Not really. Imagine the flapping noise if the Govt made a decision to exclude Michie.
Governments are concerned with what people say ("flapping noise", if you like). That's because we live in a democracy, which is a good thing, yes?
The point is that Government decides who to ask for advice and they decide what to do with that advice. Sure, some power rests in those advising on important issues, but it is not an untrammeled power. The fantasy that SAGE rules over us is a delusion. Government rules over us. The circumstances of a global pandemic can be said to rule over us. SAGE is a cog in a complex machine feeding advice into government.
As I mentioned to @Selebian, look at the reasons behind the 30-year rule. All very valid. All seemingly antithetical to transparent, open government; all vital for good government.
SAGE pronouncing on developments as they happen can inhibit good government.
Clément Beaune, France's Europe minister, has criticized the restrictions set last week by the UK government for travelers going from France to England, calling the new rules "excessive" and "not totally founded on science."
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
I agree that it shouldn't be called the Johnson variant.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Most likely just people not reporting cases – off work due to hot weather? Dunno.
I don't want to be one of those people who ties spikes to specific events, as that's proven foolish in the past - but could it just be that last week was artificially high due to football-related exuberance?
I do not understand why folk are irritated by other people wearing masks?
I find it very difficult to work out what people are saying if their mouth us covered.
I also find it more difficult to read people's expressions. Such a lot of communication is done through facial expressions - particularly the base animal communications like expressing friendly and non-threatening intent. This is more difficult with a mask. You have to assume it. It's almost always the case of course that people are friendly and non-threatening, but it is more difficult to be put at ease by a mask-wearer.
A friend who is a judge of left-libertarian leanings is torn on this - he does think that it's easier to make a judgment on veracity if you can see the full face, but he appreciates that witnesses used to wearing hijabs, masks or whatever may feel uncomfortable without and appear evasive when they're not. Ironically giving evidence from home is easier since the mask issue goes away.
I always thought that a Labour cambinet minister who got in hot water for asking a lady to remove her veil was actually relying far more on lipreading in his increasing age than he was willing to admit - whether to himself or to others. Whose
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
The thing with Starmer's position is that actually if you are serious about clamping down on Delta variant spread, Step 3 isn't even enough, we need tougher restrictions. But he was happy to go to the super spreading event that was the footy last week, but really we need to be stopping all these things if we are serious about swift case reduction.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
School cases get recorded on Tuesday as LFTs have got a one day reporting delay rather than 2 days like PCR tests.
I completely agree. I think PR is *more* likely to create a centre-right hegemony than less. They are totally deluded.
What would happen, as happens nearly everywhere else, is competing blocs of "centre right" and "centre left" parties. As we are so used to monolithic party structures, the notion of a larger number of smaller parties takes some getting used to. I'm not sure how and along which fault lines this would happen but you'd likely see new parties emerging on, for example, the fiscal conservative axis (a Taxpayers' Alliance type party) or the social conservative axis.
There would be an anti-immigration low-tax party (akin to FN or AfD) while the LDs would split between the pro-Conservative faction (perhaps becoming like the German FDP) and the social liberals (more like the Danish Radikale Venstre perhaps).
There would be little movement between the blocs but some parties would either choose to be "in" or "out" of any Government led by their bloc.
The larger parties will rely on first choice votes while the smaller parties will rely on second or third preferences to get elected.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
The thing with Starmer's position is that actually if you are serious ...
I think I see your problem.
Starmer has shown himself through this crisis to be distinctly unserious. Hence his clowning around now with silly terms like "Johnson variant" when he has no alternative suggestions except "errr maybe keeps masks for a bit longer?"
Same as before, its not that long since he was challenged to find an alternative policy on anything and wibbled about zoos.
Good Guardian story where despite the 5 million + successful EU settlement applications they have found one where the Home Office never answers the phone, their employer acts illegally, a specialist charity can't sort it and everyone has been an idiot.
Some cases make you wonder what MPs are for. It's one where a sensible one could sort it swiftly.
Plus of course with the scheme having been open for years the lady in question left it until the very, very, very last possible day before putting her paperwork in, which then wasn't done electronically.
To be fair, as I understand it she can't do it electronically because she doesn't have a passport, it's not her fault. It may simply have never occurred to her that this would be a problem, since she has lived here almost her whole life and never needed a passport. I sometimes wonder about your libertarian credentials, on this issue you seem to think the government should be heavily involved in regulating everyone's life, and it's the fault of the public if they fail to jump through the regulatory hoops with sufficient alacrity. Not everyone wakes up each morning thinking "is my paperwork in order?"
My experience of freedom day - sitting in a fashionable cafe/hairdressers.
-The one guy who cuts hear was wearing a mask and gloves. I'm not sure if this is still a rule, but I was pretty relieved about that given the risk of transmission (I don't want to get COVID, primarily for the somewhat selfish reason that the self isolation requirement will literally kill the summer for us). - A bunch of the guys were not at work, I assume that they were all out clubbing last night. - People were generally walking in to the shop wearing masks and asking for permission not to. They all took them off straight away, as soon as they got the go ahead.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
Point of order. There is no such thing as PhD Oxon.
18,186 new first doses in the whole of the UK? What on earth is going on?
No one left to vaccinate. vaccination centres are everywhere but are quite, there was even a walk in vaccination centre at the Golf.
There is not much more the Government can do.
There are plenty of people left to vaccinate. Get them booked in quicker as was done before. There is absolutely no reason to slow down, they can fill the vaccination centres with the unvaccinated as they have done from the start.
Either the organisation has fallen down, or we are desperately short of vaccines, or the remaining millions who haven't had both jabs are refusing.
There are thousands of vaccination centres around the Country which you can just walk in whenever and get a vaccine, no need to book.
WRT the header, I think that this is a brilliant betting tip. I would be on it were the odds to still be available and if I could be bothered to go through the rigmarole of signing up with a new website.
I would say the probability that labour get a poll lead by the end of the year is very high. All it takes is for the tories to mess up for a bit, which they keep doing constantly.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Most likely just people not reporting cases – off work due to hot weather? Dunno.
I don't want to be one of those people who ties spikes to specific events, as that's proven foolish in the past - but could it just be that last week was artificially high due to football-related exuberance?
Possible I suppose.
But as you say, events-based forecasting has failed miserably in the past: remember the pearl-clutching about London picnics in April 2020 or the Bournemouth beach moral panic?
Neither had any effect on numbers.
The football might, of course, be a different animal.
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
Demeaning? We're back to this morning's upset caused to the Clown Apologists.
Repeat the same line over and over and over until it sticks. They (rightly) want to pin the blame on Delta on the man who kept the border with India open to let it come here and seed itself across the country.
Calling it after him is only objectionable if you are an apologist.
Not at all
It is misleading and adds nothing to the seriousness of the debate
Most nobody will even know what he is referring to
And this from someone who wants to be PM
That's the point, at the moment, very few are aware of the clown leaving the border open, making this mess much more than it should be. The more it is mentioned, the more people will link them and then perhaps he can then be seen to "own" his mistake for a change.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
I agree that it shouldn't be called the Johnson variant.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
That would be about 1.5 doublings? Maybe 3 weeks of a difference? Possibly 4?
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
My experience of freedom day - sitting in a fashionable cafe/hairdressers.
-The one guy who cuts hear was wearing a mask and gloves. I'm not sure if this is still a rule, but I was pretty relieved about that given the risk of transmission (I don't want to get COVID, primarily for the somewhat selfish reason that the self isolation requirement will literally kill the summer for us). - A bunch of the guys were not at work, I assume that they were all out clubbing last night. - People were generally walking in to the shop wearing masks and asking for permission not to. They all took them off straight away, as soon as they got the go ahead.
As it was a day off, I went to the cafe. Entered without a mask - no one seemed to care. Enjoyed a decent late breakfast.
Plenty of people still wearing masks - mainly not exclusively older people - and the vast majority happy to comply with Tesco and continue to wear face coverings.
In short, little or no change - a bit of a damp squib really. It's lucky we didn't have to endure some flowery Churchillian rhetoric - that would have put me right off my dinner.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Oh, then Mr/Ms/Dr [insert cabinet minister's name, ditto Spad's name] can't have had the memo.
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
I agree that it shouldn't be called the Johnson variant.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
That would be about 1.5 doublings? Maybe 3 weeks of a difference? Possibly 4?
Which would have allowed millions more vaccinations. And the Step 4 unlocking could have occurred on schedule in June
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
He needs to get a grip on this (I assume/hope it's some flunkey actually writing this nonsense) but it's the official account and it reflects badly. Was Starmer advocating restrictions on travel from India before Delta arrived?
As for Johnson variant... bit distasteful... but perhaps what Labour needs is to play a bit rougher with the Tories?
It's also not new. I think it was Ashworth who first started calling it the Johnson variant in the HoC a couple of months ago, when accusing the Tories of not closing down the Indian border quickly enough.
Now of course delta was going to hit these shores eventually. But if the border had been closed immediately via quarantine etc. around Easter, it could have been delayed, more people could have been vaccinated in the meantime, and the spread could have been les virulent. So maybe they've got a point.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
Lots of schools have already shut because of the warm sunny weather/1 covid case
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
I agree that it shouldn't be called the Johnson variant.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
That would be about 1.5 doublings? Maybe 3 weeks of a difference? Possibly 4?
at least, think of the extra s we could have vaccinated
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
None of those people are official government advisors. You are. The government has taken a decision, deal with it. You should have made a better argument rather than presenting 100k cases per day by June 21st that was completely incredulous.
You're a complete hypocrite really. You have ample opportunity as a national scientific advisor to influence policy. Your freedom to then speak to the media is gone. You want to have your cake and eat it. Roll on Steve Baker, finally we'll be rid of hypocrite scientists that can't see beyond case numbers rather than the misery you've inflicted on us for the last year and a bit. You're more than welcome live your life in a bubble of grey, anti-social misery. Maybe it really will stop you from ever dying as seems the new SAGE goal, just don't try and inflict it on the rest of us.
Did a little commemoration of the glee at the breaching of the Möhne and Edersee dams.
Often being talented (and he did have a way with words) does come with the downside of being an absolute cock at times. Also sounded as if he had started early today.
Transport Secretary for Scotland doesn't know what his department has agreed:
This is unacceptable. @LNER services operating in Scotland should comply with the @scotgov public health guidance. I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to address this point with LNER.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
You seem to go out of your way to be unpleasant and insulting without the defence of wit or comedy.
Always seemed odd to me, as you occasionally make very interesting points.
Good Guardian story where despite the 5 million + successful EU settlement applications they have found one where the Home Office never answers the phone, their employer acts illegally, a specialist charity can't sort it and everyone has been an idiot.
Some cases make you wonder what MPs are for. It's one where a sensible one could sort it swiftly.
Plus of course with the scheme having been open for years the lady in question left it until the very, very, very last possible day before putting her paperwork in, which then wasn't done electronically.
To be fair, as I understand it she can't do it electronically because she doesn't have a passport, it's not her fault. It may simply have never occurred to her that this would be a problem, since she has lived here almost her whole life and never needed a passport. I sometimes wonder about your libertarian credentials, on this issue you seem to think the government should be heavily involved in regulating everyone's life, and it's the fault of the public if they fail to jump through the regulatory hoops with sufficient alacrity. Not everyone wakes up each morning thinking "is my paperwork in order?"
If it was up to me this paperwork wouldn't have been necessary but its not up to me. It was negotiated between Theresa May and the EU years ago, neither of which I supported, and its not something that was reopened after Boris took over - since the scheme had already been in operation for six months by that point, so it wouldn't be reasonable to reopen it then!
But with the scheme having been open since January 2019, I do think waiting until the literal deadline on 30 June 2021 is asking for trouble.
My passport has expired during lockdown so I'll need to get a new passport in order to travel next time I want to, but I'm not bothering to renew it yet. I will renew it before I next book a flight though - and if I do book a flight but then try and renew my passport on the day before I am due to fly then I don't expect I would get much sympathy for that.
I hope the problems get sorted ASAP, but nearly 4 million people had applied for settled status over a year before the scheme closed. To apply on the day it closed is going to increase the risk of having problems.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Oh, then Mr/Ms/Dr [insert cabinet minister's name, ditto Spad's name] can't have had the memo.
They are leaks. And usually investigated. There was that minister, name escapes me, who was arrested - Damian Green.
I completely agree. I think PR is *more* likely to create a centre-right hegemony than less. They are totally deluded.
What would happen, as happens nearly everywhere else, is competing blocs of "centre right" and "centre left" parties. As we are so used to monolithic party structures, the notion of a larger number of smaller parties takes some getting used to. I'm not sure how and along which fault lines this would happen but you'd likely see new parties emerging on, for example, the fiscal conservative axis (a Taxpayers' Alliance type party) or the social conservative axis.
There would be an anti-immigration low-tax party (akin to FN or AfD) while the LDs would split between the pro-Conservative faction (perhaps becoming like the German FDP) and the social liberals (more like the Danish Radikale Venstre perhaps).
There would be little movement between the blocs but some parties would either choose to be "in" or "out" of any Government led by their bloc.
The larger parties will rely on first choice votes while the smaller parties will rely on second or third preferences to get elected.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
They want to have their cake and eat it. Once again, I find myself hoping for Steve Baker to become PM and rid us of this new ruling class.
Lifting all restrictions at once is reckless - and doing so when the Johnson Variant is already out of control risks a summer of chaos.
Labour does not support the Government’s plan.
Boris Johnson’s incompetence will have deadly consequences for the British public.
I agree that it shouldn't be called the Johnson variant.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
That would be about 1.5 doublings? Maybe 3 weeks of a difference? Possibly 4?
Which would have allowed millions more vaccinations. And the Step 4 unlocking could have occurred on schedule in June
And the explosive growth that we have seen from Delta would have come into effect with no restrictions in place? At least today we can hope we are near the peak. If we had taken off the restrictions in June before delta had infected so many of the unprotected and the stupid we could have had a crisis on our hands.
I also don't see how we could have had millions of more vaccinations in June than we had because we had fewer cases. The slowness of our latter efforts with vaccinations has been and is a problem but opening up in June would have meant significantly fewer protected people than we have today.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
Both were clearly ironic pieces of prose, attempting to mock the mindset of another, rather than stating something offensive in their own voice. Clumsily perhaps but without malice all the same.
I trust this represents a cooling down period rather than permanent ban. Said poster’s prescience early last year allowed me to relocate internationally within a whisker of international lockdowns commencing, and to make a packet from the markets while I was at it.
FWIW I was in a supermarket at lunch time, then took a short cut through a bus station. I'd say 75-80%, of all ages, were masked indoors. I didn't wear one and felt quite naughty until I saw other folk not wearing them.
Went in a local boozer on Friday night about half 10 and everyone was maskless and ordering drinks at the bar. So I did the same. Felt good to stand at a bar and order a beer.
Good for you - it will take time to lose the mask mindset.
On my morning cycling exercise I saw plenty of people in fresh air walking along the street in masks.
The telegraph reports that hospitality spending is still 30% below pre 2019 levels. 30% FFS.
With furlough ending, this is a nightmare for the government, isn't it? Tom Newton Dunn tweeting a picture of an empty restaurant in central London.
With furlough ending, the chance of bankruptcies and redundancies are surely on the horizon.
Maybe there were just too many of these places? Folk have discovered just how much cash they save from eating and drinking at home more often? My barber friend reports dismal trade. Many of his regulars used to be weekly. Now they have twigged they don't need to spend a tenner a week getting 2 mm of growth taken off.
I used to spend a tenner a month on cutting hair. Now I do it myself. At first it was an all-or-nothing approach - whole head down to 1mm or less - but I've worked out I can vary it a bit and do almost as good a job as the barber himself (i.e. down to 1mm on back and sides and longer on top, with some variation between). It's not that I begrudge the tenner, but I did begrudge the 30 minutes spent waiting for a barber to become available. And I can do it whenever I want.
That improved version sounds quite Peaky Blinders.
Transport Secretary for Scotland doesn't know what his department has agreed:
This is unacceptable. @LNER services operating in Scotland should comply with the @scotgov public health guidance. I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to address this point with LNER.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
Lots of schools have already shut because of the warm sunny weather/1 covid case
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we won't be doing any more of that research for the government. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
My experience of freedom day - sitting in a fashionable cafe/hairdressers.
-The one guy who cuts hear was wearing a mask and gloves. I'm not sure if this is still a rule, but I was pretty relieved about that given the risk of transmission (I don't want to get COVID, primarily for the somewhat selfish reason that the self isolation requirement will literally kill the summer for us). - A bunch of the guys were not at work, I assume that they were all out clubbing last night. - People were generally walking in to the shop wearing masks and asking for permission not to. They all took them off straight away, as soon as they got the go ahead.
As it was a day off, I went to the cafe. Entered without a mask - no one seemed to care. Enjoyed a decent late breakfast.
Plenty of people still wearing masks - mainly not exclusively older people - and the vast majority happy to comply with Tesco and continue to wear face coverings.
In short, little or no change - a bit of a damp squib really. It's lucky we didn't have to endure some flowery Churchillian rhetoric - that would have put me right off my dinner.
It might ruin the tail end of afternoon tea.
Virtual open topped victory-lap bus ride by Boris around Chequers televised at 1700. Well a presser at any rate
FWIW I was in a supermarket at lunch time, then took a short cut through a bus station. I'd say 75-80%, of all ages, were masked indoors. I didn't wear one and felt quite naughty until I saw other folk not wearing them.
Went in a local boozer on Friday night about half 10 and everyone was maskless and ordering drinks at the bar. So I did the same. Felt good to stand at a bar and order a beer.
Good for you - it will take time to lose the mask mindset.
On my morning cycling exercise I saw plenty of people in fresh air walking along the street in masks.
The telegraph reports that hospitality spending is still 30% below pre 2019 levels. 30% FFS.
With furlough ending, this is a nightmare for the government, isn't it? Tom Newton Dunn tweeting a picture of an empty restaurant in central London.
With furlough ending, the chance of bankruptcies and redundancies are surely on the horizon.
Maybe there were just too many of these places? Folk have discovered just how much cash they save from eating and drinking at home more often? My barber friend reports dismal trade. Many of his regulars used to be weekly. Now they have twigged they don't need to spend a tenner a week getting 2 mm of growth taken off.
I used to spend a tenner a month on cutting hair. Now I do it myself. At first it was an all-or-nothing approach - whole head down to 1mm or less - but I've worked out I can vary it a bit and do almost as good a job as the barber himself (i.e. down to 1mm on back and sides and longer on top, with some variation between). It's not that I begrudge the tenner, but I did begrudge the 30 minutes spent waiting for a barber to become available. And I can do it whenever I want.
That improved version sounds quite Peaky Blinders.
Not at all, I have no issue with him either advising the government or speaking to the media. Choose one. At the moment dissent isn't limited to minutes, it's spread far and wide across multiple media outlets to try and influence policy decisions after they've been made and it's being done by people who have not been elected or faced any serious scrutiny on their personal or political agendas.
It's a ridiculous situation that we've let such unelected people to have such a huge influence on how we live as we, the people, have no way of getting rid of this new ruling class of experts and people who think they know what's best for me and everyone else. You might be happy to live under that, I'm not.
Why do I have to choose one? Industry bosses talk to the Govt and then talk to media. Influential journalists publish in the media, and then talk to Govt in private too. Freedom means people are allowed to dissent in multiple places.
As Northern_Al said, lots of unelected people have influence. My point remains that the unelected people on SAGE have less power than you think, MaxPB. The elected people are absolutely definitely the ones in charge, making decisions. If you are unhappy with the decisions of the elected people, then, like me, you will get a chance to vote them out at the next election. There are several political groups offering a more "anti-lockdown" position you can choose from.
(I would say that had the Govt got controlling the pandemic done better, we could have avoided most of the restrictions we've had on our lives. There were no national lockdowns in South Korea.)
Freedom means other people get to do what they want, even if you don't like it. That seems to be the key issue you are confused on.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
Fake news. I've been having non-Covid related NHS treatment several times over the last couple of months. No appointment has been cancelled. The treatment has been brilliant. I know of several others who would report the same.
My experience of freedom day - sitting in a fashionable cafe/hairdressers.
-The one guy who cuts hear was wearing a mask and gloves. I'm not sure if this is still a rule, but I was pretty relieved about that given the risk of transmission (I don't want to get COVID, primarily for the somewhat selfish reason that the self isolation requirement will literally kill the summer for us). - A bunch of the guys were not at work, I assume that they were all out clubbing last night. - People were generally walking in to the shop wearing masks and asking for permission not to. They all took them off straight away, as soon as they got the go ahead.
As it was a day off, I went to the cafe. Entered without a mask - no one seemed to care. Enjoyed a decent late breakfast.
Plenty of people still wearing masks - mainly not exclusively older people - and the vast majority happy to comply with Tesco and continue to wear face coverings.
In short, little or no change - a bit of a damp squib really. It's lucky we didn't have to endure some flowery Churchillian rhetoric - that would have put me right off my dinner.
It might ruin the tail end of afternoon tea.
Virtual open topped victory-lap bus ride by Boris around Chequers televised at 1700. Well a presser at any rate
"Bus" is not a happy term in Johnsonland. To be exterminated and swamped on Google by loudly reporting one's prowess in making cardboard box buses.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Wednesday is the big day - that's when leaps normally happen as that Monday's school cases get counted.
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
Schools don't break up until Wednesday here – assume that's widely the case across England?
I think some broke up on Friday. Ours (Trafford) don't break up until next Friday, but we're late, having had two weeks off in June.
Granddaughter-in-law, a secondary school teacher, finished on Friday. Her husband, Eldest Grandson , in the same county, doesn't finish until Wednesday. Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
They want to have their cake and eat it. Once again, I find myself hoping for Steve Baker to become PM and rid us of this new ruling class.
Absolutely. But @bondegezou is also right. Johnson doesn't escape blame for this. He could have presented himself and the govt as an arbiter of the various competing voices, SAGE being one of them. Instead he wrapped himself in the NHS flag, or rather comfort blanket, and made himself a passenger.
As I said at the outset of the pandemic, if you have the PM, CSO and CMO at the podium at 5pm opining about Formula 1 racing, pretty soon there would be no Formula 1 racing.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
I see that my outing you as a Walter Mitty was correct. My bullshitometer always goes to max each time I see any of your posts that no-one else wants to read.
How did you put it, btw? Dr. Ishmael Z Oxon PhD. (sic)? 😂😂😂😂 I bet you haven't even got an 'ology! "The post was merely a gag anyway 😂😂😂😂
Seriously though, I think you maybe are suffering from a severe case of another malaise: psychological projection, where you accuse others of issues that trouble yourself. Boring people is clearly a major issue for yourself, I don't imagine anyone goes "hey, IshmaelZ's post I must read that, it'll be really informative or funny!". I know I should feel sorry for you really, and I know that I really should, as a nice well brought up boy, be nice to twats, but I have to make an exception for you. Keep taking the tablets Walter. Love and kisses xxxx
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
It's the "Independent SAGE" name that gets me. It gets them on TV where, not infrequently, they are posted as bing the real thing (admittedly Susan Michie and Steven Reicher are on both) when they are not either independent (their comms are by Carole Cadwalladr's organisation) nor SAGE (it's like me setting up a tax advisory service called "Independent HMRC" - that would get shut down quickly)
Transport Secretary for Scotland doesn't know what his department has agreed:
This is unacceptable. @LNER services operating in Scotland should comply with the @scotgov public health guidance. I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to address this point with LNER.
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
Fake news. I've been having non-Covid related NHS treatment several times over the last couple of months. No appointment has been cancelled. The treatment has been brilliant. I know of several others who would report the same.
Do you think it possible your anecdote is not representative? Because I know someone who’s cancer treatment was arbitrarily stopped between March - Aug 2020 which led to it becoming untreatable. And someone else who was pencilled in for urgent open heart surgery last spring who is still waiting. Someone’s anecdote’s arent telling the whole picture are they.
Transport Secretary for Scotland doesn't know what his department has agreed:
This is unacceptable. @LNER services operating in Scotland should comply with the @scotgov public health guidance. I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to address this point with LNER.
I don't known where you live [irony] but it's an arms-length agency, what used to be called a quango. Not a Civil Service dept.
Yes - its a bad habit of UK governmentS to hive off responsibility so when things go wrong ministers can go "not me guv". But it does suggest he didn't trouble to ask before tweeting.
Let’s not get excited but 39,950 today as compared to 34,471 reported last Monday comes under the heading “much better than feared”. A 15% or so increase week on week?
Most likely just people not reporting cases – off work due to hot weather? Dunno.
I don't want to be one of those people who ties spikes to specific events, as that's proven foolish in the past - but could it just be that last week was artificially high due to football-related exuberance?
Possible I suppose.
But as you say, events-based forecasting has failed miserably in the past: remember the pearl-clutching about London picnics in April 2020 or the Bournemouth beach moral panic?
Neither had any effect on numbers.
The football might, of course, be a different animal.
The beach and parks shenanigans were outside, and as has been said, not as bad as the photographers made it look. The footy last week was different - lots of folk gathering for the communal watching of the game. We'll see.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Got back, put BBC parliament on and discover that freedom day is now tyranny day with the government announcing you can't live a normal life without accepting the vaccine
Not at all, I have no issue with him either advising the government or speaking to the media. Choose one. At the moment dissent isn't limited to minutes, it's spread far and wide across multiple media outlets to try and influence policy decisions after they've been made and it's being done by people who have not been elected or faced any serious scrutiny on their personal or political agendas.
It's a ridiculous situation that we've let such unelected people to have such a huge influence on how we live as we, the people, have no way of getting rid of this new ruling class of experts and people who think they know what's best for me and everyone else. You might be happy to live under that, I'm not.
Why do I have to choose one? Industry bosses talk to the Govt and then talk to media. Influential journalists publish in the media, and then talk to Govt in private too. Freedom means people are allowed to dissent in multiple places.
As Northern_Al said, lots of unelected people have influence. My point remains that the unelected people on SAGE have less power than you think, MaxPB. The elected people are absolutely definitely the ones in charge, making decisions. If you are unhappy with the decisions of the elected people, then, like me, you will get a chance to vote them out at the next election. There are several political groups offering a more "anti-lockdown" position you can choose from.
(I would say that had the Govt got controlling the pandemic done better, we could have avoided most of the restrictions we've had on our lives. There were no national lockdowns in South Korea.)
Freedom means other people get to do what they want, even if you don't like it. That seems to be the key issue you are confused on.
Industry people absolutely don't have that capability if they sit on advisory bodies. One of our people is on the government's City strategy advisory body and he had to sign all kinds of stuff saying he couldn't talk about this to the media (not that he would, I mean he's a regulatory affairs person no one cares about what he's saying).
You're inventing scenarios to justify your hypocrisy. Advisors advise. They don't go and bitch about decisions that have gone against them. If you want to do that then resign your position and make it clear that you could no longer take part in a process that was anti-science/ignored experts or whatever else.
The whole point is that you're not part of the great unwashed, you're in a huge position of privilege being in an advisory role and that comes with responsibility. You've chosen to not bother with the responsibility part. Fine, but it makes you a hypocrite.
And your comment on South Korea is very telling. Do you really believe that the UK could implement a biosecurity police state where everyone's movement data is handed to the state by default? Keeping cases down is not the only consideration in the UK. That you're apparently incapable of seeing that is very worrying as you sit on a SAGE committee.
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
I got involved on Twitter in a heated debate about nuclear and HPC, which resulted in a final comment from the pro-nuclear industry lobbyist of:*
"well, it doesn't really matter that it's really expensive and doesn't mesh with renewables and will be unreliable because we can't meet our CO2 emissions targets without it"
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
Fake news. I've been having non-Covid related NHS treatment several times over the last couple of months. No appointment has been cancelled. The treatment has been brilliant. I know of several others who would report the same.
Do you think it possible your anecdote is not representative? Because I know someone who’s cancer treatment was arbitrarily stopped between March - Aug 2020 which led to it becoming untreatable. And someone else who was pencilled in for urgent open heart surgery last spring who is still waiting. Someone’s anecdote’s arent telling the whole picture are they.
Yes, of course I'm aware of that; my anecdote was merely responding to the blunt assertion that "the NHS has ground to a halt". It hasn't where I am (a Covid hotspot, incidentally). Experiences will vary, and I'm fully aware that there are very serious problems.
As an aside - why are people so down in Independent SAGE?
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
It's the "Independent SAGE" name that gets me. It gets them on TV where, not infrequently, they are posted as bing the real thing (admittedly Susan Michie and Steven Reicher are on both) when they are not either independent (their comms are by Carole Cadwalladr's organisation) nor SAGE (it's like me setting up a tax advisory service called "Independent HMRC" - that would get shut down quickly)
It is not so long ago that to question the standpoint of any scientist on here whatsoever was to invite a sustained and aggressive climb on from poster after poster.
Now, questioning scientists' views and motivations is commonplace.
18,186 new first doses in the whole of the UK? What on earth is going on?
No one left to vaccinate. vaccination centres are everywhere but are quite, there was even a walk in vaccination centre at the Golf.
There is not much more the Government can do.
There are plenty of people left to vaccinate. Get them booked in quicker as was done before. There is absolutely no reason to slow down, they can fill the vaccination centres with the unvaccinated as they have done from the start.
Either the organisation has fallen down, or we are desperately short of vaccines, or the remaining millions who haven't had both jabs are refusing.
There are thousands of vaccination centres around the Country which you can just walk in whenever and get a vaccine, no need to book.
The Government are continually advertising this.
What more do you want them to do?
Two things they could do to incres the rate of vaccination and therefore slow the spread quicker:
1) Allow under 18s that what to get vaccinated, to have the Jab,
2) Bring down the wait for the second Jab,
and 2 more radical policy's that could also be implemented:
1) Acquire a border range of vaccines, including the Johnson and Johnson, the Russian and even a few of the Chines vaccines, and then give the people who have sead no to vaccines so far a chose of which vaccine. this will not get everybody but there will be some who when empowered to make a chose about which vaccine will feel more willing to take part in the overall program.
2) Empower/enable company's that wish to have a 'you must be vaccinated to work/do business here' policy to implement that. AIUI nursing homes will be able to implement that policy from September, I think any company should be able to do that form tomorrow.
From the daily (and rather good) email from Stephen Bush of the Staggers:
"There's an important “but” here, too, which is that amid all the talk of a “pingdemic”, it's easy to forget that the constant threat of being asked to self-isolate by the NHS app isn't a glitch in the system or some strange oversight. It's a feature, not a bug, of England unlocking, and this, coupled with the faster-spreading Delta variant, means a new wave of coronavirus cases. Complaining about a pingdemic is a bit like complaining that your fire alarm has gone off because you've burnt something on the hob: yes, it's a pain, but the problem isn't the fire alarm."
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
It's always been like that. Conversely when Labour cut waiting times to 3 months in the late 2000s, private health care companies who weren't subcontracting to the NHS were struggling. People who have enough money to afford private health care opt for it if they will otherwise have a long, painful and/or dangerous wait. If the NHS offers treatment fairly promptly, people feel that's not too bad, I'll save the money.
The case for the NHS being valuable even for the well-off is that you can't tell when you'll need very serious and expensive treatment, so it's reasonable to pay some tax as insurance.
19 July: 39950 cases. So it looks as though the peak of this wave was 54000 to the nearest 1000.
Key concept: expectations management.
We won't know if it's the peak until we have this week behind us, however it is encouraging.
For the record, and I'd like all of PB to recognise this, I think the only two posters to have "peak" numbers in the 53,000-55,000 range were @Charles and @rcs1000
So, maybe congratulations to then, whoever they are.
I wonder what its like when SeanT gets banned and has to regenerate.
Is it like Doctor Who - a burst of energy then a new face/username? Is it like Captain Jack when he actually lies there unbreathing for a few minutes until coming back with a big gasp? Is it like one of the Cylons where they awake on the resurrection ship?
What was he banned for this time? I think I will miss his brand of stupidity. Yes he is an idiot, often expressing obnoxious views, but it is fun needling him. He did mange to be reasonably restrained when I suggested SeanT's books were the poor man's Dan Brown lol.
He was one of the half dozen most intelligent posters on the site. You, to put it mildly, are not.
Oh, so you think you are lol! You are the most arrogant plonkers on this site, with nothing to be arrogant about. You are the only nob on here to have made much of your Oxford PhD., which is probably even less believable than one of SeanT's plotlines, particularly as when you quoted it you got the form wrong. What are you going to do next, do a Trump and claim you have "the highest" IQ lol?
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
It wasn't an Oxford PhD. There is no such thing as an Oxford PhD. The post was merely a gag anyway. You have not interviewed lots of Oxford PhDs because there aren't any. You cannot put finger to keyboard without embarrassing yourself and boring everybody else. Why are you even here?
You seem to go out of your way to be unpleasant and insulting without the defence of wit or comedy.
Always seemed odd to me, as you occasionally make very interesting points.
I ought to come on here more often as I have never seen him (I assume "he" is a "him") make an interesting comment. Just obnoxious attacks on other people. I guess it is because no one seeks to comment on his posts so he just says obnoxious things to other people, without, as you so eloquently put it, the defence of wit or comedy. A complete saddo really. He is also a very angry saddo as I just outed him as a Walter Mitty 😂😂
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we won't be doing any more of that research for the government. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
Nah you're making a false equivalence. If you have been retained by the government to do something, either as you did agree the rules in advance publish/don't publish.
But in this particular instance, a national emergency, then different rules should apply. The government should be able to rely on you to give your unbiased, honest opinion, and then be free to ignore it because there is competing information which you are not privy to.
Let's imagine the government finds out via the security services using a new technique that a hostile state is planning to damage part of the country and the choice is to make it public and thereby give away the new technique or not and thereby be able to prevent further damage and gain significant strategic advantage. Imagine they asked a group what the damage would be and, having advised what it would be, that group then gave a press conference to that end.
A wartime analogy is always going to be stretched but the principle remains. If you are advising the government and you as advisor only know part of the picture, you shouldn't go bitching to the media.
By the way, if anyone is interested in the Animal Sentience Committee Bill, the EFRA Committee is broadcasting live hearings about it. I'll be on the panel from 5.30.
But I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to dissent. In fact dissent is necessary as that's the only way to make an informed choice. My issue is specifically that the dissenters will go off to their favourite media organisation and bitch about the decision and try and influence national policy after the fact. Dissent stays in the minutes, that's the only way this works properly.
[...]
I advise my company's management on strategic decisions, sometimes (a lot of the time, in fact) they go against my advice. I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong and fucking everything up, I just get on with life and make sure next time I am better prepared with evidence or business outlines to support my ideas better.
If I disagree with my employer, my 'company', if they go against my advice, I don't then go and bitch internally about how they are wrong. So, just like you.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
That's incredibly petty. You're in a position of huge responsibility and privilege being able to have some input into the national COVID strategy. Honestly, I'm losing a lot of respect for you and I do read your posts very carefully because of your position and knowledge of the subject and situation.
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
Fake news. I've been having non-Covid related NHS treatment several times over the last couple of months. No appointment has been cancelled. The treatment has been brilliant. I know of several others who would report the same.
Do you think it possible your anecdote is not representative? Because I know someone who’s cancer treatment was arbitrarily stopped between March - Aug 2020 which led to it becoming untreatable. And someone else who was pencilled in for urgent open heart surgery last spring who is still waiting. Someone’s anecdote’s arent telling the whole picture are they.
Mrs C's ophthalmology appointments (for macular degeneration) have continued regularly thought. However, I had a problem with a repair of a cataract operation. I've got a telephone consultation in a coup[le of weeks time for a probable osteoarthritis problem in a couple of weeks time; been waiting about 4 weeks.
So overall, about average. Very difficult to 'see' a GP, though. Phone appointments, yes.
19 July: 39950 cases. So it looks as though the peak of this wave was 54000 to the nearest 1000.
Key concept: expectations management.
We won't know if it's the peak until we have this week behind us, however it is encouraging.
For the record, and I'd like all of PB to recognise this, I think the only two posters to have "peak" numbers in the 53,000-55,000 range were @Charles and @rcs1000
So, maybe congratulations to then, whoever they are.
But that's the point, you're on the one hand saying your advice to the government is just advice but on the other hand telling us that you should be free to bitch to the media when the government decides that your advice is just advisory.
Simply, you want to pretend that you aren't trying to influence policy decisions outside of your remit by maintaining a pretence that the government is free to ignore your advice but then the first moment this happens you'll bitch to the media that the government is "ignoring the science" or whatever else. It's only been happening for a year.
When you use the phrase "on the one hand [...] on the other hand", you are normally meant to present some sort of contradiction...? I am a scientist employed by a university in a country that believes in free speech and academic freedom. Part of my role as a scientist is to communicate my research to others. 99% of the time, that means talking to other academics, but if policymakers want to listen to me, I'll talk to them. If a radio channel wants to listen to me, I'll talk to them.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
You are not free to bitch to the media when you are integral to the government's decision-making process.
Ok, so let's take a different example.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we don't be doing any more of that research. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
You should have to resign from your position before doing so and make clear that is the reason you resigned. Didn't the children's tsar just do that? It's called having integrity.
That's really is different - it's an official position, with actual powers.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
Both were clearly ironic pieces of prose, attempting to mock the mindset of another, rather than stating something offensive in their own voice. Clumsily perhaps but without malice all the same.
I trust this represents a cooling down period rather than permanent ban. Said poster’s prescience early last year allowed me to relocate internationally within a whisker of international lockdowns commencing, and to make a packet from the markets while I was at it.
I am not sure what Leon has done and I accept that the site can basically ban whoever they want, but I do think it is a bit unfortunate. His posts were unmatched in their entertainment value.
Kicking off - bottles being throw at the police anti lockdown protesters and police fighting back with some punches at parliament square, a good 2000 protesters here and a heavy police presence …. In this heat it’s going to be a long day of clashes
They're not. According to the Evening Standard, they are anti the vaccination campaign - or at least against the possible introduction of mandatory vaccination. "No jabs for children, no coercion for adults" reads one banner.
It should seriously be possible for a newspaper to report a demonstration in a more objectively informative way than writing things like this:
"Despite the signs and placards promoting various unfounded conspiracy theories, it is unclear what has prompted an anti-lockdown demonstration on the day lockdown ended in the UK.
However, a number of protestors appear to be registering their opposition to the Covid vaccine, which has saved millions of lives across the globe."
Comments
SAGE pronouncing on developments as they happen can inhibit good government.
But I would hope that all of us would have moved quicker than he did to move India to the red list.
Delta was discovered in late 2020.
In early March, while the cricket stadiums were filled, Covid cases began to go through the roof. India was only put on the Red List at the end of April, within days of cases of topping out in the Subcontinent.
He did move too slow.
Almost everyone on here recognised he moved too slow. It is entirely possible that, had he moved quicker, that the number of seedign cases could be 75% fewer. That would have had a massive impact on the size of the Delta wave.
Total hospital occupancy (19 Jul): 4543. England: 3813
Yesterday (18 Jul): 4254. Eng: 3546
Last Week (12 Jul): 3419. England: 2798
Spring Peak: 21687 (12 Apr)
Winter Peak: 39254 (18 Jan)
Eng Spring: 18974 (12 Apr)
Eng Winter: 34336 (18 Jan)
https://twitter.com/ganeshran/status/1417141746493018117?s=20
Hopefully, given many schools have now broken up, we won't see such a big jump - or indeed, may see a decline.
So, yes, my advice to govt is just advice. I can't make govt do what I say. (They certainly frequently haven't to date!) And, yes, I should be free to bitch to the media, just like everyone else in the country is free to bitch to the media.
I am absolutely trying to influence policy decisions. I have not said otherwise. Lots of people try to influence policy decisions: MPs do, constituents do when they write to MPs, columnists do when they write columns, PB.com article writers do when they write articles. That's again how democracy works.
Lots of people try to influence policy decisions, the government absorbs all those inputs and comes to a decision. Who is responsible for the decision? Well, the Government is.
If I think the Govt is ignoring the science, I will absolutely bitch about it. I'm a scientist: that's my duty. If the Govt is ignoring fishermen, then the fishing industry bitch about it to the media. I'm not complaining about that. That's how it works.
You keep talking about freedom, but your freedom always seems to mean other people being silenced. That is not what "freedom" means. Freedom means that we are all allowed to say things, to whoever will listen.
There would be an anti-immigration low-tax party (akin to FN or AfD) while the LDs would split between the pro-Conservative faction (perhaps becoming like the German FDP) and the social liberals (more like the Danish Radikale Venstre perhaps).
There would be little movement between the blocs but some parties would either choose to be "in" or "out" of any Government led by their bloc.
The larger parties will rely on first choice votes while the smaller parties will rely on second or third preferences to get elected.
I have interviewed and employed lots of genuine Oxbridge PhD's and some of them are wankers like yourself, so I guess it is possible. On the other hand, more likely that you are a Walter Mitty.
SeanT was fun, and lots of people, even those of us with a very different view thought so. If people see your profile they generally think just think "obnoxious contrarian wanker" .
Starmer has shown himself through this crisis to be distinctly unserious. Hence his clowning around now with silly terms like "Johnson variant" when he has no alternative suggestions except "errr maybe keeps masks for a bit longer?"
Same as before, its not that long since he was challenged to find an alternative policy on anything and wibbled about zoos.
It may simply have never occurred to her that this would be a problem, since she has lived here almost her whole life and never needed a passport.
I sometimes wonder about your libertarian credentials, on this issue you seem to think the government should be heavily involved in regulating everyone's life, and it's the fault of the public if they fail to jump through the regulatory hoops with sufficient alacrity. Not everyone wakes up each morning thinking "is my paperwork in order?"
-The one guy who cuts hear was wearing a mask and gloves. I'm not sure if this is still a rule, but I was pretty relieved about that given the risk of transmission (I don't want to get COVID, primarily for the somewhat selfish reason that the self isolation requirement will literally kill the summer for us).
- A bunch of the guys were not at work, I assume that they were all out clubbing last night.
- People were generally walking in to the shop wearing masks and asking for permission not to. They all took them off straight away, as soon as they got the go ahead.
The Government are continually advertising this.
What more do you want them to do?
I would say the probability that labour get a poll lead by the end of the year is very high. All it takes is for the tories to mess up for a bit, which they keep doing constantly.
But as you say, events-based forecasting has failed miserably in the past: remember the pearl-clutching about London picnics in April 2020 or the Bournemouth beach moral panic?
Neither had any effect on numbers.
The football might, of course, be a different animal.
The other day I got a leaflet from my local 'independent health community' (which I did not know even existed). Inside were details a whole range of highly qualified practitioners I could contact if I felt the need. Independent of the NHS of course and presumably for a price.
Look at the numbers on operations. The NHS has ground to halt. Behind the mile thick proaganda about its prowess and its efficacy, it has essentially ceased to exist. The supply of treatment, for whatever reason, has slowed to a trickle.
For 'independent health communities' to exist at all, the middle class are clearly baling out. Rummaging around in the family silver and the savings to get the treatment they need.
That is where we are.
Plenty of people still wearing masks - mainly not exclusively older people - and the vast majority happy to comply with Tesco and continue to wear face coverings.
In short, little or no change - a bit of a damp squib really. It's lucky we didn't have to endure some flowery Churchillian rhetoric - that would have put me right off my dinner.
Now of course delta was going to hit these shores eventually. But if the border had been closed immediately via quarantine etc. around Easter, it could have been delayed, more people could have been vaccinated in the meantime, and the spread could have been les virulent. So maybe they've got a point.
Eid Mubarak to our Muslim PBers.
And Happy Birthday to my brother, with whom we’ve had a WebEx party this afternoon, before he and his wife go to the pub later!
You're a complete hypocrite really. You have ample opportunity as a national scientific advisor to influence policy. Your freedom to then speak to the media is gone. You want to have your cake and eat it. Roll on Steve Baker, finally we'll be rid of hypocrite scientists that can't see beyond case numbers rather than the misery you've inflicted on us for the last year and a bit. You're more than welcome live your life in a bubble of grey, anti-social misery. Maybe it really will stop you from ever dying as seems the new SAGE goal, just don't try and inflict it on the rest of us.
Transport Secretary for Scotland doesn't know what his department has agreed:
This is unacceptable. @LNER services operating in Scotland should comply with the @scotgov public health guidance. I’ve asked Transport Scotland officials to address this point with LNER.
https://twitter.com/MathesonMichael/status/1417112792834977792?s=20
Always seemed odd to me, as you occasionally make very interesting points.
But with the scheme having been open since January 2019, I do think waiting until the literal deadline on 30 June 2021 is asking for trouble.
My passport has expired during lockdown so I'll need to get a new passport in order to travel next time I want to, but I'm not bothering to renew it yet. I will renew it before I next book a flight though - and if I do book a flight but then try and renew my passport on the day before I am due to fly then I don't expect I would get much sympathy for that.
I hope the problems get sorted ASAP, but nearly 4 million people had applied for settled status over a year before the scheme closed. To apply on the day it closed is going to increase the risk of having problems.
So it looks as though the peak of this wave was 54000 to the nearest 1000.
Key concept: expectations management.
I also don't see how we could have had millions of more vaccinations in June than we had because we had fewer cases. The slowness of our latter efforts with vaccinations has been and is a problem but opening up in June would have meant significantly fewer protected people than we have today.
Everyone (certainly myself included) has made some duff recommendations at one point or another, but the things I've seen from them have generally looked pretty good with hindsight.
Warning about long covid, calling for ventilation in schools, warning of pressure on hospitals, better funding for isolation, India red list etc.
And one thing they've flagged which I'm keeping an eye on is the very fast growth of cases in the North East, which seems hard to explain when looking at vaccination rates/other variables. An early sign of a new variant? Hopefully not...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/blairs-good-running-congo-let-stay/
Both were clearly ironic pieces of prose, attempting to mock the mindset of another, rather than stating something offensive in their own voice. Clumsily perhaps but without malice all the same.
I trust this represents a cooling down period rather than permanent ban. Said poster’s prescience early last year allowed me to relocate internationally within a whisker of international lockdowns commencing, and to make a packet from the markets while I was at it.
I'm part of a team directly funded by the Department of Health to look at the impact of a government policy. The goverment policy seems to have had no effect (this has happened to me).
Should we be free to publish this - do interviews, whatever - even if the government pushes ahead with the policy anyway and does not want us to publish? (this has not happened to me - we were clear in advance that we could publish anyway and in the event the government then quietly dropped the policy, which was only at pilot stage anyway)
If the answer is yes, we should be free to publish, then it's hard to see how we, actually paid to do this by the government should be able to while SAGE should not.
If the answer is no, then we won't be doing any more of that research for the government. The government can take it in house with actual employees, fine. But they'll either have to maintain a large pool of government-employed experts just in case or use generalists who may lack expertise in niche areas.
The government, if it wants, can abolish the concept of SAGE and instead directly employ more experts and have direct control over what they say. I've no problem with that on any moral level, although I think the current process of advice from truly independent people out in the open is preferable and likely to be more effective. A purely in-house team could tend to be self-selecting for particular biases and liable to groupthink. In the meantime, the independent experts in the field will presumably be allowed (and likely feel more free on a personal level) to explain exactly what the government is doing wrong. The government/interal team of experts may even refer to the indepent experts' evidence in making decisions - they'd be wise to, probably. So what exactly has been achieved?
Virtual open topped victory-lap bus ride by Boris around Chequers televised at 1700. Well a presser at any rate
As Northern_Al said, lots of unelected people have influence. My point remains that the unelected people on SAGE have less power than you think, MaxPB. The elected people are absolutely definitely the ones in charge, making decisions. If you are unhappy with the decisions of the elected people, then, like me, you will get a chance to vote them out at the next election. There are several political groups offering a more "anti-lockdown" position you can choose from.
(I would say that had the Govt got controlling the pandemic done better, we could have avoided most of the restrictions we've had on our lives. There were no national lockdowns in South Korea.)
Freedom means other people get to do what they want, even if you don't like it. That seems to be the key issue you are confused on.
I forecast 40k several weeks ago, so on an error of 0.125% I claim victory and my £5.
LNER has said it will ignore Scottish public health advice in Scotland. I have written to the Managing Director, @DavidHorne, urging @LNER to reconsider its ill-advised policy.
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1417122280828719109?s=20
Granddaughter Three finished two weeks ago.
As I said at the outset of the pandemic, if you have the PM, CSO and CMO at the podium at 5pm opining about Formula 1 racing, pretty soon there would be no Formula 1 racing.
How did you put it, btw? Dr. Ishmael Z Oxon PhD. (sic)? 😂😂😂😂 I bet you haven't even got an 'ology! "The post was merely a gag anyway 😂😂😂😂
Seriously though, I think you maybe are suffering from a severe case of another malaise: psychological projection, where you accuse others of issues that trouble yourself. Boring people is clearly a major issue for yourself, I don't imagine anyone goes "hey, IshmaelZ's post I must read that, it'll be really informative or funny!". I know I should feel sorry for you really, and I know that I really should, as a nice well brought up boy, be nice to twats, but I have to make an exception for you. Keep taking the tablets Walter. Love and kisses xxxx
Doesn't seem like anyone on twitter wants to hear that LNER agreed it with Transport Scotland in the first place.
However, Government does not employ me. Were Govt to pay me my standard consultancy rate, I would keep quiet, as I would for any client. Government has chosen not to do that.
Got back, put BBC parliament on and discover that freedom day is now tyranny day with the government announcing you can't live a normal life without accepting the vaccine
You're inventing scenarios to justify your hypocrisy. Advisors advise. They don't go and bitch about decisions that have gone against them. If you want to do that then resign your position and make it clear that you could no longer take part in a process that was anti-science/ignored experts or whatever else.
The whole point is that you're not part of the great unwashed, you're in a huge position of privilege being in an advisory role and that comes with responsibility. You've chosen to not bother with the responsibility part. Fine, but it makes you a hypocrite.
And your comment on South Korea is very telling. Do you really believe that the UK could implement a biosecurity police state where everyone's movement data is handed to the state by default? Keeping cases down is not the only consideration in the UK. That you're apparently incapable of seeing that is very worrying as you sit on a SAGE committee.
Heck I suspect the peak will be sometime next week but underreported as schools will be closed and the number of tests done is going to plummet.
"well, it doesn't really matter that it's really expensive and doesn't mesh with renewables and will be unreliable because we can't meet our CO2 emissions targets without it"
Thought I'd share that with you all.
* I'm paraphrasing
Now, questioning scientists' views and motivations is commonplace.
1) Allow under 18s that what to get vaccinated, to have the Jab,
2) Bring down the wait for the second Jab,
and 2 more radical policy's that could also be implemented:
1) Acquire a border range of vaccines, including the Johnson and Johnson, the Russian and even a few of the Chines vaccines, and then give the people who have sead no to vaccines so far a chose of which vaccine. this will not get everybody but there will be some who when empowered to make a chose about which vaccine will feel more willing to take part in the overall program.
2) Empower/enable company's that wish to have a 'you must be vaccinated to work/do business here' policy to implement that. AIUI nursing homes will be able to implement that policy from September, I think any company should be able to do that form tomorrow.
Covid regulations say 1m distancing needed in "premises", which "includes any building or structure and any land"
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1417148543094173701?s=20
"There's an important “but” here, too, which is that amid all the talk of a “pingdemic”, it's easy to forget that the constant threat of being asked to self-isolate by the NHS app isn't a glitch in the system or some strange oversight. It's a feature, not a bug, of England unlocking, and this, coupled with the faster-spreading Delta variant, means a new wave of coronavirus cases. Complaining about a pingdemic is a bit like complaining that your fire alarm has gone off because you've burnt something on the hob: yes, it's a pain, but the problem isn't the fire alarm."
The case for the NHS being valuable even for the well-off is that you can't tell when you'll need very serious and expensive treatment, so it's reasonable to pay some tax as insurance.
For the record, and I'd like all of PB to recognise this, I think the only two posters to have "peak" numbers in the 53,000-55,000 range were @Charles and @rcs1000
So, maybe congratulations to then, whoever they are.
But in this particular instance, a national emergency, then different rules should apply. The government should be able to rely on you to give your unbiased, honest opinion, and then be free to ignore it because there is competing information which you are not privy to.
Let's imagine the government finds out via the security services using a new technique that a hostile state is planning to damage part of the country and the choice is to make it public and thereby give away the new technique or not and thereby be able to prevent further damage and gain significant strategic advantage. Imagine they asked a group what the damage would be and, having advised what it would be, that group then gave a press conference to that end.
A wartime analogy is always going to be stretched but the principle remains. If you are advising the government and you as advisor only know part of the picture, you shouldn't go bitching to the media.
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/4913/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
So overall, about average. Very difficult to 'see' a GP, though. Phone appointments, yes.
To be clear - if Chris Whitty goes off to Channel 4 news saying the government has cocked up it's Covid policy, he can't stay as Chief Medical Officer, he has to resign. Likewise Patrick Vallance. They have responsibilities and official positions.
People on SAGE weren't even named before there was a call for more transparency.
According to the Evening Standard, they are anti the vaccination campaign - or at least against the possible introduction of mandatory vaccination. "No jabs for children, no coercion for adults" reads one banner.
It should seriously be possible for a newspaper to report a demonstration in a more objectively informative way than writing things like this:
"Despite the signs and placards promoting various unfounded conspiracy theories, it is unclear what has prompted an anti-lockdown demonstration on the day lockdown ended in the UK.
However, a number of protestors appear to be registering their opposition to the Covid vaccine, which has saved millions of lives across the globe."