politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump bans all travel to Europe for a month from tomorrow excl

https://twitter.com/BenM_IM/status/1238026221105164288?s=20

No_Offence_Alan said:

CatMan said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1238016059984224256?s=20

Someone should tell him about Ireland.

The FTSE has still been trashed by his stupidity.

I hadnt factored in the start of a proper US-EU trade war if Trump gets re-elected. He may kiss and make up with China and go after the EU next. There have been trade flashpoints over the last decade but it would be easy for this to spiral out of control.

Balrog said:

malcolmg said:

IanB2 said:

In other news, I am starting to lose track, but think my trading profits since 24 Feb have now passed £10k; more than enough to pay for all the holidays I wont be taking.

Slightly better than my £150K deficit, holidays not required.

But at least if you sit tight the market will go back up again. Whereas with the budget yesterday I lost many times that amount. Though I guess it made sense.

How did the budget cost you so much?

This is how they are fighting it in China

https://twitter.com/manisha_kataki/status/1238007207700180992?s=20

We are an absolute joke, except this is deadly serious

Absolutely essential reading. Why just about everything must close and now ...

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1237908112834691074?s=20

LOL, that’s brilliant!
It’s amazing how politicians can acquire a good sense of humour once they leave office.
See Ed Balls and Michael Portillo for British examples.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Yes, I suspect it's something like this:
The government decides that the maximum amount of time you can have really strict measures in place without causing massive problems, let's say 3 weeks.
They then ask scientists when is the best time to have a 3-week lockdown?
Scientists say "not yet"
Then they correctly say they are following scientific advice.
But perhaps it would be better to do more earlier, even if it means being willing to have much longer lengths of time with stricter measures in place. To me, it certainly looks like it. I would argue that what is happening in Lombardy right now is already seriously traumatising to society and we should be tending more towards doing all-it-takes than we are.

Interesting comments from the GP this AM:

1 - As a member of a vulnerable group, delay your routine dental appointment, as dentists are the health pros most exposed to the mechanisms for COVID-19 transmission. Good point.

2 - Thinks this will be the worst epidemic of this type in his lifetime.

3 - Thinks it will be spread amongst the wider community because young people in the UK will not comply with advice as they are not at such risk. Not sure I agree with that. Most young people I know are quite responsible.

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/gilesyb/status/1237999834822574080?s=21

No one is listening Alastair

I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.

Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.

The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone.
The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so.
Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.

We'll see.

In reality so far:
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century.
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.

What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?

Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?

Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.

Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.

That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.

If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.

So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is:
Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone

And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been:
Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone

That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

That will require 30 million odd infections. Even if you spread that out over six months, with two weeks per person, it's 2 million people infected at any one time, or about 200 times the current infection rate in Italy that is already overwhelming their health system.

That's not a plan. That's a disaster.

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, whether or not it's possible to have rational reasons for wishing the UK to leave the EU is entirely relevant given your view of the most 'ardent', as you put it, Leavers.

"The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future."

I agree it's very unhelpful that the use of language such as 'treachery' and 'xenophobia' has proliferated. There are entirely reasonable arguments for the UK to retain membership of the EU or to leave it, and noisy fringe elements who consider one to be treason and the other to be racism do more harm than good to their own sides.

Mr. Jonathan, the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.

More thinking and less mindless opposition from pro-EU MPs would've served their cause well. I remember Grieve bleating in the Commons that it was 'too late' when the Government backed down and gave him precisely what he wanted, and he voted against them anyway.

This I'm afraid is incorrect. These arguments have been rehearsed a thousand times now and may not be relevant any more, but the May government excluded soft Brexit from the start. It was only when her government began to shift from talking about hard Brexit to no-deal Brexit that Grieve get involved, and thus parliament.

@Morris_Dancer's post is a good example of the self-radicalisation of Leavers. The normalisation among them of extremism is profoundly worrying in its own right and a great example of the way in which the internet can act as a vector of extremism.

So, us deplorable gammon racists who just wish it to be easier to live with our wives are the extremists, and you’re not. Okay, understood.

No, I'm saying that people who would have been fine with EEA membership four years ago are now determined that Britain should leave on WTO terms.

Yes, the rise of 'Hard Brexit' - hitherto regarded as a crackpot notion even amongst the eurosceptic community - has been a bizarre and utterly unforeseen phenomenon. It's difficult to figure out where it sprung from and at what time. My theory is that, giddy with their referendum win, the Leavers decided to grind the Remainers into the dust by going for the maddest option, just because they could. It was a way of asserting their total victory.

LostPassword said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

That will require 30 million odd infections. Even if you spread that out over six months, with two weeks per person, it's 2 million people infected at any one time, or about 200 times the current infection rate in Italy that is already overwhelming their health system.

That's not a plan. That's a disaster.

Two hundred times the Italian death rate is 40,000 deaths a day. For six months.

LostPassword said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

That will require 30 million odd infections. Even if you spread that out over six months, with two weeks per person, it's 2 million people infected at any one time, or about 200 times the current infection rate in Italy that is already overwhelming their health system.

That's not a plan. That's a disaster.

Not necessarily. We still don't know what will be the maximum stable infection rate, nor what immunity some might have from previous cold or flu antibodies. Nor how many asymptomatic or very minor cases there will be. And there'll come a time when the spreading rate amongst the remaining uninfected nonimmune nonasymptomatic folks falls to copeable levels.

It may yet turn into a disaster. But is a plan, and a better one than simply letting the virus spread and having people dead in their homes. If you have no solution, you go with the least worst plan.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1237929568025051136

https://twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1237934520751607808

UK currently has fewer cases than France Spain, Germany, Italy, Denmark, China, Iran etc from where the US has banned flights

Fishing said:

malcolmg said:

Fishing said:

AlastairMeeks said:

On Covid-19, the government has generally done ok to date (it's early days yet). Yes, other courses of action are available but it's not obvious that they are better. Britain has the huge benefit of being a week or two behind the curve of other comparable countries. It can go to school on their experiences.

The next few months are going to be fairly grim. Get used to that idea. With the debatable exception of the excitable @eadric, we have yet to have a pb case of Covid-19. Any guesses on when we'll get our first one? This is not a sweepstake that any of us wants to be the winning horse in.

I think I may have had it last Thursday and Friday. I certainly had the symptoms, but they were pretty mild and 24 hours of bed rest did the trick. I'm still relatively young and in good health and I've had worse colds and certainly much worse food poisoning. I didn't get tested though so I'll never know. Anyway, I'll emerge from self-isolation soon.

kidding yourself, man flu for wimps no doubt

Certainly possible. The symptoms are very similar. Without a test I'll never know.

Will be millions of that in the coming months unfortunately.

SouthamObserver said:

Absolutely essential reading. Why just about everything must close and now ...
s://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

That was unscientific speculative bollocks yesterday, and it’s still unscientific, speculative bollocks today.

Stark_Dawning said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, whether or not it's possible to have rational reasons for wishing the UK to leave the EU is entirely relevant given your view of the most 'ardent', as you put it, Leavers.

"The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future."

I agree it's very unhelpful that the use of language such as 'treachery' and 'xenophobia' has proliferated. There are entirely reasonable arguments for the UK to retain membership of the EU or to leave it, and noisy fringe elements who consider one to be treason and the other to be racism do more harm than good to their own sides.

Mr. Jonathan, the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.

More thinking and less mindless opposition from pro-EU MPs would've served their cause well. I remember Grieve bleating in the Commons that it was 'too late' when the Government backed down and gave him precisely what he wanted, and he voted against them anyway.

This I'm afraid is incorrect. These arguments have been rehearsed a thousand times now and may not be relevant any more, but the May government excluded soft Brexit from the start. It was only when her government began to shift from talking about hard Brexit to no-deal Brexit that Grieve get involved, and thus parliament.

@Morris_Dancer's post is a good example of the self-radicalisation of Leavers. The normalisation among them of extremism is profoundly worrying in its own right and a great example of the way in which the internet can act as a vector of extremism.

So, us deplorable gammon racists who just wish it to be easier to live with our wives are the extremists, and you’re not. Okay, understood.

No, I'm saying that people who would have been fine with EEA membership four years ago are now determined that Britain should leave on WTO terms.

Yes, the rise of 'Hard Brexit' - hitherto regarded as a crackpot notion even amongst the eurosceptic community - has been a bizarre and utterly unforeseen phenomenon. It's difficult to figure out where it sprung from and at what time. My theory is that, giddy with their referendum win, the Leavers decided to grind the Remainers into the dust by going for the maddest option, just because they could. It was a way of asserting their total victory.

Some of us still believe the best end point is EEA membership.

IanB2 said:

LostPassword said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

That will require 30 million odd infections. Even if you spread that out over six months, with two weeks per person, it's 2 million people infected at any one time, or about 200 times the current infection rate in Italy that is already overwhelming their health system.

That's not a plan. That's a disaster.

Not necessarily. We still don't know what will be the maximum stable infection rate, nor what immunity some might have from previous cold or flu antibodies. Nor how many asymptomatic or very minor cases there will be. And there'll come a time when the spreading rate amongst the remaining uninfected nonimmune nonasymptomatic folks falls to copeable levels.

It may yet turn into a disaster. But is a plan, and a better one than simply letting the virus spread and having people dead in their homes. If you have no solution, you go with the least worst plan.

The alternative is to follow the examples in Asia and keep the total number of infections down.

Why is Italy a better model for us to follow than South Korea?

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

GideonWise said:

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?

IanB2 said:

Balrog said:

malcolmg said:

IanB2 said:

In other news, I am starting to lose track, but think my trading profits since 24 Feb have now passed £10k; more than enough to pay for all the holidays I wont be taking.

Slightly better than my £150K deficit, holidays not required.

But at least if you sit tight the market will go back up again. Whereas with the budget yesterday I lost many times that amount. Though I guess it made sense.

How did the budget cost you so much?

Change in entrepreneurs relief. Though I'm not arguing it was wrong to do it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stark_Dawning said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, whether or not it's possible to have rational reasons for wishing the UK to leave the EU is entirely relevant given your view of the most 'ardent', as you put it, Leavers.

"The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future."

I agree it's very unhelpful that the use of language such as 'treachery' and 'xenophobia' has proliferated. There are entirely reasonable arguments for the UK to retain membership of the EU or to leave it, and noisy fringe elements who consider one to be treason and the other to be racism do more harm than good to their own sides.

Mr. Jonathan, the behaviour of pro-EU types, particularly in the courts and Parliament, has led to the exact opposite of what they wanted. Instead of either remaining, or having a second referendum, or having the very soft May departure, there's a credible chance we now leave with no deal in place whatsoever.

More thinking and less mindless opposition from pro-EU MPs would've served their cause well. I remember Grieve bleating in the Commons that it was 'too late' when the Government backed down and gave him precisely what he wanted, and he voted against them anyway.

This I'm afraid is incorrect. These arguments have been rehearsed a thousand times now and may not be relevant any more, but the May government excluded soft Brexit from the start. It was only when her government began to shift from talking about hard Brexit to no-deal Brexit that Grieve get involved, and thus parliament.

@Morris_Dancer's post is a good example of the self-radicalisation of Leavers. The normalisation among them of extremism is profoundly worrying in its own right and a great example of the way in which the internet can act as a vector of extremism.

So, us deplorable gammon racists who just wish it to be easier to live with our wives are the extremists, and you’re not. Okay, understood.

No, I'm saying that people who would have been fine with EEA membership four years ago are now determined that Britain should leave on WTO terms.

Yes, the rise of 'Hard Brexit' - hitherto regarded as a crackpot notion even amongst the eurosceptic community - has been a bizarre and utterly unforeseen phenomenon. It's difficult to figure out where it sprung from and at what time. My theory is that, giddy with their referendum win, the Leavers decided to grind the Remainers into the dust by going for the maddest option, just because they could. It was a way of asserting their total victory.

Some of us still believe the best end point is EEA membership.

Which is now more likely with PM Starmer than PM Boris now Brexit has been delivered

SouthamObserver said:

If you can get into the UK or Ireland from a Schengen country with an ID card, Trump’s travel ban is unworkable.

If travellers are willing to commit a felony in the US then yes. Have you seen their prisons? Trust their courts to give lenient sentances? Go ahead, a few will, not many.

GideonWise said:

DavidL said:

MattW said:

DavidL said:

What I think we need to do is measure those assumptions against the real world examples that we have. China currently has 14,800 active cases. On current trends it will eliminate the virus within the month. The infection rate in China, because of the steps they have taken, is currently 0.56% of the population. By the end of this phase it may reach 0.6%. Not 40%, not 70% but 0.6%.

You have not got the data there to calculate the 'population infection rate', as some large majority (80%? 99%? 99.9%?) of cases ('mild') are not known to the authorities, and we do not know what that number is.

So this is the "detected infection" rate.

We will only have a better idea of the 'population infection rate' from serological studies done after the fact.

For all we know it could already be 10% or 30% or 70% in that area.

The hard data we have is the infection rate per million on this site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Now if that is materially wrong elimination might not work because there is an undetected pool in the community from which it will spread again. So we will see. But the WHO work in China found no evidence to support this "hidden" infection. I agree that the evidence is incomplete at this stage but what if China or more credibly SK are saying, that's it. There are no more cases?

Those in the West seem to be pining for this iceberg theory. Those who have the most data on it, don't believe in the iceberg. Again it seems to be another baseline assumption that is held in the West that is just wrong.

Its like Game Theory though, we have to operate based upon how we know others will operate.

Even when this was in China and being dealt with by welding buildings shut everyone here knew the west wouldn't - and couldn't - act that way.

Now yes the UK is an island. We could go hardcore - shut the borders, ban trade from Europe and from the USA and from the rest of the world. Shut ourselves off from the entire world. But for how long?

This is in the wild in America and Europe, they're not going to do that. They're not capable of shutting themselves down, they're not capable of being China, they're not capable of eliminating this. So what do we do?

If this is in the wild for years do we hide from the entire world, shut down all borders etc for years?

We can't just shut down the borders for weeks because we know in 2 weeks time this will still existing in China and France and Spain and Germany etc. Are we as a nation going to self-isolate from them for months? Years?

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/gilesyb/status/1237999834822574080?s=21

No one is listening Alastair

I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.

Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.

The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone.
The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so.
Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.

We'll see.

In reality so far:
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century.
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.

What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?

Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?

Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.

Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.

That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.

If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.

So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is:
Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone

And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been:
Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone

That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

The Australian, NZ and Canadian economies are entirely different to the UK’s. That doesn’t change just because they speak English.

Mysticrose said:

Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.

We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***

China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.

But Britain knows best.

They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

noneoftheabove said:

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/gilesyb/status/1237999834822574080?s=21

No one is listening Alastair

I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.

Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.

The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone.
The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so.
Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.

We'll see.

In reality so far:
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century.
The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.

What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?

Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?

Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.

Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.

That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.

If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.

So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is:
Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone

And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been:
Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone

That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

The Australian, NZ and Canadian economies are entirely different to the UK’s. That doesn’t change just because they speak English.

As I said there are no exact comparisons. They are very comparable though, the differences are much exaggerated, I have family in Canada and used to live in Melbourne. Melbourne isn't that different to cities in the UK.

Or you could look at continents. If the EU was doing great then Europe should have outgrown other continents. It hasn't been doing so though.

Cyclefree said:

GideonWise said:

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?

The West want to smooth the growth curve. The Chinese and Koreans have shown you can virtually eliminate it overnight.

Our assumption seems to be that once the Chinese open up, it will come back again.

So we (France/Germany/UK etc) seem to be going for a manged Italy, rather than a Korea/Taiwan/Japan/China.

But there are two problems with our plan versus theirs:

(1) what happens if the Chinese and Koreans can stop the second wave?

(2) what happens if we lose control of the pandemic and we can't control the growth like we hoped?

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

I would say the all-it-takes prevention approach is more of a marathon. If you don't allow transmission, the disease has nowhere to go. But you have to be constantly vigilant. It's the standard approach for smallpox, although that is is much less contagious disease.

kamski said:

SouthamObserver said:

If you can get into the UK or Ireland from a Schengen country with an ID card, Trump’s travel ban is unworkable.

Probably partially workable. Won't many non-EU citizens have Schengen visa details and exit entry stamps in their passports?

But, yes, it would be difficult to stop European passport holders saying they have been in the UK for a month and getting on a plan. Unless they start asking people to prove it, which at the moment would be difficult.

Probably gonna be a mess.

Just ask to see their phone and look at location tracking. Or to prove where they have stayed outside of Schengen with hotel receipts. Dont co-operate and back on the next flight. Get caught lying and formally deported at best.

Philip_Thompson said:

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

I had expected to vote Remain. Not sure when "during" the campaign counts, but after Cameron came back from his "renegotation" was when I moved to not going to vote. When Cameron started belittling us for not seeing how shiny his wonderful renegotiation was, he started really pissing me off. The intelligence insulting of Project Fear was when I moved to actively voting to Leave. (A trajectory very similar to Plato - and I don't doubt a significant number of others. Quite possibly 2% of those who voted.....)

HYUFD said:

UK currently has fewer cases than France Spain, Germany, Italy, Denmark, China, Iran etc from where the US has banned flights

Using this argument citizens of Portugal, Belgium, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia and Greece should be allowed into the US too.

LostPassword said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

That will require 30 million odd infections. Even if you spread that out over six months, with two weeks per person, it's 2 million people infected at any one time, or about 200 times the current infection rate in Italy that is already overwhelming their health system.

That's not a plan. That's a disaster.

Kill the weak. Another snappy three word slogan there.

DavidL said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.

No, we’ll have made the right decision on balance based on what we knew at the time.

GideonWise said:

Cyclefree said:

GideonWise said:

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?

The West want to smooth the growth curve. The Chinese and Koreans have shown you can virtually eliminate it overnight.

Our assumption seems to be that once the Chinese open up, it will come back again.

So we (France/Germany/UK etc) seem to be going for a manged Italy, rather than a Korea/Taiwan/Japan/China.

But there are two problems with our plan versus theirs:

(1) what happens if the Chinese and Koreans can stop the second wave?

(2) what happens if we lose control of the pandemic and we can't control the growth like we hoped?

"Going for a manged Italy" seems an apt typo!

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

I had expected to vote Remain. Not sure when "during" the campaign counts, but after Cameron came back from his "renegotation" was when I moved to not going to vote. When Cameron started belittling us for not seeing how shiny his wonderful renegotiation was, he started really pissing me off. The intelligence insulting of Project Fear was when I moved to actively voting to Leave. (A trajectory very similar to Plato - and I don't doubt a significant number of others. Quite possibly 2% of those who voted.....)

I had always disliked elements of the EU but I had always assumed we were too entwined to leave. Then during the campaign at some stage I shifted to “sod it, let’s just leave, this is the last chance”.

Bit like how last year I shifted from “obviously we should should aim for EEA/EFTA” to “I’ve had enough of them let’s go”.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mysticrose said:

Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.

We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***

China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.

But Britain knows best.

They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.

SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.

The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.

LostPassword said:

Time_to_Leave said:

As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.

I'm following the advice of the WHO.

Excellent, you’ll be doing as your Government tells you then.

Time_to_Leave said:

LostPassword said:

Time_to_Leave said:

As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.

I'm following the advice of the WHO.

Excellent, you’ll be doing as your Government tells you then.

Of course I will, but I'll also be asking the government to follow the WHO advice and take more action to contain the virus.

All Spanish government ministers are to be tested and the results made public this afternoon.

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

YBarddCwsc said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FF43 said:

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

edmundintokyo said:

MyBurningEars said:

Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).

It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.

Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf

My observations on this strategy document:

• It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
  
• The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
  
• It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
  

The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.

My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:

• Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
  
• If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
  

I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.

Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.

Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.

What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.

However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.

Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.

From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.

That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.

FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.

They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.

They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.

And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.

The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.

But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.

You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.

YBarddCwsc said:

GideonWise said:

YBarddCwsc said:

GideonWise said:

YBarddCwsc said:

SouthamObserver said:

Absolutely essential reading. Why just about everything must close and now ...

https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

We have debunked that nonsense twice ... and up pops Southam to repost it.

You haven't debunked a single thing.

The model that he is peddling has been debunked. And the author has no credibility.

It wasn't a model it was a conceptual drawing.

I have no idea on the authors credibility, I just read what they have written.

Read to the end. He has a model which he describes as "loosely based" on Wuhan.

The author's background is on LinkedIn.

You are welcome to read random stuff on the internet, without checking the author's background and credibility.

It will certainly broaden the mind.

He's just drawn some lines on a graph to make a point.

Have you seen the pandemic curves that I posted on here three weeks ago?

You know the figures that everyone is now posting to demonstrate the 'smoothing' of the pandemic.. yes they are just conceptual drawings to make a point.

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.

I had expected to vote Remain. Not sure when "during" the campaign counts, but after Cameron came back from his "renegotation" was when I moved to not going to vote. When Cameron started belittling us for not seeing how shiny his wonderful renegotiation was, he started really pissing me off. The intelligence insulting of Project Fear was when I moved to actively voting to Leave. (A trajectory very similar to Plato - and I don't doubt a significant number of others. Quite possibly 2% of those who voted.....)

Very similar to me, though I never went through a stage of never planning to vote, I've always voted and would always vote, I view it as a duty and an honour to do so.

After Cameron came back from his "renegotiation" I was disappointed at it. Reading the articles Johnson and Gove (especially Gove) wrote at the start of the campaign shook many of my assumptions about Leave, it made me start to think about some positives of Leaving in a way that appealled to me (not the nasty xenophobia of Farage that puts me off).

Reasoned arguments by Tyndall and Royale here then played on my questions and made me seriously think for the first time rather than act on faith.

The lack of any good arguments for Remaining and the serious idiocy of Project Fear (which Meeks still parrots today) finally pushed me over to the other side. I'm not afraid.

Cameron's belittling played no role in my thinking besides emphasising just how hollow the arguments for Remaining were.

Project Fear to me was like the story of the Emperors New Clothes. Once I'd truly looked past the assumptions and saw that Remain was naked that was it and I've never looked back.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

GideonWise said:

Cyclefree said:

GideonWise said:

HYUFD said:

TGOHF666 said:

We are all gonna get it.


https://twitter.com/peston/status/1238029983831990273?s=21

Classic Dom...

Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.

Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?

The West want to smooth the growth curve. The Chinese and Koreans have shown you can virtually eliminate it overnight.

Our assumption seems to be that once the Chinese open up, it will come back again.

So we (France/Germany/UK etc) seem to be going for a manged Italy, rather than a Korea/Taiwan/Japan/China.

But there are two problems with our plan versus theirs:

(1) what happens if the Chinese and Koreans can stop the second wave?

(2) what happens if we lose control of the pandemic and we can't control the growth like we hoped?

It seems to me the biggest risk to the Chinese is that they re-import cases from overseas rather than a resurgence in Wuhan

Yes, there is no doubt that the price of having a herd that does not have immunity will be constant vigilance with real restrictions on international travel and a degree of personal liberty. That in itself will have economic consequences. These risks will be increased if the US and Europe keep to the "managed" model.

GideonWise said:

Time_to_Leave said:

As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.

Nothing we say on here has any impact on anything apart from the people who read this blog.

We are discussing evidence like you might do in a pub. If you want us to just nod and agree with guidance like some unthinking droid then our host might as well close this forum down. Use your brain for god's sake man.

Predictable. Bet you also take herbal remedies. Of course you’re also missing the key contradiction that a key component of the response in the countries you are praising is, erm, that people have decided to “nod and agree with guidance like some unthinking droid”.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1238045929892122625