have asked to buy in to the Eng/Wal/Ni system?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
So let me get this straight, under-30s can make electronic appointments but over-40s must await a letter through the post? Are you sure? That seems like an utterly bonkers system.
Was the distinction due (at least originally) to fact that some older folks do NOT have emails, whereas only a tiny faction of younger folks are in that boat?
Certainly would make sense - at this stage if not before - to allow older people to schedule via the internet.
BTW, when I got my jabs (Feb & March) the invites were NOT from any government agency (though state of WA set the conditions for who was eligible) but rather from my health provider.
Who sent me email telling me I was eligible, with link to their website so I could schedule a time and place.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
You do know that many millions of people having been working on site throughout the pandemic ?
Yes, but I don't see why that is relevant to increasing my risk unnecessarily.
That's between you and your employer.
But if they think you going back to the office is beneficial then by definition and increase in risk would be necessary.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Surely you can just go online and book an appointment?
No, not at all. You have to wait to receive your appointment - though under-30s are on a separate system where they have to register first, and then they receive their appointment by text/email rather than by post. If you can't make your allocated appointment then I think you're allowed to phone up to change it, but I don't know how easy that is to do.
So let me get this straight, under-30s can make electronic appointments but over-40s must await a letter through the post? Are you sure? That seems like an utterly bonkers system.
The under-30s don't make their appointments. They still receive the appointment time that they're given. It's just they'll receive them digitally if they register (but they'll still receive an appointment in the post if they don't register).
It is a bit bonkers, and posters might remember that DavidL of this parish didn't receive his blue envelope, and so was quite late for his age group in receiving his vaccination, because he had to submit some online form about missing his blue envelope.
I mentioned one of my friends who received an appointment in the past. Another friend of mine received an appointment out at the vaccination centre at the airport, which they couldn't get to because they don't have a car, and it was at the wrong time for them to get there by bus and pick up their toddler from nursery. So they had to rearrange it to a different centre, which meant not having an appointment until three weeks later.
If they'd been able to choose their appointment time and place originally it would have been better.
On topic - I think what needs to change is the measurement of R needs to be broken out into regular COVID with or without symptoms (the ONS weekly report) and severe COVID which can be calculated based on hospitalisation data traced back to infection timeframes. The latter measure would be looking into a three to four week retroscope vs one or two weeks for the ONS report. The R value of severe COVID is what lockdown decisions are based on because a high value there and exponential growth will result in hospitals being overrun. We're now three weeks into indoor socialising and 6 weeks into the outbreak of the Delta variant. If the R rate of severe COVID had been over 1 for any serious length of time we'd have already seen it.
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
We do have
Using your own formula
Yes, but that's not an official calculation and it's still pretty crude as it includes all hospital patients rather than patients rated as severe by the NHS and doesn't take into account infection timeframes, only when they were admitted.
It needs an official measure.
That there's increasing numbers of people getting hospitalised for less serious cases than otherwise, for not as long, not ending in ICU or dying seems clear.
An R for number of people in hospital, rather than hospitalisations, seems like a better R which accounts for discharges as well as hospitalisations.
On the day that the India variant was announced by Boris as being concerning in the UK there were from memory 972 people in hospital. That's now changed to ... 932 people.
People in hospital isn't increasing exponentially.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
I'd be shocked if second doses weren't all done by the middle to end of July. Whatever placeholder date you've currently got will definitely be brought forwards otherwise we'll have doses sitting in fridges.
Well, I'm in Scotland, so I don't have a placeholder date, I have to wait for another blue envelope, but they told my wife on Saturday to expect to wait 12 weeks for dose two, so we'll see.
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
Scotland are calling people for vaccinations through the post???
Yes. A friend of mine didn't receive her letter until five (5) hours after her stated appointment time.
I don't understand why they don't just use texts and the same national booking system as England, Wales and NI. It just seems obtuse.
Perhaps because that would mean using the same system as England.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
They report plenty of the UK, more than I imagine their readers care about, but mainly because until recently the too man was British ex-BBC top bod. But their take on lots of things is massively anchored by Boris = Trump, Trump is bad plus Brexit is mad, therefore it all must be a shit show.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
You do know that many millions of people having been working on site throughout the pandemic ?
Yes, but I don't see why that is relevant to increasing my risk unnecessarily.
That's between you and your employer.
But if they think you going back to the office is beneficial then by definition and increase in risk would be necessary.
Sometimes employers have strange ideas of what is necessary. I had one client project I worked on where they had me travel down from Edinburgh to London, even while the subject matter expert I was supposed to be working with was working from home around the corner from the office. Unsurprisingly, I do not always trust the judgement of such people when it comes to balancing what is necessary against the potential risk to my health.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
I’m not sure the implication is that they are Anglophobic...
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Presumably this is why the highest US TV ratings for any non-sports show were for the interview with a couple of obscure minor members of the British royal family.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Presumably this is why the highest US TV ratings for any non-sports show were for the interview with a couple of obscure minor members of the British royal family.
Royal family is one of the few British topics that does get plenty of coverage in US media.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
They report plenty of the UK, more than I imagine their readers care about, but mainly because until recently the too man was British ex-BBC top bod. But their take on lots of things is massively anchored by Boris = Trump, Trump is bad plus Brexit is mad, therefore it all must be a shit show.
NYT reporting more of UK & other foreign news to US has been a thing for a LONG time, most certainly pre-dating the former Beeb guy.
As for Brexit, that is WAY more a Brit fixation than an American one. Similar to notion that Joe Biden's first thought upon waking each morning MUST be, "How's dear old Ireland and how does she stand?"
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
On topic, Labour says it could support the government if it keeps some restrictions beyond June 21st.
Leaving the way clear for ReformUK to be the only main party committed to keeping June 21st as 'Freedom Day' if Boris retains some restrictions beyond that date
What on earth is wrong with the Labour Party? Boris and Co keep leaving the goal open with the ball gently rolling unattended past the penalty spot, so up rushes KS and gracefully boots it hard into the stand somewhere near the corner. Again and again.
The government has squandered almost all of the lead the vaccines gave us - cheered on by the fools in the Labour Party. If they took a stance that we should unlock faster, they might actually have found a popular cause that's worth getting excited about, and also finally manage hold the government to account on something. Instead they are taking about wallpaper and wondering why their poll ratings are slightly further underwater the Titanic. Morons the lot of them.
There'll be a significant proportion of the population with their fingers crossed hoping that the government extends the advice to WFH where possible.
Interestingly though the proportion of people who want to WFH permanently is in a minority and has actually fallen since the pandemic began, at least according to the surveys I have seen. Most people favour a mix.
I favour a mix, but I also favour not being asked to go back to the office until two weeks after my second dose - which could mean working from home until the start of September.
You do know that many millions of people having been working on site throughout the pandemic ?
Yes, but I don't see why that is relevant to increasing my risk unnecessarily.
That's between you and your employer.
But if they think you going back to the office is beneficial then by definition and increase in risk would be necessary.
Sometimes employers have strange ideas of what is necessary. I had one client project I worked on where they had me travel down from Edinburgh to London, even while the subject matter expert I was supposed to be working with was working from home around the corner from the office. Unsurprisingly, I do not always trust the judgement of such people when it comes to balancing what is necessary against the potential risk to my health.
Certainly though sometimes employees have strange ideas about what is necessary which can be influenced by what they find most convenient.
Now, and speaking only from my own experience and which will certainly not apply to everyone else, I've yet to deal with anyone who has worked from home better than they did when at their office.
Of course a lowering of employee output might be acceptable to their employer if it is matched by lower costs or a happier worker being less likely to leave.
But when the pendulum swings back to the employer, as it certainly will one day, things may change.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
They report plenty of the UK, more than I imagine their readers care about, but mainly because until recently the too man was British ex-BBC top bod. But their take on lots of things is massively anchored by Boris = Trump, Trump is bad plus Brexit is mad, therefore it all must be a shit show.
NYT reporting more of UK & other foreign news to US has been a thing for a LONG time, most certainly pre-dating the former Beeb guy.
As for Brexit, that is WAY more a Brit fixation than an American one. Similar to notion that Joe Biden's first thought upon waking each morning MUST be, "How's dear old Ireland and how does she stand?"
I think the issue with the NYT Is not so much that it is reporting the UK but how it is doing so. Everything shaped by a perspective of Boris Bad, Brexit Bad etc.
On topic, Labour says it could support the government if it keeps some restrictions beyond June 21st.
Leaving the way clear for ReformUK to be the only main party committed to keeping June 21st as 'Freedom Day' if Boris retains some restrictions beyond that date
What on earth is wrong with the Labour Party? Boris and Co keep leaving the goal open with the ball gently rolling unattended past the penalty spot, so up rushes KS and gracefully boots it hard into the stand somewhere near the corner. Again and again.
The government has squandered almost all of the lead the vaccines gave us - cheered on by the fools in the Labour Party. If they took a stance that we should unlock faster, they might actually have found a popular cause that's worth getting excited about, and also finally manage hold the government to account on something. Instead they are taking about wallpaper and wondering why their poll ratings are slightly further underwater the Titanic. Morons the lot of them.
Today Labour were wibbling about vaccinating 12 year olds....which nobody thinks is a priority at the moment...its like England in penalty shoot outs.... up steps Southgate.....woosh.
Naomi Osaka has inevitably been dragged into Roger Federer's shock decision to withdraw from Roland Garros, with many slamming the French Open's response to both situations.
Federer stunned the tennis world on Sunday when he pulled out of the French Open a day after winning a tough third-round match that finished close to 1am.
The 39-year-old didn't specify that he was injured, simply saying he was opting to save himself for the grass-court season and what would be a fairytale 21st grand slam title at Wimbledon.
"After two knee operations and more than a year of rehabilitation, it's important that I listen to my body and not rush back into competition," he said.
Federer's decision has sparked some backlash in the tennis world, mostly around the fact that he denied third-round opponent Dominik Koepfer a place in the fourth-round and a bigger payday.
However French Open officials were full of praise when reacting to Federer's withdrawal, despite it seemingly being against the spirit of the sport.
"The Roland Garros tournament is sorry about the withdrawal of Roger Federer, who put up an incredible fight last night," said Guy Forget, the tournament director.
"We were all delighted to see Roger back in Paris, where he played three high-level matches. We wish him all the best for the rest of the season."
Forget's response was in complete contrast to the way he and other French Open officials responded to Osaka's decision to skip her press conferences in Paris due to mental health reasons. . . . .
Fans and pundits were quick to point out the disparity between responses to the situations involving Osaka and Federer, while retired American player Mardy Fish said the French Open only had themselves to blame for both. . . .
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Right... says the person responsible for 90% of the uses of the word 'Putinist' on this site, almost always in relation to Boris...
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Right... says the person responsible for 90% of the uses of the word 'Putinist' on this site, almost always in relation to Boris...
Another reflection of your myopia, as I use the word Putinist to describe Putinist behavior FAR more about American Putinists than about your own Trumpy Bear Boris.
You just don't notice due to your own True Blue blinders.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Boris could single handedly vaccinate the whole developing world and the NYT would only credit the pilot that flew him around.
Being a pretty regular reader of NYT have thought - and still do think -that their alleged rampant Anglophobia is a myth - a symptom of of neo-Little Englander angst.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Douglas Murray nails the Gray Grey Lady quite well here:
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
No, I do NOT recognize myself.
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
Right... says the person responsible for 90% of the uses of the word 'Putinist' on this site, almost always in relation to Boris...
Another reflection of your myopia, as I use the word Putinist to describe Putinist behavior FAR more about American Putinists than about your own Trumpy Bear Boris.
You just don't notice due to your own True Blue blinders.
Hmm... from the first page of the search results:
I have maintained for some time that Boris Johnson is a Putinist, and that his goverment is a Putinist government.
Re: martial bliss (or otherwise) he's now in same hat-trick league as his Putinist doppelganger POTUS 45.
My guess is, because BJ is a Putinist, just like DT only (just slightly) less crass about it.
It's the NYT's simpleton mindset reflected perfectly in its loyal readers...
Good morning; one awake here. Just. Excellent family day yesterday. Elder son obviously well thought of by his now ex-colleagues; we obviously did something right but can't recall thinking about it.
I stopped smoking on my 60th. Apart from marrying both my current and late wives, it is the best thing I have ever done. It would have been better not to have started...but there we are. The odd person gets away with smoking ,but for the vast majority it causes untold medical problems and in the end kills them long before their time.
I stopped smoking on my 60th. Apart from marrying both my current and late wives, it is the best thing I have ever done. It would have been better not to have started...but there we are. The odd person gets away with smoking ,but for the vast majority it causes untold medical problems and in the end kills them long before their time.
EVER so many years ago it was suggested to me that not smoking before 11 am would make it easier to give up if I ever wanted to. There were, at the time, just beginning to be suggestions that it was very bad for one. I took the advice, and, a few years later first of all reduced, then stopped happily. That advice was 63 years ago, when I was a student.
Comments
What's interesting to me is what is driving 'the long flow'?
But I do think some of these dudes are going down. This is too big to hide, but they tried to hide it, and they failed
What we've got is an increase in cases of mild and asymptomatic COVID. Among the unvaccinated young abd vaccinated old. That is an end state and we can live with that over the long term. With the continued rollout of the vaccine scheme (43-46 days until it's complete) those cases in the unvaccinated young go away too and we get a huge cumulative reduction in spread. The chances of the R for severe disease rising to a level that causes hospitals to be overloaded go down from under 5% to actually zero at that point.
There will be a reckoning, however much people want to believe otherwise,
Using your own formula
It needs an official measure.
I suspect in the private sector any continuation of present guidance will be irrelevant. If private sector bosses don't believe that the workforce is operating effectively under current arrangements then they are duty bound to change it - and can over-rule individual protestations about how "effectively" they are working.
Public sector - not so sure. I think there are greater pressures on managers to keep people WFH, and much harder to countermand Government guidance.
2 days before my second jab...
What this means is that we know that we can get R < 1 for the young age groups too, once the vaccination program completes. The question then is what size of bump you would expect to experience in the intervening period, and what you are willing to tolerate.
As Sandy and Alex implies, doing the right thing by science and going full English on Freedom can have people unhappy with government, water it down too much can leave others unhappy with government. Maintain masks and 2 metre rule indoors business won’t be happy, in fact many will be screwed, so it’s a question as we get closer if sage supports that one.
It’s got nothing to do with vaccines not working so 3rd wave as bad as first and second. The third wave, thanks largely to vaccines, ain’t going to be as horrific as that. But - politically it could get messy enough. The government poll well on are they managing pandemic well, and any lifting reapplying more lifting more reapplying will dent that, perhaps permanently, it’s politics of protecting those poll numbers from here, keeping it tidy and sense of in control, in which case “extending directive to work from home wherever possible reviewed again in one month” is a no brainier as low hanging fruit to protect poll ratings isn’t it?
In this new betting market the differential is working out the low hanging fruit.
This is a betting post. Bet on “extending directive to work from home wherever possible reviewed again in one month”
Latest twist ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/virologist-who-told-fauci-sars-cov-2-potentially-engineered-just-deleted-5000-tweets
I'm going to Edgbaston next week. Hopefully the play will be slightly more positive than it was today.
It's high time we had a national debate on this.
Now as we go towards more mixed and even full on remote, will managers be switched on to realise what is being lost and how to compensate for it?
Since my first dose was AZ, I think the earliest I could have my second dose for it to be fully effective would be towards the end of July. 8 weeks as a minimum?
The point being that there will be plenty of people wanting an extension to the WFH guidance beyond June 21st who don't want that to be the permanent state of affairs.
So if i'm forced to work from home, then they've got a problem with potential workplace related injury claims.
I think it is different where people are employed in an administrative/customer service capacity. I would want them in the office I think.
If you have a chocolate teapot, you have chocolate, which is always a good thing.
If you have the useless drone types - well, even the keener chaps in Papua New Guinea have standards.....
The Treasury secretary worked with finance ministers from the G7 to win support for a global minimum tax. But selling the idea to Republican lawmakers will not be easy.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen secured a landmark international tax agreement over the weekend, one that has eluded the United States for nearly a decade. But with a narrowly divided Congress and resistance from Republicans and business groups mounting, closing the deal at home may be an even bigger challenge.
The Biden administration is counting on more than $3 trillion in tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay for its ambitious jobs and infrastructure proposals. Republicans have expressed opposition to any rise in taxes and have warned that President Biden’s big spending plans are fueling inflation and will deter business investment. Business groups have complained that higher taxes pose a threat to the economic recovery and will put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Persuading members of the Group of 7 advanced economies to agree on Saturday to a global minimum tax of at least 15 percent was intended to help the Biden administration win support for its U.S. tax increases. If enacted, the global minimum tax would require that companies pay at least a 15 percent tax on income, regardless of where they are based, making it less advantageous to relocate operations to countries with lower tax rates. . . .
SSI2- Strange, zero mention of Rushi Sunak in this story. Did Janice Yellen get much (or any) mention in UK stories about the deal?
Not saying that UK CoE was NOT an important player. Just maybe NOT as important as some on PB were saying? OR is this NYT story just Americans taking credit where it's not due?
Anyway, according to British press he was surely the key player?
Or has that finished now?
It does seem a particularly contrived way to go about things. You wouldn't have thought it would survive any sort of review.
Certainly would make sense - at this stage if not before - to allow older people to schedule via the internet.
BTW, when I got my jabs (Feb & March) the invites were NOT from any government agency (though state of WA set the conditions for who was eligible) but rather from my health provider.
Who sent me email telling me I was eligible, with link to their website so I could schedule a time and place.
But if they think you going back to the office is beneficial then by definition and increase in risk would be necessary.
It is a bit bonkers, and posters might remember that DavidL of this parish didn't receive his blue envelope, and so was quite late for his age group in receiving his vaccination, because he had to submit some online form about missing his blue envelope.
I mentioned one of my friends who received an appointment in the past. Another friend of mine received an appointment out at the vaccination centre at the airport, which they couldn't get to because they don't have a car, and it was at the wrong time for them to get there by bus and pick up their toddler from nursery. So they had to rearrange it to a different centre, which meant not having an appointment until three weeks later.
If they'd been able to choose their appointment time and place originally it would have been better.
An R for number of people in hospital, rather than hospitalisations, seems like a better R which accounts for discharges as well as hospitalisations.
On the day that the India variant was announced by Boris as being concerning in the UK there were from memory 972 people in hospital. That's now changed to ... 932 people.
People in hospital isn't increasing exponentially.
For one thing, they actually report on the doings of your obscure off-shore island, which is more that 99.46% of the rest of US media. Indeed, they have the general reputation on THIS side of the Atlantic (and the Pacific) of being Brit-lovers!
Exception that proves the rule.
As for Brexit, that is WAY more a Brit fixation than an American one. Similar to notion that Joe Biden's first thought upon waking each morning MUST be, "How's dear old Ireland and how does she stand?"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/coronavirus-gives-the-new-york-times-another-excuse-to-bash-britain
Recognize yourself?
The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.
The government has squandered almost all of the lead the vaccines gave us - cheered on by the fools in the Labour Party. If they took a stance that we should unlock faster, they might actually have found a popular cause that's worth getting excited about, and also finally manage hold the government to account on something. Instead they are taking about wallpaper and wondering why their poll ratings are slightly further underwater the Titanic. Morons the lot of them.
Now, and speaking only from my own experience and which will certainly not apply to everyone else, I've yet to deal with anyone who has worked from home better than they did when at their office.
Of course a lowering of employee output might be acceptable to their employer if it is matched by lower costs or a happier worker being less likely to leave.
But when the pendulum swings back to the employer, as it certainly will one day, things may change.
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/french-open-2021-naomi-osaka-twist-roger-federer-withdrawal-225909962.html
Naomi Osaka has inevitably been dragged into Roger Federer's shock decision to withdraw from Roland Garros, with many slamming the French Open's response to both situations.
Federer stunned the tennis world on Sunday when he pulled out of the French Open a day after winning a tough third-round match that finished close to 1am.
The 39-year-old didn't specify that he was injured, simply saying he was opting to save himself for the grass-court season and what would be a fairytale 21st grand slam title at Wimbledon.
"After two knee operations and more than a year of rehabilitation, it's important that I listen to my body and not rush back into competition," he said.
Federer's decision has sparked some backlash in the tennis world, mostly around the fact that he denied third-round opponent Dominik Koepfer a place in the fourth-round and a bigger payday.
However French Open officials were full of praise when reacting to Federer's withdrawal, despite it seemingly being against the spirit of the sport.
"The Roland Garros tournament is sorry about the withdrawal of Roger Federer, who put up an incredible fight last night," said Guy Forget, the tournament director.
"We were all delighted to see Roger back in Paris, where he played three high-level matches. We wish him all the best for the rest of the season."
Forget's response was in complete contrast to the way he and other French Open officials responded to Osaka's decision to skip her press conferences in Paris due to mental health reasons. . . . .
Fans and pundits were quick to point out the disparity between responses to the situations involving Osaka and Federer, while retired American player Mardy Fish said the French Open only had themselves to blame for both. . . .
What I am seeing, is Tory angst at ANY critique of Brexit or the Blessed Boris. Along with a strong dose of old-fashioned Brit condescension. Which is a hearty perennial, not the least here on PB.
"Britain needs a cigarette
The English want to ban smoking — I'll take my chances"
https://unherd.com/2021/06/britain-needs-a-cigarette/
You just don't notice due to your own True Blue blinders.
I have maintained for some time that Boris Johnson is a Putinist, and that his goverment is a Putinist government.
Re: martial bliss (or otherwise) he's now in same hat-trick league as his Putinist doppelganger POTUS 45.
My guess is, because BJ is a Putinist, just like DT only (just slightly) less crass about it.
It's the NYT's simpleton mindset reflected perfectly in its loyal readers...
I took the advice, and, a few years later first of all reduced, then stopped happily.
That advice was 63 years ago, when I was a student.