We need to be realistic. No foreign travel before 2022 maybe 2023 unless absolutely essential.
I agree that the priority has to be opening up the UK before opening up foreign travel. But people who've been fully vaccinated ought to be able to travel pretty soon as long as there aren't any dangerous new variants in other countries.
Israel reopened to vaccinated tourists who came as part of tour groups back in May. They are now expanding it to all who are vaccinated plus younger children.
This is with no quarantine: it is simply vaccination status plus single negative Covid test.
Israel had... ummm... 16 Covid cases yesterday.
If Israel is able to open their borders to the vaccinated (and including and encouraging tourists at that) without seeing any impact on case numbers, then the question has to be, why is the UK being so cautious?
You want to know what the irony is ?
If the airlines and airports (and those who have used them) hadn't done everything they could to ignore restrictions then they'd have a lot less restrictions on them now.
While that's true, the sins of the airline industry should not be vested on the performing arts one.
Stuff happens.
You know what ?
Sometimes the world isn't fair.
And instead you have to make the best of a bad deal.
Which is why the endless "I want a foreign holiday" whine needs to be converted into people spending some money in this countries hotels and restaurants and theatres.
I'm not arguing that we should be encouraging Brits to go on holiday to Italy or the Costa del Sol (although the reality is that the risk for the double vaccinated is close to zero, and we want to incentivize people to get vaccinated).
I'm arguing that discouraging vaccinated tourists from visiting the UK is a self defeating strategy that has no long term positive consequences.
How does removing a country's TV drama output increase diversity?
It doesn't.
And not only that, but the story is utter tosh. The Telegraph either (a) should know better, or (b) is being deliberately misleading because its customer base laps it up.
Under moronic EU rules, streaming services could be required to have 25% of catalogs made in the EU. Therefore, under one circumstance, Netflix might decide to get rid of The Crown.
But they wouldn't, because they're not morons. And because they paid about £140m for four seasons of the Crown.
Instead, all they need to do is to have a massive amount of old EU made content sitting (unwatched) in their catalogs. Costs to Netflix or Amazon? Almost nothing. Frankly, they could find EU based YouTubers, and put them n the platform, and therefore fulfil their requirements. It's a typically stupid EU regulation.
But it's also one that has essentially zero real world consequences. One junior employee at Netflix (who will also have about a dozen other responsibilities) will have the job of making sure that all five seasons of Le Grand Raid Le Cap Terre de Feu will be on the channel, as will the TWELVE THOUSAND episodes of Des chiffres et des lettres.
I thought it was content made in "Europe", which the UK is part of, and not the EU?
We need to be realistic. No foreign travel before 2022 maybe 2023 unless absolutely essential.
Absurd
That means the end of the UK foreign travel industry forever. No way they can sustain complete shutdown over several years. It means the loss of millions of jobs and maybe 5-10% GDP. Close Gatwick and Stansted, and so on
If it is reciprocated - and no foreign tourists come here, either - it means the death of central London (likewise Edinburgh, Bath, Cambridge, etc etc etc) and another 5% off GDP. It means a huge Depression
Zero Covidians like you are worse than the disease itself
What utter bollocks. If nobody travelled abroad for two more years foreign travel would still pick up again as soon as restrictions lifted.
Foreign tourists in our cities will be replaced by UK-based tourists.
The only reason domestic lockdown easing has been delayed is because foreign travel restrictions were far too lax.
You and Philip do not understand basic economics. If you subtract a huge amount of economic activity, then the economy will shrink. That's it. London theatres will not suddenly turn into year-long pantos pleasing visitors from Southend and Sunderland
"Britain will have a tourism industry worth over £257 billion by 2025 – just under 10% of UK GDP and supporting almost 3.8 million jobs, which is around 11% of the total UK number.
"Tourism’s impact is amplified through the economy, so its impact is much wider than just the direct spending levels. Deloitte estimates the tourism GVA multiplier to be 2.8 – meaning that for every £1,000 generated in direct tourism GVA there is a further £1,800 that is supported elsewhere in the economy through the supply chain and consumer spending.
"Inbound tourism will continue to be the fastest growing tourism sector – with spend by international visitors forecast to grow by over 6% a year in comparison with domestic spending by UK residents at just over 3%. The value of inbound tourism is forecast to grow from over £21bn in 2013 to £57bn by 2025, with the UK seeing an international tourism balance of payments surplus in 2023, almost forty years since the UK last reported a surplus."
Apart from the insult that non-London UK tourists are less sophisticated, it is simply untrue that home tourists do not patronise London theatres. And an expanded home market will flood into London.
God I hate agreeing with @Leon, but yes, sure, of course some more people from outside London will come to London to watch the theatre.
This is very ordinary supply-demand economics. If you reduce the demand (fewer tourists from abroad), then theatres will react by cutting prices to get people in from outside London. But the market will clear at a much lower volume.
People come to London from all over the world specifically for the theatre and the musicals.
This is not a step function, this is a curve. And if you take tourists away, there will be less demand for the UK's performing arts product.
So a wealth transfer from the restaurant and theatre owners of London to British people who want to go to London's restaurants and theatres.
And the opposite side of the coin is allowing outward tourism will be detrimental for much of the UK tourist industry.
That's not what I'm saying.
Imagine demand for performing arts in the UK today is 100 (and - of course - let's not forget that many theatrical performances tour, so it's not really like Norwich doesn't get its fair sure of decent performances).
Of that 100, say 60 is foreign tourists.
If they go away, then overall demand would drop - absent price changes - to 40. Of course, theatres will react with price reductions: actors will accept less, etc. And maybe total UK demand increases by 50%.
In this circumstance, we're still talking about UK performing arts having overall revenue now of 60. That's down 40%.
That's not a wealth transfer from London to the provinces, that's an absolute reduction in demand.
The world also doesn't stay still. Some of those performances might go to New York or to Dublin. Somewhere else might become the centre where new plays and musicals are performed. In which case, you will have British tourists in 2024 travelling abroad to see them, not staying in the UK.
You're forgetting about the substitution effect.
Britons spend more abroad than vice-versa. Its not just a case of discounted tickets, but in the event that the border were closed (but the economy were fully open) then a lot of destinations people are used to travelling to will be closed off - but the theatres etc would be open.
How many people will think "instead of going to Madrid this year, lets go to London and see a show"? It won't be zero which is what you've assigned it in your base calculations.
(EDIT: I wish to re-emphasise that I do not want to see this happen, but if it did [and we're likely too late for it to be meaningful anyway] then it wouldn't be an economic catastrophe)
We need to be realistic. No foreign travel before 2022 maybe 2023 unless absolutely essential.
Absurd
That means the end of the UK foreign travel industry forever. No way they can sustain complete shutdown over several years. It means the loss of millions of jobs and maybe 5-10% GDP. Close Gatwick and Stansted, and so on
If it is reciprocated - and no foreign tourists come here, either - it means the death of central London (likewise Edinburgh, Bath, Cambridge, etc etc etc) and another 5% off GDP. It means a huge Depression
Zero Covidians like you are worse than the disease itself
What utter bollocks. If nobody travelled abroad for two more years foreign travel would still pick up again as soon as restrictions lifted.
Foreign tourists in our cities will be replaced by UK-based tourists.
The only reason domestic lockdown easing has been delayed is because foreign travel restrictions were far too lax.
You and Philip do not understand basic economics. If you subtract a huge amount of economic activity, then the economy will shrink. That's it. London theatres will not suddenly turn into year-long pantos pleasing visitors from Southend and Sunderland
"Britain will have a tourism industry worth over £257 billion by 2025 – just under 10% of UK GDP and supporting almost 3.8 million jobs, which is around 11% of the total UK number.
"Tourism’s impact is amplified through the economy, so its impact is much wider than just the direct spending levels. Deloitte estimates the tourism GVA multiplier to be 2.8 – meaning that for every £1,000 generated in direct tourism GVA there is a further £1,800 that is supported elsewhere in the economy through the supply chain and consumer spending.
"Inbound tourism will continue to be the fastest growing tourism sector – with spend by international visitors forecast to grow by over 6% a year in comparison with domestic spending by UK residents at just over 3%. The value of inbound tourism is forecast to grow from over £21bn in 2013 to £57bn by 2025, with the UK seeing an international tourism balance of payments surplus in 2023, almost forty years since the UK last reported a surplus."
Apart from the insult that non-London UK tourists are less sophisticated, it is simply untrue that home tourists do not patronise London theatres. And an expanded home market will flood into London.
God I hate agreeing with @Leon, but yes, sure, of course some more people from outside London will come to London to watch the theatre.
This is very ordinary supply-demand economics. If you reduce the demand (fewer tourists from abroad), then theatres will react by cutting prices to get people in from outside London. But the market will clear at a much lower volume.
People come to London from all over the world specifically for the theatre and the musicals.
This is not a step function, this is a curve. And if you take tourists away, there will be less demand for the UK's performing arts product.
So a wealth transfer from the restaurant and theatre owners of London to British people who want to go to London's restaurants and theatres.
And the opposite side of the coin is allowing outward tourism will be detrimental for much of the UK tourist industry.
That's not what I'm saying.
Imagine demand for performing arts in the UK today is 100 (and - of course - let's not forget that many theatrical performances tour, so it's not really like Norwich doesn't get its fair sure of decent performances).
Of that 100, say 60 is foreign tourists.
If they go away, then overall demand would drop - absent price changes - to 40. Of course, theatres will react with price reductions: actors will accept less, etc. And maybe total UK demand increases by 50%.
In this circumstance, we're still talking about UK performing arts having overall revenue now of 60. That's down 40%.
That's not a wealth transfer from London to the provinces, that's an absolute reduction in demand.
The world also doesn't stay still. Some of those performances might go to New York or to Dublin. Somewhere else might become the centre where new plays and musicals are performed. In which case, you will have British tourists in 2024 travelling abroad to see them, not staying in the UK.
You're forgetting about the substitution effect.
Britons spend more abroad than vice-versa. Its not just a case of discounted tickets, but in the event that the border were closed (but the economy were fully open) then a lot of destinations people are used to travelling to will be closed off - but the theatres etc would be open.
How many people will think "instead of going to Madrid this year, lets go to London and see a show"? It won't be zero which is what you've assigned it in your base calculations.
(EDIT: I wish to re-emphasise that I do not want to see this happen, but if it did [and we're likely too late for it to be meaningful anyway] then it wouldn't be an economic catastrophe)
I'm not: I'm assuming a FIFTY PERCENT increase in demand for theatre from Brits.
Which is a pretty big jump.
The reality is that the major market for Les Miserables is not Brits. Over the course of 40 years in the West End, a lot of Brits will have seen it of course (including OGH). But at any given performance, perhaps four out of ten people will be Brits.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in a reasonably small number of things. It seems odd that we'd choose to handicap a world leading British industry by discouraging vaccinated tourists from coming to the UK, especially given that Israel seems to have had exactly zero negative consequences from allowing tourism to reopen.
How does removing a country's TV drama output increase diversity?
It doesn't.
And not only that, but the story is utter tosh. The Telegraph either (a) should know better, or (b) is being deliberately misleading because its customer base laps it up.
Under moronic EU rules, streaming services could be required to have 25% of catalogs made in the EU. Therefore, under one circumstance, Netflix might decide to get rid of The Crown.
But they wouldn't, because they're not morons. And because they paid about £140m for four seasons of the Crown.
Instead, all they need to do is to have a massive amount of old EU made content sitting (unwatched) in their catalogs. Costs to Netflix or Amazon? Almost nothing. Frankly, they could find EU based YouTubers, and put them n the platform, and therefore fulfil their requirements. It's a typically stupid EU regulation.
But it's also one that has essentially zero real world consequences. One junior employee at Netflix (who will also have about a dozen other responsibilities) will have the job of making sure that all five seasons of Le Grand Raid Le Cap Terre de Feu will be on the channel, as will the TWELVE THOUSAND episodes of Des chiffres et des lettres.
I thought it was content made in "Europe", which the UK is part of, and not the EU?
The EU has a lazy (or cynical or sinister, depending on your point of view) habit of conflating to the two.
Given the Telegraph "story" is about The Crown, I'm assuming it means EU (or EEA).
Cuba says its 3-dose Abdala vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy rate of 92.28%
Good for them.
Of course, the reality is that a three dose vaccine from a Cuban supplier is going to get exactly 0.01% global market share. And that 0.01% is Venezuela. And they aren't paying.
Cuba says its 3-dose Abdala vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy rate of 92.28%
Good for them.
Of course, the reality is that a three dose vaccine from a Cuban supplier is going to get exactly 0.01% global market share. And that 0.01% is Venezuela. And they aren't paying.
Many countries cannot get hold of vaccines.... whilst in London folk may scoff, in parts of Asia, Africa and South America a readily available (and affordable) vaccine is a lifesaver.
Cuba says its 3-dose Abdala vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy rate of 92.28%
Good for them.
Of course, the reality is that a three dose vaccine from a Cuban supplier is going to get exactly 0.01% global market share. And that 0.01% is Venezuela. And they aren't paying.
Many countries cannot get hold of vaccines.... whilst in London folk may scoff, in parts of Asia, Africa and South America a readily available (and affordable) vaccine is a lifesaver.
I'd be very surprised if the Cubans can possibly make their vaccine anywhere near as cheaply as Pfizer.
That's excellent news, but it is worth remembering that some other clinical trials (and there have been quite a few) have been rather more equivocal.
We have buckets of the stuff for use on the horses. It is also the active ingredient in the latest rosacea cream treatments.
Some of the wording seems a bit odd to me. Reducing deaths in those with mild-moderate cases of the disease seems a little oxymoronic. {PS I know what they mean, but that is really odd wording].
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
That's excellent news, but it is worth remembering that some other clinical trials (and there have been quite a few) have been rather more equivocal.
We have buckets of the stuff for use on the horses. It is also the active ingredient in the latest rosacea cream treatments.
Some of the wording seems a bit odd to me. Reducing deaths in those with mild-moderate cases of the disease seems a little oxymoronic. {PS I know what they mean, but that is really odd wording].
I've been involved in enough corporate presentation preparation to have heard discussions like "so, on which metric do we look best? sales? hmmm... not good... what about earnings per share? not that... ahhh... if we take earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation and include that one-off gain from the sale of that processing plant in adalucia, but exclude the write down of that inventory then we can say that profits are up 12% this quarter. great... run with that."
I think we can be reasonably sure - given how specific they are about the metric - that something slightly similar is going on here.
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
Crowing of that nature suggests to me an insecurity (which would be fitting for Johnson).
I didn't see any opinion polling. I don't tend to loiter on here during the daytime but I see only one poll listed - a no change one by Redfield & Wilton?
But all of this is straw in the wind. Opinion polls are like giant oil tankers. You don't see the turn in direction until a long time after the rudder is moved.
And I'm quite long in the tooth. Many many times that kind of Felix message has been made. I saw it with Thatcher and Blair - diehard loyalists refusing to acknowledge the signs that all the rest of us could spot. The first inklings of the long, slow, demise.
We passed peak Boris on May 25th. Whether he does indeed slide slowly, or tumbles fast, who knows. But what is certain is that the love affair with Boris Johnson has passed its zenith.
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
So true
The scientists are not the ones to be held accountable. The buck stops with those who make the decisions ... Ministers, Cabinet, the PM. Scientists do not make policy or take decisions, they advise. If their advice is bad, those who should be held accountable are those who first appointed, and then kept them in place. That includes the media, other scientists who are able to critique their bad advice, and us. But, again, primarily Ministers, Cabinet and PM.
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
Fear not. Confirming intelligent life in the Universe will come to their rescue....
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
The media exists to sell advertising.
Take the Warwick guys. Their model was wrong. But you know what, if you go to their website, you can read and understand their model, and you see that they include lots of disclaimers - our assumption for x is y, this is a worse case scenario based on z, etc.
But the media takes the most extreme scenario, and makes that the baseline.
Which is - to be generous - enormously misleading. And it leads to everyone's confidence in models and research collapsing, because they don't read the report or download the model or even read the frickin' summary; instead they see the headline on Twitter which is from a single line in a Telegraph article that was based off one scenario.
And the more extreme the scenario on Twitter, the more reactions it gets. And therefore the algorithms surface it. And then suddenly, it's the prediction.
Which, surprise surprise, doesn't come to fruition.
We don’t need to put scientists on trial, but we do need to hold them to account. How many people know about the big bust on the Warwick forecasts that were used to justify the unlock delay? Why isn’t the press all over it?
Blame squarely at the media for that one. They don’t want the pandemic to end, as it’s selling lots of subscriptions, and generating millions of clicks and likes.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
So true
The scientists are not the ones to be held accountable. The buck stops with those who make the decisions ... Ministers, Cabinet, the PM. Scientists do not make policy or take decisions, they advise. If their advice is bad, those who should be held accountable are those who first appointed, and then kept them in place. That includes the media, other scientists who are able to critique their bad advice, and us. But, again, primarily Ministers, Cabinet and PM.
The thing that annoys me is that person A sees a headline on Twitter, and then accuses the scientists of being either evil (i.e. their forecasts are tainted because they are zero Covid fanatics) or stupid ("how can they possibly have forecast 100k cases by now..."), when the reality is they are just describing scenarios.
All models rest on assumptions: will the weather be good? will people change their behaviour? etc.
If you don't like the output, then explain why the assumptions are wrong, don't rubbish the motivation of others.
Crowing of that nature suggests to me an insecurity (which would be fitting for Johnson).
I didn't see any opinion polling. I don't tend to loiter on here during the daytime but I see only one poll listed - a no change one by Redfield & Wilton?
But all of this is straw in the wind. Opinion polls are like giant oil tankers. You don't see the turn in direction until a long time after the rudder is moved.
The Redfield Wilton poll saw Labour down one and there was a YG with a 14 or 15 point lead.
The column's thesis is that the levelling up agenda will fail, and also that the government will be forced into massive tax rises. Since neither of these things has happened yet, why do you think they would be reflected in the polls?
Of course, it is a legitimate view that neither the political nor fiscal chaos envisaged by the Telegraph will come to pass. Or Boris might prefer the realpolitik: these things might not happen but in any case, he will have retired already, although in that case, even good opinion polls are unimportant.
Shocking. I'll say it again, at some point there must be a reckoning for the scientists. From masks to models to lab leak. A litany of failure, idiocy and obfuscation - right up to potential corruption and complicity
Which scientists, exactly? What form do you think such a "reckoning" would take?
--AS
A Star Chamber which can recommend jury trials, if necessary
These scientists are exercising extraordinary power over our lives - and, in some cases, clearly relishing it. With extraordinary power comes extraordinary consequences, if you get it wrong. There HAS to be a price to pay, they can't just slink away into the shadows, some must face criminal charges
I'd start with Peter Daszak and the editors of The Lancet, who blatantly lied back in February 2020. They are now quietly trying to hide these lies
"We invited the 27 authors of the letter to re-evaluate their competing interests. Peter Daszak has expanded on his disclosure statements for this letter and two other pieces relating to COVID-19 that he co-authored or contributed to in The Lancet. See http://hubs.li/H0QHbrM0."
But as to the other scientists such as those on SAGE, what do you think the consequences would be for the next pandemic if those who advised on this one (most of them for free) had to pay to defend themselves in a trial, and suffer a trial by media?
--AS
Millions have died. Our economy is in tatters. They got it hopelessly wrong on masks, and many other things. And the UK scientific elite either lied or conspired about "lab leak" - which you conveniently choose to ignore
Put the worst offenders in the dock and let a jury decide. They can have legal aid
It's the government that should be in the dock. There's a wide range of scientific opinion - some turns out to be right, some wrong.
The government has taken the decisions, some of which were shockers.
Why exculpate the scientists? They are on TV daily telling us "masks are forever". Fuck them. If they want this kind of media and political power, then they must shoulder the culpability that comes with it. Otherwise we have created a new kind of Catholic priesthood, pre-Reformation, laying down mores and laws yet enjoying total immunity from any problems they create
Let us have an inquiry into the science AND the politics. The two are inextricably linked, anyhow
If you are a member of Sage then frankly you should lose your media pass.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
My MP replied to me. He’s a famous one. Has made a song and dance about the models being wrong.
“My personal view is that we are proceeding very cautiously and that we could release the restrictions sooner.”
And yet he voted for continued restrictions. Just what are these people for!!
Sadly most people, including many on here, believe MPs should vote according to either their constituents wishes or party demands well ahead of what they believe is the correct call.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
On topic, I suspect the vast majority of families will live with the disappointment of not being able to go abroad on holiday for one more year. This is a chance for the UK hospitality industry to persuade people that staying at home is actually a pretty decent choice for future years, too. Will the chance be taken?
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
Why is empathy with others declining so much in lockdown? It is easy to see why many people want a foreign trip and those with close family abroad or who suffer from seasonal affective disorder wont consider it a luxury.
At times during a pandemic we still have to say no to them, or impose extra safety checks through quarantine and testing, but there is no harm in showing a bit of basic human understanding and sympathy when we do so.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Hang on.
I think the government (and this board) is now over cautious.
But new variants are most likely to appear in large populations of unvaccinated people. Because it is in the mass of the infected where mutations are most common.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
The constant emphasis on foreign holidays is really annoying, when there’s millions of people who really need to travel on business, or who haven’t seen their family in two years.
There’s way more to travel than a week on a beach, and relaxing restrictions on those who really need to travel should be the priority.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Yes there are those on either side of the party who barely speak...
On todays news I see Bercow went on his knees and begged for a Peerage from Corbyn even writing his own cv and including his prowess as a tennis coach.. Spitting Image would have a field day with this odious man.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Hang on.
I think the government (and this board) is now over cautious.
But new variants are most likely to appear in large populations of unvaccinated people. Because it is in the mass of the infected where mutations are most common.
The chance of a variant is directly related to the number of new cases.
Go look at our current rates and compare with those of popular holiday destinations….
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
The Indian case rate started to go crazy at the beginning of March, and their positivity rate went completely ballistic.
We didn't have to know about Delta to know that there was a problem there.
By mid-March, the positivity rates in India exceeded pretty much every country on the UK's Red List. And at that time India had vaccinated basically no one.
We should have, but didn't, imposed travel bans on India.
If you look at the chances a double vaccinated US citizen will bring covid to the UK (perhaps 0.001%) and the chance an Indian in mid March might do so (probably well in excess if 1%), we're talking at least three orders of magnitude difference.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
The constant emphasis on foreign holidays is really annoying, when there’s millions of people who really need to travel on business, or who haven’t seen their family in two years.
There’s way more to travel than a week on a beach, and relaxing restrictions on those who really need to travel should be the priority.
I remain bewildered that the government ran so scared and so quickly from the idea of vaccine passports. A few whinges about alleged civil liberties had them back off and in doing so they massively undermined the progress that was available through vaccination.
Vaccination was supposed to be our way out of this but it can only be so if there is evidence which allows the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to be differentiated. Doing so is not only sensible but an incentive to the laggards to get their vaccinations done. Its about as win win as we can get.
The result of failing to proceed down this path is excessive restrictions on the vaccinated to protect the idiots who choose not to be. This is, in a word, crazy. Those who are double vaccinated are at absolutely minimal risk when travelling anywhere and are extremely unlikely to bring back a variant in a viable form. They should not be restricted in their movements. Similarly, as @rcs1000 was pointing out overnight, those from other countries who are double vaccinated are no risk to us and should be welcomed.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Southam was referring to proper Tories, of course.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Individual Tories may be republicans. The Conservative party never will be under any circumstances.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
The planning law kerfuffle is a dispute between the wealthiest existing property owners in the shires - and slightly less wealthy future property owners in the shires.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
Those new planning laws aren't laws yet. Let's see where we end up with them before jumping to any conclusions. Yep, the DUP are discovering that the Tories will happily sacrifice the Union to retain power.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
The article was about holidays. Travel for other purposes is a different kettle of fish. Restrictions on seeing family is not not limited to the those abroad.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Individual Tories may be republicans. The Conservative party never will be under any circumstances.
So if the majority of the electorate were republicans, considered that issue to be the defining issue of the day, so only a republican party could win an election - and perhaps if a referendum had determined that the monarchy should be abolished although that hadn't happened yet, then do you think under those circumstances the Tories could never be a republican party?
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
We always take our summer holidays in the UK anyway, there are plenty of beautiful places to stay and the weather is usually decent enough in August. Foreign trips should be an occasional luxury, not the norm, if you ask me. For people with family overseas it's different, obviously, as anyone who has lived far from loved ones will know.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
Those new planning laws aren't laws yet. Let's see where we end up with them before jumping to any conclusions. Yep, the DUP are discovering that the Tories will happily sacrifice the Union to retain power.
Not sure why that is a surprise. Successive British Governments over the past 100 years have tried to get rid of Northern Ireland.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
You are HYUFD and I claim my £5.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
Individual Tories may be republicans. The Conservative party never will be under any circumstances.
So if the majority of the electorate were republicans, considered that issue to be the defining issue of the day, so only a republican party could win an election - and perhaps if a referendum had determined that the monarchy should be abolished although that hadn't happened yet, then do you think under those circumstances the Tories could never be a republican party?
The Tories would have ceased to exist long before that happens as they would have failed totally.
So far only the Charity Commission - currently with an Interim Chair while a permanent head is found, in case anyone is interested - has replied.
You can certainly write a very good letter!
She does, although she has asked a lot of questions and with a lot of contextual detail that I would wager she’ll get some sort of generalised reply. An alternative approach would have been to identify the three killer questions and ask these directly, making it more difficult for them not to have to address them head on.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
The Indian case rate started to go crazy at the beginning of March, and their positivity rate went completely ballistic.
We didn't have to know about Delta to know that there was a problem there.
By mid-March, the positivity rates in India exceeded pretty much every country on the UK's Red List. And at that time India had vaccinated basically no one.
We should have, but didn't, imposed travel bans on India.
If you look at the chances a double vaccinated US citizen will bring covid to the UK (perhaps 0.001%) and the chance an Indian in mid March might do so (probably well in excess if 1%), we're talking at least three orders of magnitude difference.
Even without Delta.
Whilst all of this is self evident it is a bizarre logical leap by some that in doing this we could have somehow avoided the Delta variant. It now seems to be more than 90% of cases everywhere sequencing is done around the world. At worst we accelerated its dominance here by a couple of weeks by having additional seeding but its genetic advantages were such that it was inevitably have become dominant here as well.
What we do need to think about is what if a variant arises that is (a) much, much more deadly or (b) beyond the protection offered by current vaccines. What lessons can we learn from this fiasco which would give us additional time to address such a threat? Once again there seems a deep reluctance on the part of government or even the science community to learn from past mistakes.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
The constant emphasis on foreign holidays is really annoying, when there’s millions of people who really need to travel on business, or who haven’t seen their family in two years.
There’s way more to travel than a week on a beach, and relaxing restrictions on those who really need to travel should be the priority.
I remain bewildered that the government ran so scared and so quickly from the idea of vaccine passports. A few whinges about alleged civil liberties had them back off and in doing so they massively undermined the progress that was available through vaccination.
Vaccination was supposed to be our way out of this but it can only be so if there is evidence which allows the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to be differentiated. Doing so is not only sensible but an incentive to the laggards to get their vaccinations done. Its about as win win as we can get.
The result of failing to proceed down this path is excessive restrictions on the vaccinated to protect the idiots who choose not to be. This is, in a word, crazy. Those who are double vaccinated are at absolutely minimal risk when travelling anywhere and are extremely unlikely to bring back a variant in a viable form. They should not be restricted in their movements. Similarly, as @rcs1000 was pointing out overnight, those from other countries who are double vaccinated are no risk to us and should be welcomed.
I think it’s coming, and quickly. The issue being that the U.K. government doesn’t want to discriminate until everyone has been offered a vaccine, as in the US.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
The constant emphasis on foreign holidays is really annoying, when there’s millions of people who really need to travel on business, or who haven’t seen their family in two years.
There’s way more to travel than a week on a beach, and relaxing restrictions on those who really need to travel should be the priority.
I remain bewildered that the government ran so scared and so quickly from the idea of vaccine passports. A few whinges about alleged civil liberties had them back off and in doing so they massively undermined the progress that was available through vaccination.
Vaccination was supposed to be our way out of this but it can only be so if there is evidence which allows the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to be differentiated. Doing so is not only sensible but an incentive to the laggards to get their vaccinations done. Its about as win win as we can get.
The result of failing to proceed down this path is excessive restrictions on the vaccinated to protect the idiots who choose not to be. This is, in a word, crazy. Those who are double vaccinated are at absolutely minimal risk when travelling anywhere and are extremely unlikely to bring back a variant in a viable form. They should not be restricted in their movements. Similarly, as @rcs1000 was pointing out overnight, those from other countries who are double vaccinated are no risk to us and should be welcomed.
I think it’s coming, and quickly. The issue being that the U.K. government doesn’t want to discriminate until everyone has been offered a vaccine, as in the US.
We can't wait for that, especially at our currently oh so slow rate of vaccination. We need the systems in place now and those who get vaccinated subsequently can join as soon as they can.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
We always take our summer holidays in the UK anyway, there are plenty of beautiful places to stay and the weather is usually decent enough in August. Foreign trips should be an occasional luxury, not the norm, if you ask me. For people with family overseas it's different, obviously, as anyone who has lived far from loved ones will know.
I have family, friends and colleagues that have not been able to see seriously ill and dying relatives. This is a very different thing and in a whole different league to those complaining about the injustice that they do not get their week in the Algave.
Some journalists are projecting their wish to go on a foreign holiday to millions of British people. It's exactly the same as the Telegraph calling the removal of charitable status for private schools an attack on the middle classes.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
The planning law kerfuffle is a dispute between the wealthiest existing property owners in the shires - and slightly less wealthy future property owners in the shires.
SO’s point stands.
That letter to the Times yesterday, from a C&A Lib Dem, was hillarious in its utter lack of self-awareness.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Really? New planning laws wave hello. As does King Charles III.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
The planning law kerfuffle is a dispute between the wealthiest existing property owners in the shires - and slightly less wealthy future property owners in the shires.
SO’s point stands.
So it’s an attack on entrenched privilege because the Tories need to expand their voter base?
Some journalists are projecting their wish to go on a foreign holiday to millions of British people. It's exactly the same as the Telegraph calling the removal of charitable status for private schools an attack on the middle classes.
Quite. The rules shouldn’t apply to them. How dare the government.
Never mind that many of the early cases were linked to ski resorts.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Actually, I'm not sure they would sacrifice the Union to retain power. It's probably the biggest disconnect between the party and their voters at the moment.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
The Indian case rate started to go crazy at the beginning of March, and their positivity rate went completely ballistic.
We didn't have to know about Delta to know that there was a problem there.
By mid-March, the positivity rates in India exceeded pretty much every country on the UK's Red List. And at that time India had vaccinated basically no one.
We should have, but didn't, imposed travel bans on India.
If you look at the chances a double vaccinated US citizen will bring covid to the UK (perhaps 0.001%) and the chance an Indian in mid March might do so (probably well in excess if 1%), we're talking at least three orders of magnitude difference.
Even without Delta.
What data are you using for that claim?
Data on the Ides of March: France 7.0% test positivity rate, 356.77 cases per million United States 4.3% test positivity rate, 167.19 cases per million South Africa 4.2% test positivity rate, 20.06 cases per million India 3.0% test positivity rate, 17.09 cases per million
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
How do you know which countries the variants are in?
Massively increasing cases is a good hint. India was obviously a problem before the delta variant got labelled up as of concern. Countries with little to no testing also need to be on, much of Africa is for this reason I think. You can have the list quite slim once you start binning off the old amber and green for the double vaxxed.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
The article was about holidays. Travel for other purposes is a different kettle of fish. Restrictions on seeing family is not not limited to the those abroad.
It is now. I can see my parents in Hampshire whenever I feel like it, inside or out.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
The Indian case rate started to go crazy at the beginning of March, and their positivity rate went completely ballistic.
We didn't have to know about Delta to know that there was a problem there.
By mid-March, the positivity rates in India exceeded pretty much every country on the UK's Red List. And at that time India had vaccinated basically no one.
We should have, but didn't, imposed travel bans on India.
If you look at the chances a double vaccinated US citizen will bring covid to the UK (perhaps 0.001%) and the chance an Indian in mid March might do so (probably well in excess if 1%), we're talking at least three orders of magnitude difference.
Even without Delta.
Whilst all of this is self evident it is a bizarre logical leap by some that in doing this we could have somehow avoided the Delta variant. It now seems to be more than 90% of cases everywhere sequencing is done around the world. At worst we accelerated its dominance here by a couple of weeks by having additional seeding but its genetic advantages were such that it was inevitably have become dominant here as well.
What we do need to think about is what if a variant arises that is (a) much, much more deadly or (b) beyond the protection offered by current vaccines. What lessons can we learn from this fiasco which would give us additional time to address such a threat? Once again there seems a deep reluctance on the part of government or even the science community to learn from past mistakes.
That slowing down was precisely what was needed for our vaccination program to stay ahead though ><
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
The article was about holidays. Travel for other purposes is a different kettle of fish. Restrictions on seeing family is not not limited to the those abroad.
It is now. I can see my parents in Hampshire whenever I feel like it, inside or out.
Sadly care home residents still de facto under lock and key regardless of govt policy. Managed to break my father out Sunday, but had to take tests and sign papers to do it. Visiting on site still limited to 30min/fortnight behind PPE. I suspect some of the CV restrictions will stay in care home policies.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
How do you know which countries the variants are in?
Massively increasing cases is a good hint. India was obviously a problem before the delta variant got labelled up as of concern. Countries with little to no testing also need to be on, much of Africa is for this reason I think. You can have the list quite slim once you start binning off the old amber and green for the double vaxxed.
Some good news out of Africa this morning. Covax to set up a centre in SA, with several industry partners, for technology transfer of mRNA knowledge and production facilities.
This will lead to several factories producing Pfizer and Moderna under licence, for the Covax efforts.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
How do you know which countries the variants are in?
Massively increasing cases is a good hint. India was obviously a problem before the delta variant got labelled up as of concern. Countries with little to no testing also need to be on, much of Africa is for this reason I think. You can have the list quite slim once you start binning off the old amber and green for the double vaxxed.
But India wasn't obviously a problem in March, quite the opposite we were playing Test cricket then with crowds.
People have rewritten history in their memory, because it was obvious for a few days in April after Bangladesh and Pakistan had been added that India should have been too. But that was not true in March. Waiting until the data shows there's a problem is inevitably always going to be a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Actually, I'm not sure they would sacrifice the Union to retain power. It's probably the biggest disconnect between the party and their voters at the moment.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
That's simply illogical.
The risk of spreading a variant is correlated with the number of potentially infected people you mix with, not your geographical location.
I'd wager that, with the possible exception of party travellers, most holidaymakers have fewer close personal contacts away on holiday than they would during 'normal' life in the UK.
It is fascinating how the BBC's reporting about the select committee report on the WWC confuses and conflates 'working class' with poor, disadvantaged, free school meals and deprived.
It is just like putting all ethnic minority groups in the same box.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
That's simply illogical.
The risk of spreading a variant is correlated with the number of potentially infected people you mix with, not your geographical location.
I'd wager that, with the possible exception of party travellers, most holidaymakers have fewer close personal contacts away on holiday than they would during 'normal' life in the UK.
Its not remotely illogical.
If travel is unrestricted in the UK but controlled at the border then there's 67 million people with unlimited personal contact but if none of them have the variant then it doesn't matter how often they contact each other. If travel is unrestricted at the border then there's over 7 billion people who could get a variant, then being potentially 7 or maybe a few more degrees of separation from it being back in the UK.
PS I'd wager that going through Manchester Airport in normal life, would put me in close contact than any typical day of normal life except maybe going to the Trafford Centre.
John Bercow lobbied Jeremy Corbyn to secure a peerage and wrote his own reference for his nomination, leaked emails have revealed.
The former Speaker secretly met the then Labour leader’s team in the week after the 2019 general election to discuss his nomination to the House of Lords after being snubbed by Downing Street.
He then wrote to Corbyn’s office with a reference in which he boasted of his four honorary degrees, “no fewer than five shadow ministerial roles”, a stint as deputy leader of the Tory group on Lambeth council, and experience as a tennis coach.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
The article was about holidays. Travel for other purposes is a different kettle of fish. Restrictions on seeing family is not not limited to the those abroad.
It is now. I can see my parents in Hampshire whenever I feel like it, inside or out.
Sadly care home residents still de facto under lock and key regardless of govt policy. Managed to break my father out Sunday, but had to take tests and sign papers to do it. Visiting on site still limited to 30min/fortnight behind PPE. I suspect some of the CV restrictions will stay in care home policies.
30 min/fortnight?
I think that's the homes policy not government policy.
But the delta variant wasn't in reality a big threat. It seems marginally more transmissible but no more deadly than what we had already. This is consistent with the general trend in viruses to become both more transmissible and less lethal to their hosts as time goes by since that maximises their spread.
We are now probably overdue the next variant, which I presume that we will call epsilon. Once that appears on the scene delta will go the way of Kent. That is the nature of the beast we are dealing with. The risks, as I see them, is that we find a variant beyond the protection provided by vaccines or which proves far more lethal. A tendency in the benign direction is no guarantee.
Should such a scenario arise what do we do? What can we learn from this abject failure to delay delta which might actually matter the next time around? That is what the government should be addressing. I see no sign of it. There is a smug complacency which is deeply troubling. This virus isn't finished yet. We need to prepare for the time when we really need that extra time.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
How do you know which countries the variants are in?
Massively increasing cases is a good hint. India was obviously a problem before the delta variant got labelled up as of concern. Countries with little to no testing also need to be on, much of Africa is for this reason I think. You can have the list quite slim once you start binning off the old amber and green for the double vaxxed.
But India wasn't obviously a problem in March, quite the opposite we were playing Test cricket then with crowds.
People have rewritten history in their memory, because it was obvious for a few days in April after Bangladesh and Pakistan had been added that India should have been too. But that was not true in March. Waiting until the data shows there's a problem is inevitably always going to be a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
I don't expect the systems to be perfect but India should have been added at the same point as Pakistan and Bangladesh; and when added added immediately instead of giving people that ridiculous period to return and escape hotel quarantine. The state can pay for a couple of weeks if yr country is added in an emergency, cheaper than letting the delta run riot
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
A party that can move from Cameron to May to Johnson in the space of three years is not one that actually stands for anything. What makes the Tories incredibly successful is that they will pivot to whatever positions are necessary to stop other parties from winning. That is their genius. What do Tories believe in? The monarchy and maintaining entrenched privilege. Beyond that, everything is negotiable.
Incorrect. They believe in one thing. Getting and keeping power.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
The Tories would sacrifice the Union to retain power. They would not sacrifice the monarchy or the rights of property owners.
Then why don't they? Johnson is insistent on refusing another referendum in Scotland, but if it went it would kick Labour's Zimmer frame away.
We need to be realistic. No foreign travel before 2022 maybe 2023 unless absolutely essential.
Absurd
That means the end of the UK foreign travel industry forever. No way they can sustain complete shutdown over several years. It means the loss of millions of jobs and maybe 5-10% GDP. Close Gatwick and Stansted, and so on
If it is reciprocated - and no foreign tourists come here, either - it means the death of central London (likewise Edinburgh, Bath, Cambridge, etc etc etc) and another 5% off GDP. It means a huge Depression
Zero Covidians like you are worse than the disease itself
What utter bollocks. If nobody travelled abroad for two more years foreign travel would still pick up again as soon as restrictions lifted.
Foreign tourists in our cities will be replaced by UK-based tourists.
The only reason domestic lockdown easing has been delayed is because foreign travel restrictions were far too lax.
You and Philip do not understand basic economics. If you subtract a huge amount of economic activity, then the economy will shrink. That's it. London theatres will not suddenly turn into year-long pantos pleasing visitors from Southend and Sunderland
"Britain will have a tourism industry worth over £257 billion by 2025 – just under 10% of UK GDP and supporting almost 3.8 million jobs, which is around 11% of the total UK number.
"Tourism’s impact is amplified through the economy, so its impact is much wider than just the direct spending levels. Deloitte estimates the tourism GVA multiplier to be 2.8 – meaning that for every £1,000 generated in direct tourism GVA there is a further £1,800 that is supported elsewhere in the economy through the supply chain and consumer spending.
"Inbound tourism will continue to be the fastest growing tourism sector – with spend by international visitors forecast to grow by over 6% a year in comparison with domestic spending by UK residents at just over 3%. The value of inbound tourism is forecast to grow from over £21bn in 2013 to £57bn by 2025, with the UK seeing an international tourism balance of payments surplus in 2023, almost forty years since the UK last reported a surplus."
In normal times Britain is a net importer of tourism services - i.e. more money is spent abroad by UK tourists than in the UK by foreign tourists. If people cannot travel abroad they will travel in the UK.
Britons holidaying at home is not the same thing and would not substitute for foreign tourists. For a start, I can see many of the sights without needing an hotel. There is no pressure to take in sights of secondary interest through FOMO. I don't need to go to the National Gallery because it will still be there next week, whereas the French tourist would need to go, just as I would have only one chance to visit the Louvre during my week in Paris. I don't need to spend money sampling the exotic local cuisine, because I already know what I like. And so on.
A London without a million foreign tourists is a rather more attractive prospect for a visit.
But less attractive for, you know, people that own and run tourist destinations in London? From galleries to restaurants to theatres to Madame Tussaud's?
But don't worry, most of them will shut down forever, so you can get your National Londonpubman-bus to the semi-pro Benpointer Theatre, to see the single ongoing West End show, Philip Thompson's Tiny Dancing Autistic Penis With Newbuilds
I was in London for a couple of days last week, for the first time in 15 months. I walked round extensively, as advised on here. There were more people than I was expecting, but it was still lacking.
But what struck me as lacking was retail. London is now catering for the uber-rich - and the tat-mongering hordes. Who just aren't there.
What London has lost is a vast swathe of off-beat, interesting stuff to shop for. The retail experience is incredibly dull. I think that if London doesn't properly recover, it won't be Covid that is responsible. It will be the online retail offering.
Might as well bin the amber list, delta is 99% here now. Just keep the red list for other variant countries.
Is the objective of the amber list to keep out the delta variant?
Or is it to keep out the omega variant?
Red list is to keep variants out.
There is nothing special about travel, or in being abroad, that creates a variant. Yet time and again people seem to conflate the two.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Except that the Indian Delta variant wasn't known to be a concern until after India was put on the red list, not before it. 🤦♂️
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
That's simply illogical.
The risk of spreading a variant is correlated with the number of potentially infected people you mix with, not your geographical location.
I'd wager that, with the possible exception of party travellers, most holidaymakers have fewer close personal contacts away on holiday than they would during 'normal' life in the UK.
The problem is the party travellers. The big resorts of Southern Europe and the Med are desparate for visitors, and are opening up at a time when almost none of their young clientele have been vaccinated - including all the nightclubs that closed last year.
The Balearics and Greek resorts, are going to be absolute carnage about a month from now.
So far only the Charity Commission - currently with an Interim Chair while a permanent head is found, in case anyone is interested - has replied.
You can certainly write a very good letter!
She does, although she has asked a lot of questions and with a lot of contextual detail that I would wager she’ll get some sort of generalised reply. An alternative approach would have been to identify the three killer questions and ask these directly, making it more difficult for them not to have to address them head on.
I am not expecting a reply really. And even 3 killer questions will generate a generalised reply since there is no reason for them to reply to a member of the public. Were I in-house or a a regulator, the first set of questions about what investigation was done, who took the decision and who approved it would be where my focus would be because I am sure that is where the difficulty will lie.
But the letter is there really to set up the questions and issues which other bodies with the power to do so can look at, if they choose to. Also if the artist wants to pursue this.
A lot of the commentary was around cancellation because of views whereas I wanted to point out that the RA seems to have ignored its legal obligations.
We'll see what happens. My guess, FWIW, is that the RA is both panicking and arrogantly saying nothing in the hope that this will all pass. Pretty shabby behaviour by them frankly and indicative of the sort of muddled thinking a lot of organisations have over "diversity" etc.
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
My EU and other overseas colleagues and staff have not seen their ageing parents for over a year, and sometimes much closer family than that. It is visibly taking its toll on them. Foreign travel is not just about holidays.
Doesn’t matter, they’re apparently human vermin as they might bring “variants” into the country [where “variants” frequently appears to be little more than a new way of demonising foreigners for the ex-Farage fellaters].
Personally I find it strange how anyone might have wanted or expected a foreign trip this year. Travel is far from an entitlement to me, it’s a luxury and it seems eminently sensible not to move around too much at the moment. Others clearly take a different view.
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
We always take our summer holidays in the UK anyway, there are plenty of beautiful places to stay and the weather is usually decent enough in August. Foreign trips should be an occasional luxury, not the norm, if you ask me. For people with family overseas it's different, obviously, as anyone who has lived far from loved ones will know.
Foreign holidays in the UK are bloody expensive though, so a luxury in themselves. Even Germany seems cheaper. I could easily have a couple of weeks in my usual haunts in Eastern Europe for one week in the UK. After last year I have money in the bank of course, but it's instructive how a week on the piss in the UK eats through the travel fund.
John Bercow lobbied Jeremy Corbyn to secure a peerage and wrote his own reference for his nomination, leaked emails have revealed.
The former Speaker secretly met the then Labour leader’s team in the week after the 2019 general election to discuss his nomination to the House of Lords after being snubbed by Downing Street.
He then wrote to Corbyn’s office with a reference in which he boasted of his four honorary degrees, “no fewer than five shadow ministerial roles”, a stint as deputy leader of the Tory group on Lambeth council, and experience as a tennis coach.
Now he’s making a point of very publicly joining the Labour Party as a member, in the vain hope that Starmer will nominate him for the Peerage he believes to be his entitlement.
Comments
I'm arguing that discouraging vaccinated tourists from visiting the UK is a self defeating strategy that has no long term positive consequences.
Britons spend more abroad than vice-versa. Its not just a case of discounted tickets, but in the event that the border were closed (but the economy were fully open) then a lot of destinations people are used to travelling to will be closed off - but the theatres etc would be open.
How many people will think "instead of going to Madrid this year, lets go to London and see a show"? It won't be zero which is what you've assigned it in your base calculations.
(EDIT: I wish to re-emphasise that I do not want to see this happen, but if it did [and we're likely too late for it to be meaningful anyway] then it wouldn't be an economic catastrophe)
Which is a pretty big jump.
The reality is that the major market for Les Miserables is not Brits. Over the course of 40 years in the West End, a lot of Brits will have seen it of course (including OGH). But at any given performance, perhaps four out of ten people will be Brits.
The United Kingdom is a world leader in a reasonably small number of things. It seems odd that we'd choose to handicap a world leading British industry by discouraging vaccinated tourists from coming to the UK, especially given that Israel seems to have had exactly zero negative consequences from allowing tourism to reopen.
Given the Telegraph "story" is about The Crown, I'm assuming it means EU (or EEA).
Of course, the reality is that a three dose vaccine from a Cuban supplier is going to get exactly 0.01% global market share. And that 0.01% is Venezuela. And they aren't paying.
https://www.biospace.com/article/data-supports-use-of-anti-parasitic-drug-ivermectin-in-covid-19-patients-study-shows/
Some of the wording seems a bit odd to me. Reducing deaths in those with mild-moderate cases of the disease seems a little oxymoronic. {PS I know what they mean, but that is really odd wording].
Its covid policies are illogical, ill-conceived and statist. Johnson is no libertarian. He's a big state interventionist, on all things from grand vanity projects to taxation to civil liberties.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/21/bleak-new-era-covid-socialism-threatens-end-carnage-tories/
I think we can be reasonably sure - given how specific they are about the metric - that something slightly similar is going on here.
When it’s over, they’ll have no pandemic, and no Trump, and news media sales will fall off the proverbial cliff.
They also have jobs now, and fear losing them at the end of the pandemic, when the public stop caring about the news for a few years.
I didn't see any opinion polling. I don't tend to loiter on here during the daytime but I see only one poll listed - a no change one by Redfield & Wilton?
There is a small but general uptick trend for Labour at the moment: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/
But all of this is straw in the wind. Opinion polls are like giant oil tankers. You don't see the turn in direction until a long time after the rudder is moved.
We passed peak Boris on May 25th. Whether he does indeed slide slowly, or tumbles fast, who knows. But what is certain is that the love affair with Boris Johnson has passed its zenith.
Take the Warwick guys. Their model was wrong. But you know what, if you go to their website, you can read and understand their model, and you see that they include lots of disclaimers - our assumption for x is y, this is a worse case scenario based on z, etc.
But the media takes the most extreme scenario, and makes that the baseline.
Which is - to be generous - enormously misleading. And it leads to everyone's confidence in models and research collapsing, because they don't read the report or download the model or even read the frickin' summary; instead they see the headline on Twitter which is from a single line in a Telegraph article that was based off one scenario.
And the more extreme the scenario on Twitter, the more reactions it gets. And therefore the algorithms surface it. And then suddenly, it's the prediction.
Which, surprise surprise, doesn't come to fruition.
All models rest on assumptions: will the weather be good? will people change their behaviour? etc.
If you don't like the output, then explain why the assumptions are wrong, don't rubbish the motivation of others.
That's a great piece.
Of course, it is a legitimate view that neither the political nor fiscal chaos envisaged by the Telegraph will come to pass. Or Boris might prefer the realpolitik: these things might not happen but in any case, he will have retired already, although in that case, even good opinion polls are unimportant.
“My personal view is that we are proceeding very cautiously and that we could release the restrictions sooner.”
And yet he voted for continued restrictions. Just what are these people for!!
I wonder if social media and EasyJet had existed 80 years ago there would have been people complaining that they couldn’t go on holiday to Europe.
So long as we have high case rates - as we do now amongst the unvaccinated young - a variant is just as likely to arise in the UK.
The point is that if there is a known geographically-based variant (with negative consequences like transmissibility) then we should have restrictions to and from that particular location. As we should have done straight away with India, had Boris not been so dozy.
Too many people leap straight to ‘stop travel’ as if somehow that is the antidote to new variants.
Beyond that, everything else is definitely negotiable.
Yes if you want to stop variants, halting travel is the antidote. Because by the time you know that a variant is concerning, its far, far, far too late. Your proposal would have meant not adding India to the red list for even longer.
What's so special about the monarchy that they must be believed in. Quite a few republican Tories (or former Tories) on this site, TSE and myself included.
At times during a pandemic we still have to say no to them, or impose extra safety checks through quarantine and testing, but there is no harm in showing a bit of basic human understanding and sympathy when we do so.
I think the government (and this board) is now over cautious.
But new variants are most likely to appear in large populations of unvaccinated people. Because it is in the mass of the infected where mutations are most common.
There’s way more to travel than a week on a beach, and relaxing restrictions on those who really need to travel should be the priority.
As for ‘would’ sacrifice, the DUP are loud in their grumbling that they already have.
Heart of stone, given the circumstances...
On todays news I see Bercow went on his knees and begged for a Peerage from Corbyn even writing his own cv and including his prowess as a tennis coach.. Spitting Image would have a field day with this odious man.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/366b433a-d2d0-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=115045450ba434700d70437ab3648cff
Go look at our current rates and compare with those of popular holiday destinations….
Is that what you meant?
We didn't have to know about Delta to know that there was a problem there.
By mid-March, the positivity rates in India exceeded pretty much every country on the UK's Red List. And at that time India had vaccinated basically no one.
We should have, but didn't, imposed travel bans on India.
If you look at the chances a double vaccinated US citizen will bring covid to the UK (perhaps 0.001%) and the chance an Indian in mid March might do so (probably well in excess if 1%), we're talking at least three orders of magnitude difference.
Even without Delta.
Vaccination was supposed to be our way out of this but it can only be so if there is evidence which allows the vaccinated and the unvaccinated to be differentiated. Doing so is not only sensible but an incentive to the laggards to get their vaccinations done. Its about as win win as we can get.
The result of failing to proceed down this path is excessive restrictions on the vaccinated to protect the idiots who choose not to be. This is, in a word, crazy. Those who are double vaccinated are at absolutely minimal risk when travelling anywhere and are extremely unlikely to bring back a variant in a viable form. They should not be restricted in their movements. Similarly, as @rcs1000 was pointing out overnight, those from other countries who are double vaccinated are no risk to us and should be welcomed.
SO’s point stands.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/terms-like-white-privilege-may-contribute-to-neglect-of-disadvantaged-white-pupils-report-finds/ar-AALhv8s?ocid=msedgntp
What we do need to think about is what if a variant arises that is (a) much, much more deadly or (b) beyond the protection offered by current vaccines. What lessons can we learn from this fiasco which would give us additional time to address such a threat? Once again there seems a deep reluctance on the part of government or even the science community to learn from past mistakes.
Worthy of Polly Filler from Private Eye.
Think it over.
Have a good morning.
Never mind that many of the early cases were linked to ski resorts.
Data on the Ides of March:
France 7.0% test positivity rate, 356.77 cases per million
United States 4.3% test positivity rate, 167.19 cases per million
South Africa 4.2% test positivity rate, 20.06 cases per million
India 3.0% test positivity rate, 17.09 cases per million
Countries with little to no testing also need to be on, much of Africa is for this reason I think.
You can have the list quite slim once you start binning off the old amber and green for the double vaxxed.
This will lead to several factories producing Pfizer and Moderna under licence, for the Covax efforts.
https://www.who.int/news/item/21-06-2021-WHO-supporting-South-African-consortium-to-establish-first-COVID-mRNA-vaccine-technology-transfer-hub
People have rewritten history in their memory, because it was obvious for a few days in April after Bangladesh and Pakistan had been added that India should have been too. But that was not true in March. Waiting until the data shows there's a problem is inevitably always going to be a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
Morning, everyone. Better today.
The risk of spreading a variant is correlated with the number of potentially infected people you mix with, not your geographical location.
I'd wager that, with the possible exception of party travellers, most holidaymakers have fewer close personal contacts away on holiday than they would during 'normal' life in the UK.
It is just like putting all ethnic minority groups in the same box.
If travel is unrestricted in the UK but controlled at the border then there's 67 million people with unlimited personal contact but if none of them have the variant then it doesn't matter how often they contact each other. If travel is unrestricted at the border then there's over 7 billion people who could get a variant, then being potentially 7 or maybe a few more degrees of separation from it being back in the UK.
PS I'd wager that going through Manchester Airport in normal life, would put me in close contact than any typical day of normal life except maybe going to the Trafford Centre.
The former Speaker secretly met the then Labour leader’s team in the week after the 2019 general election to discuss his nomination to the House of Lords after being snubbed by Downing Street.
He then wrote to Corbyn’s office with a reference in which he boasted of his four honorary degrees, “no fewer than five shadow ministerial roles”, a stint as deputy leader of the Tory group on Lambeth council, and experience as a tennis coach.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/366b433a-d2d0-11eb-bd02-4c692e62e3fd?shareToken=8ca0e7069a4b7b977dca8859d4da39f5
I think that's the homes policy not government policy.
Horrible that.
We are now probably overdue the next variant, which I presume that we will call epsilon. Once that appears on the scene delta will go the way of Kent. That is the nature of the beast we are dealing with. The risks, as I see them, is that we find a variant beyond the protection provided by vaccines or which proves far more lethal. A tendency in the benign direction is no guarantee.
Should such a scenario arise what do we do? What can we learn from this abject failure to delay delta which might actually matter the next time around? That is what the government should be addressing. I see no sign of it. There is a smug complacency which is deeply troubling. This virus isn't finished yet. We need to prepare for the time when we really need that extra time.
The Balearics and Greek resorts, are going to be absolute carnage about a month from now.
But the letter is there really to set up the questions and issues which other bodies with the power to do so can look at, if they choose to. Also if the artist wants to pursue this.
A lot of the commentary was around cancellation because of views whereas I wanted to point out that the RA seems to have ignored its legal obligations.
We'll see what happens. My guess, FWIW, is that the RA is both panicking and arrogantly saying nothing in the hope that this will all pass. Pretty shabby behaviour by them frankly and indicative of the sort of muddled thinking a lot of organisations have over "diversity" etc.