In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
Thanks for the reply. Yes I see the logic that the higher court should be able to disagree with the lower court although it still seems stark that 7/7 judges thought that 2/3 judges got it wrong.
So are there consequences for the lower court judges for making the 'wrong' decision?
Next week's release will be more interesting when the numbers, sadly, get rather bigger. Would expect total deaths up at 13 or 14k based on the daily releases.
Jesus F##king Christ, Fat Head is now speculating on a mechanisms and timing of a Tory party leadership election...
Who are you referring to?
Adam Boulton no less.
He is part of the Boulton, Burley, Rigby group on Sky of sad journalists forever looking for 'gotcha' moment or just asking insensitive or inane questions, and at the same time having an enormous opinion of themselves, and their value to journalism
No wonder Sky only had approx 750,000 viewing the Queens Speech against the BBC of 14 million plus
Whatever your views of China (vile regime we shouldn't do business with/vile regime we have little option but to do some business with...), this is a very interesting article:
How Chinese Apps Handled Covid-19 http://dangrover.com/blog/2020/04/05/covid-in-ui.html ...The point of these “fever clinics” (发热门诊), as distinguished from ordinary hospitals, was to give anyone who thought they might be even a little sick a way to get tested and, more importantly, control the spread by isolating even asymptomatic carriers away from their family and co-workers and give them a place to wait it out. Some of these had been established for this reason on a permanent basis during the SARS outbreak in 2003, while others were established only recently.
As the country mobilized, all of the major apps promoted features that clearly listed the hospitals that were handling Coronavirus. This included all the fever clinics that had sprung up as well as normal, pre-existing hospitals with ICUs that had been specially designated for handling serious cases of coronavirus (定点收治医院):
The other aspect Aylward mentions is the use of online consultations. Changes in regulations in the past few years have resulted in an explosion of telemedicine apps in China with plays by tech companies like Tencent and Alibaba, traditional companies like Ping An, and existing online medical information resource sites like Dingxiang.
These apps combine a bunch of things: simple ecommerce (for medicine and medical devices), lead generation/vertical search for specialists offline, and online consultations with doctors at top hospitals. Doctors giving online consultations can write prescriptions which can then be filled in the app. The consultations can be paid for a-la-carte or with an annual plan and are sometimes a loss-leader for their online pharmacy business...
We used to do that here. In 1893 the The Fountain Hospital in Tooting was built in a few weeks as a fever hospital.
It is now St George's Hospital in Tooting, old St George's on Hyde Park Corner closed in 1981, now the Lanesborough Hotel.
It's amazing what you can do when you don't give a fig for workers rights or conditions.
We also used to fund things through philanthropy - Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, for example, was privately funded as was the University of Westminster.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
All 5 of the people that I know of personally or relatives of persons known to me who have died of it were not on their last legs. 3 were in their fifties (all men) and 2 were spritely females in their mid seventies.
The "nothing to see here" crowd need to get out more. Only they cannot.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
Fewer deaths # grammar police
That wouldn't work as a hashtag due to the spaces. #hashtagpolice
Just saw the Harry and Meghan stuff. What a pair of tits. The royals are better off without them, she strikes me as the worst type of social climber and grasper.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
All 5 of the people that I know of personally or relatives of persons known to me who have died of it were not on their last legs. 3 were in their fifties (all men) and 2 were spritely females in their mid seventies.
The "nothing to see here" crowd need to get out more. Only they cannot.
The modelling was for between 50 and 66% of those that will die, would have died within the next 12 months.
Obviously this may well be found to be utterly misguided.
I can understand a jury coming to a different view to judges. That makes sense to me. But I can't really understand how a lower court finds one thing, and then a higher court unanimously finds the opposite?
I have no knowledge of the Australian legal system. It just seems very strange to a complete layperson, and not a little discomforting, to think that it is apparently so arbitrary whether you are guilty or not?
If the lower court judges are wrong, should there be some consequence for them? Are there consequences for judges who frequently make the 'wrong' decision?
I don't understand how the following sentence is compatible with the system of trial by jury, at all: The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
If judges can assess questions like that, what is the point of the jury system in the first place?
On a separate note, the Supreme Court's ruling that the proroguing of Parliament last year was unlawful was also unanimous. At the time, I found it bizarre that they could all agree on something when the High Court had already found the opposite.
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
In England you can appeal on the basis that the verdict is 'unsafe' and it is possible to argue that the weight and quality of the evidence of innocence is such that the jury erred in convicting. This isn't common, mostly because it is a rare occurrence.
If a juror came forward and said, 'We agreed on the guilty verdict immediately without any discussion and spent the rest of the day playing cards' wouldn't that also be grounds for overturning the verdict?
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
Thanks for the reply. Yes I see the logic that the higher court should be able to disagree with the lower court although it still seems stark that 7/7 judges thought that 2/3 judges got it wrong.
So are there consequences for the lower court judges for making the 'wrong' decision?
Depends how reasonable an error or judgement they made I guess! Sometimes the higher judgement seems harsher on the lower rulings than others, depending on what tests they applied and how I assume.
Wave 1 might have done... Unless it's 100% stabbed out (and it won't be) future waves are inevitable.
Evidence?
Well, it might be pointed out that the Black Death continued to come in waves in Europe for over 350 years, with the last major outbreak occurring in Marseilles in 1720.
Then there were significant outbreaks in Asia, particularly China, in the late nineteenth century and carried on the trade routes there were major outbreaks in California as late as 1924.
Since that time bubonic plague has declined across the globe for some reason. Nobody seems to know why.
Hopefully it won’t take 500 years this time.
That’s not evidence, next.
You are the one positing a miracle, because for every infectious disease ever documented bar about 2, once it's there it is there to stay. I am pretty certain people will still be getting flu, colds and chicken pox in 2030. So the burden of proof is with you.
I can understand a jury coming to a different view to judges. That makes sense to me. But I can't really understand how a lower court finds one thing, and then a higher court unanimously finds the opposite?
I have no knowledge of the Australian legal system. It just seems very strange to a complete layperson, and not a little discomforting, to think that it is apparently so arbitrary whether you are guilty or not?
If the lower court judges are wrong, should there be some consequence for them? Are there consequences for judges who frequently make the 'wrong' decision?
I don't understand how the following sentence is compatible with the system of trial by jury, at all: The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
If judges can assess questions like that, what is the point of the jury system in the first place?
On a separate note, the Supreme Court's ruling that the proroguing of Parliament last year was unlawful was also unanimous. At the time, I found it bizarre that they could all agree on something when the High Court had already found the opposite.
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
In England you can appeal on the basis that the verdict is 'unsafe' and it is possible to argue that the weight and quality of the evidence of innocence is such that the jury erred in convicting. This isn't common, mostly because it is a rare occurrence.
If a juror came forward and said, 'We agreed on the guilty verdict immediately without any discussion and spent the rest of the day playing cards' wouldn't that also be grounds for overturning the verdict?
Yes, but the appeal court hates going into jury matters - it's a can of worms. Being 'unsafe' is the only ground as such.
My biggest gripe with personal space are runners. They seem to come charging up far too close and, of course, panting volumes of breath into one's vicinity.
And cyclists.
And dog walkers, who allow their foul mutt to run around and impede others or dopey pedestrians listening to music oblivious to everyone else.
I am a runner, cyclist and walker. All groups are equally to blame.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists and runners need to take special measures to prevent contact with walkers. The hierarchy is as simple as that.
Sorry, I flagged you as off topic, it's very small on my phone, and don't seem to be able to unflag it. But surely a runner is a pedestrian and has equal priority with a walker. Personally, I have been trying to run against the flow of traffic so I can more safely step into the road. Most people are very good but you get offenders of all types. Including couples and family groups of walkers who insist on taking the whole pavement, and runners and cyclists who will not adjust their line or slow down (or cycle on the pavement). It's a bit like driving on a narrow country lane: you need to have a passing strategy and plan passing places ahead
Runners and cyclists are both moving faster, and more likely to be panting (& therefore far more likely to be generating aerosol), so they ought to bear a greater responsibility.
True, although I don't normally run fast enough to pant. But if you are running along a pavement next to a busy road and the pedestrians are bimbling around in a bunch, it cuts down your options. What's wrong with walking line astern? (And why are you exercising with family members anyway? You are banged up with them 24/7, surely you need time to yourself?)
The latest fashion appears to be walking along, talking to someone next to you, about a metre apart. Not actually social distancing, but nicely blocking the pavement.
I've tried locally suggesting that people walking west go on the north side of the road, east on the south etc.
An off-topic flashback to my schooldays, and one teacher helping to manage staircase congestion with her cry of, "up on the left; down on the right".
Going up on the left means your sword arm is free to engage
That would mean you were the attacker. I always note when spiral staircases are round the wrong way, giving the attacker the advantage.
I assumed the attacker starts at the bottom. It’s only Errol Flynn who does it the other way round 😆
Yes he does. But if you're the defender, you will have built your castle so that you gain the upper, ie free hand as you descend to protect your domain from intruders thus putting the attacker at a disadvantage (cf spiral staircases also as @Morris has also noted).
Have at thee!
("Upper hand" comes from sword fighting - if your sword is on top our your opponent's it's easier to disarm them)
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
Perhaps Archewell is in fact their son's full name. Archie for short?
"‘I’ve been an idiot’: New Zealand’s health minister breaks lockdown to go for trip to the beach Prime minister Jacinda Ardern says she would have sacked him under normal circumstances"
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
All 5 of the people that I know of personally or relatives of persons known to me who have died of it were not on their last legs. 3 were in their fifties (all men) and 2 were spritely females in their mid seventies.
The "nothing to see here" crowd need to get out more. Only they cannot.
The modelling was for between 50 and 66% of those that will die, would have died within the next 12 months.
Obviously this may well be found to be utterly misguided.
I think that for every hospital death there is probably another in the community and care homes. Those may well have been of limited life expectancy.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
My biggest gripe with personal space are runners. They seem to come charging up far too close and, of course, panting volumes of breath into one's vicinity.
And cyclists.
And dog walkers, who allow their foul mutt to run around and impede others or dopey pedestrians listening to music oblivious to everyone else.
I am a runner, cyclist and walker. All groups are equally to blame.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists and runners need to take special measures to prevent contact with walkers. The hierarchy is as simple as that.
Sorry, I flagged you as off topic, it's very small on my phone, and don't seem to be able to unflag it. But surely a runner is a pedestrian and has equal priority with a walker. Personally, I have been trying to run against the flow of traffic so I can more safely step into the road. Most people are very good but you get offenders of all types. Including couples and family groups of walkers who insist on taking the whole pavement, and runners and cyclists who will not adjust their line or slow down (or cycle on the pavement). It's a bit like driving on a narrow country lane: you need to have a passing strategy and plan passing places ahead
Runners and cyclists are both moving faster, and more likely to be panting (& therefore far more likely to be generating aerosol), so they ought to bear a greater responsibility.
True, although I don't normally run fast enough to pant. But if you are running along a pavement next to a busy road and the pedestrians are bimbling around in a bunch, it cuts down your options. What's wrong with walking line astern? (And why are you exercising with family members anyway? You are banged up with them 24/7, surely you need time to yourself?)
The latest fashion appears to be walking along, talking to someone next to you, about a metre apart. Not actually social distancing, but nicely blocking the pavement.
I've tried locally suggesting that people walking west go on the north side of the road, east on the south etc.
An off-topic flashback to my schooldays, and one teacher helping to manage staircase congestion with her cry of, "up on the left; down on the right".
Going up on the left means your sword arm is free to engage
That would mean you were the attacker. I always note when spiral staircases are round the wrong way, giving the attacker the advantage.
I assumed the attacker starts at the bottom. It’s only Errol Flynn who does it the other way round 😆
Yes he does. But if you're the defender, you will have built your castle so that you gain the upper, ie free hand as you descend to protect your domain from intruders thus putting the attacker at a disadvantage (cf spiral staircases also as @Morris has also noted).
Have at thee!
("Upper hand" comes from sword fighting - if your sword is on top our your opponent's it's easier to disarm them)
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
Perhaps Archewell is in fact their son's full name. Archie for short?
Just saw the Harry and Meghan stuff. What a pair of tits. The royals are better off without them, she strikes me as the worst type of social climber and grasper.
I think she got an unjustifiably rough ride from the media shortly after they married but I do think they are now showing themselves up as a pair of right planks.
Reuters is reporting that Germany has recorded another 3,834 cases of Covid-19, bringing its total number of cases to 99,225, with 1,607 deaths.
That's France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Japan are recording "worse" numbers.
I think those talking about lifting the lockdown and his will be done and dusted in a few weeks from now are deluded.
Those people are just plain ignorant.
In the Imperial College report that brought about the "U-turn"* the suppression strategy that was modelled was for a period of 5 MONTHS. This is not a state secret, any interested journalist can go read the report from the 16th March. Also the report makes quite clear that only deals with the first wave, and it models a 2/3 ON and 1/3 OFF repeated supression strategy to deal with future outbreaks until there is a vaccine or herd immunity.
Unless we are incredibly lucky we will be taking drastic action to deal with COVID-19 all through this year, and probably most of next year as well.
* It's more complicated than that, it was a switch between mitigation and supression, and even those strategies form a continuum of possible actions.
I'm no fan of Banks or UKIP but I think he is morally right.
UKIP were a bona fide political party whether you like them or not with political aims even when they had no MPs, as were the Greens when they had no MPs.
Why should any political parties be absolved of tax?
Personally I would levy a 50% sin tax on all party donations.
My biggest gripe with personal space are runners. They seem to come charging up far too close and, of course, panting volumes of breath into one's vicinity.
And cyclists.
And dog walkers, who allow their foul mutt to run around and impede others or dopey pedestrians listening to music oblivious to everyone else.
I am a runner, cyclist and walker. All groups are equally to blame.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists and runners need to take special measures to prevent contact with walkers. The hierarchy is as simple as that.
Sorry, I flagged you as off topic, it's very small on my phone, and don't seem to be able to unflag it. But surely a runner is a pedestrian and has equal priority with a walker. Personally, I have been trying to run against the flow of traffic so I can more safely step into the road. Most people are very good but you get offenders of all types. Including couples and family groups of walkers who insist on taking the whole pavement, and runners and cyclists who will not adjust their line or slow down (or cycle on the pavement). It's a bit like driving on a narrow country lane: you need to have a passing strategy and plan passing places ahead
Runners and cyclists are both moving faster, and more likely to be panting (& therefore far more likely to be generating aerosol), so they ought to bear a greater responsibility.
True, although I don't normally run fast enough to pant. But if you are running along a pavement next to a busy road and the pedestrians are bimbling around in a bunch, it cuts down your options. What's wrong with walking line astern? (And why are you exercising with family members anyway? You are banged up with them 24/7, surely you need time to yourself?)
The latest fashion appears to be walking along, talking to someone next to you, about a metre apart. Not actually social distancing, but nicely blocking the pavement.
I've tried locally suggesting that people walking west go on the north side of the road, east on the south etc.
An off-topic flashback to my schooldays, and one teacher helping to manage staircase congestion with her cry of, "up on the left; down on the right".
Going up on the left means your sword arm is free to engage
That would mean you were the attacker. I always note when spiral staircases are round the wrong way, giving the attacker the advantage.
I assumed the attacker starts at the bottom. It’s only Errol Flynn who does it the other way round 😆
Yes he does. But if you're the defender, you will have built your castle so that you gain the upper, ie free hand as you descend to protect your domain from intruders thus putting the attacker at a disadvantage (cf spiral staircases also as @Morris has also noted).
Have at thee!
("Upper hand" comes from sword fighting - if your sword is on top our your opponent's it's easier to disarm them)
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
We are agreeing.
For lols I once insisted on trying some fencing up and down a (partially) spiral staircase. The lower position has an advantage in many ways - you are stretching up and away from your body, while the defender above is reaching down past their own legs. If hits to the legs count, you would be in big trouble...
I'm no fan of Banks or UKIP but I think he is morally right.
UKIP were a bona fide political party whether you like them or not with political aims even when they had no MPs, as were the Greens when they had no MPs.
Why should any political parties be absolved of tax?
Personally I would levy a 50% sin tax on all party donations.
That's a different question.
But if gifts to parties don't require tax then that should be consistent between minor parties like UKIP and Greens whether they have one MP or not.
I can understand a jury coming to a different view to judges. That makes sense to me. But I can't really understand how a lower court finds one thing, and then a higher court unanimously finds the opposite?
I have no knowledge of the Australian legal system. It just seems very strange to a complete layperson, and not a little discomforting, to think that it is apparently so arbitrary whether you are guilty or not?
If the lower court judges are wrong, should there be some consequence for them? Are there consequences for judges who frequently make the 'wrong' decision?
I don't understand how the following sentence is compatible with the system of trial by jury, at all: The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
If judges can assess questions like that, what is the point of the jury system in the first place?
On a separate note, the Supreme Court's ruling that the proroguing of Parliament last year was unlawful was also unanimous. At the time, I found it bizarre that they could all agree on something when the High Court had already found the opposite.
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
In England you can appeal on the basis that the verdict is 'unsafe' and it is possible to argue that the weight and quality of the evidence of innocence is such that the jury erred in convicting. This isn't common, mostly because it is a rare occurrence.
If a juror came forward and said, 'We agreed on the guilty verdict immediately without any discussion and spent the rest of the day playing cards' wouldn't that also be grounds for overturning the verdict?
Yes, but the appeal court hates going into jury matters - it's a can of worms. Being 'unsafe' is the only ground as such.
Anecdote: friend of mine was on jury for trial of alleged drug dealer. Defence was that drugs were planted on D by police. Jury unanimously agreed that was true but turned to the question: was it the case that D was in fact a drug dealer and police were therefore justified in planting drugs? Answer yes, therefore guilty verdict (11-1, my friend dissenting).
Checking local news reports in Spain on Facebook I see that Hotels in Mallorca are now suggesting they will not be able to re-open until 2021 and asking for tax breaks. I suspect that will be part of a developing trend now.
I can understand a jury coming to a different view to judges. That makes sense to me. But I can't really understand how a lower court finds one thing, and then a higher court unanimously finds the opposite?
I have no knowledge of the Australian legal system. It just seems very strange to a complete layperson, and not a little discomforting, to think that it is apparently so arbitrary whether you are guilty or not?
If the lower court judges are wrong, should there be some consequence for them? Are there consequences for judges who frequently make the 'wrong' decision?
I don't understand how the following sentence is compatible with the system of trial by jury, at all: The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
If judges can assess questions like that, what is the point of the jury system in the first place?
On a separate note, the Supreme Court's ruling that the proroguing of Parliament last year was unlawful was also unanimous. At the time, I found it bizarre that they could all agree on something when the High Court had already found the opposite.
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
In England you can appeal on the basis that the verdict is 'unsafe' and it is possible to argue that the weight and quality of the evidence of innocence is such that the jury erred in convicting. This isn't common, mostly because it is a rare occurrence.
If a juror came forward and said, 'We agreed on the guilty verdict immediately without any discussion and spent the rest of the day playing cards' wouldn't that also be grounds for overturning the verdict?
Yes, but the appeal court hates going into jury matters - it's a can of worms. Being 'unsafe' is the only ground as such.
Anecdote: friend of mine was on jury for trial of alleged drug dealer. Defence was that drugs were planted on D by police. Jury unanimously agreed that was true but turned to the question: was it the case that D was in fact a drug dealer and police were therefore justified in planting drugs? Answer yes, therefore guilty verdict (11-1, my friend dissenting).
That (framing the guilty) is called "noble cause corruption" and illegal.
I wonder if the 1600 deaths on the 27/3/2020 recorded as having something to do with Covid-19 were all actually tested as these would make up a very large proportion of the positive tests.
No, they've recorded them even if COVID is suspected - but we know most suspected tests are negative, so quite possibly many of those were not COVID deaths.
Good to see Liverpool FC have finally been shamed into doing the right thing and carry on paying their non-playing staff. Now if only they could retrospectively change the decision to have gone ahead with the Madrid game in the middle of last month.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
I can understand a jury coming to a different view to judges. That makes sense to me. But I can't really understand how a lower court finds one thing, and then a higher court unanimously finds the opposite?
I have no knowledge of the Australian legal system. It just seems very strange to a complete layperson, and not a little discomforting, to think that it is apparently so arbitrary whether you are guilty or not?
If the lower court judges are wrong, should there be some consequence for them? Are there consequences for judges who frequently make the 'wrong' decision?
I don't understand how the following sentence is compatible with the system of trial by jury, at all: The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.
If judges can assess questions like that, what is the point of the jury system in the first place?
On a separate note, the Supreme Court's ruling that the proroguing of Parliament last year was unlawful was also unanimous. At the time, I found it bizarre that they could all agree on something when the High Court had already found the opposite.
In the UK this appeal would not have been allowed as there was, as I understand it, no new evidence and you can't appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was perverse, no matter how clear it is that the jury has ignored the evidence. In Australia it is possible to appeal on the basis that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
The difference between the lower court and the higher court in this case was essentially one of approach. The lower court took the view that the "opportunity evidence" (which was unchallenged and was inconsistent with the prosecution case) left open the possibility that the prosecution may have been correct. The higher court took the view that the lower court had failed to consider whether the evidence (which essentially showed that there had not been any opportunity for Pell to commit the offences) meant there was a reasonable possibility that the offences had not taken place.
As for the lower court finding one thing and then a higher court unanimously disagreeing, if that couldn't happen the higher courts would serve no purpose. And note that, in this case, there was a dissenting judge in the lower court. So the higher court has agreed with the dissenting judge.
In England you can appeal on the basis that the verdict is 'unsafe' and it is possible to argue that the weight and quality of the evidence of innocence is such that the jury erred in convicting. This isn't common, mostly because it is a rare occurrence.
If a juror came forward and said, 'We agreed on the guilty verdict immediately without any discussion and spent the rest of the day playing cards' wouldn't that also be grounds for overturning the verdict?
Yes, but the appeal court hates going into jury matters - it's a can of worms. Being 'unsafe' is the only ground as such.
Anecdote: friend of mine was on jury for trial of alleged drug dealer. Defence was that drugs were planted on D by police. Jury unanimously agreed that was true but turned to the question: was it the case that D was in fact a drug dealer and police were therefore justified in planting drugs? Answer yes, therefore guilty verdict (11-1, my friend dissenting).
My biggest gripe with personal space are runners. They seem to come charging up far too close and, of course, panting volumes of breath into one's vicinity.
And cyclists.
And dog walkers, who allow their foul mutt to run around and impede others or dopey pedestrians listening to music oblivious to everyone else.
I am a runner, cyclist and walker. All groups are equally to blame.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists and runners need to take special measures to prevent contact with walkers. The hierarchy is as simple as that.
Sorry, I flagged you as off topic, it's very small on my phone, and don't seem to be able to unflag it. But surely a runner is a pedestrian and has equal priority with a walker. Personally, I have been trying to run against the flow of traffic so I can more safely step into the road. Most people are very good but you get offenders of all types. Including couples and family groups of walkers who insist on taking the whole pavement, and runners and cyclists who will not adjust their line or slow down (or cycle on the pavement). It's a bit like driving on a narrow country lane: you need to have a passing strategy and plan passing places ahead
Runners and cyclists are both moving faster, and more likely to be panting (& therefore far more likely to be generating aerosol), so they ought to bear a greater responsibility.
True, although I don't normally run fast enough to pant. But if you are running along a pavement next to a busy road and the pedestrians are bimbling around in a bunch, it cuts down your options. What's wrong with walking line astern? (And why are you exercising with family members anyway? You are banged up with them 24/7, surely you need time to yourself?)
The latest fashion appears to be walking along, talking to someone next to you, about a metre apart. Not actually social distancing, but nicely blocking the pavement.
I've tried locally suggesting that people walking west go on the north side of the road, east on the south etc.
An off-topic flashback to my schooldays, and one teacher helping to manage staircase congestion with her cry of, "up on the left; down on the right".
Going up on the left means your sword arm is free to engage
That would mean you were the attacker. I always note when spiral staircases are round the wrong way, giving the attacker the advantage.
I assumed the attacker starts at the bottom. It’s only Errol Flynn who does it the other way round 😆
Yes he does. But if you're the defender, you will have built your castle so that you gain the upper, ie free hand as you descend to protect your domain from intruders thus putting the attacker at a disadvantage (cf spiral staircases also as @Morris has also noted).
Have at thee!
("Upper hand" comes from sword fighting - if your sword is on top our your opponent's it's easier to disarm them)
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
We are agreeing.
For lols I once insisted on trying some fencing up and down a (partially) spiral staircase. The lower position has an advantage in many ways - you are stretching up and away from your body, while the defender above is reaching down past their own legs. If hits to the legs count, you would be in big trouble...
Not sure, they were made of stern stuff in days of yore.
I wonder if the 1600 deaths on the 27/3/2020 recorded as having something to do with Covid-19 were all actually tested as these would make up a very large proportion of the positive tests.
No, they've recorded them even if COVID is suspected - but we know most suspected tests are negative, so quite possibly many of those were not COVID deaths.
Good to see Liverpool FC have finally been shamed into doing the right thing and carry on paying their non-playing staff. Now if only they could retrospectively change the decision to have gone ahead with the Madrid game in the middle of last month.
They were going to pay their non-playing staff either way. And it wasn't for Liverpool to stop tourists coming from Spain, that is and remains the government's responsibility.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
My biggest gripe with personal space are runners. They seem to come charging up far too close and, of course, panting volumes of breath into one's vicinity.
And cyclists.
And dog walkers, who allow their foul mutt to run around and impede others or dopey pedestrians listening to music oblivious to everyone else.
I am a runner, cyclist and walker. All groups are equally to blame.
No, you are wrong. Cyclists and runners need to take special measures to prevent contact with walkers. The hierarchy is as simple as that.
Sorry, I flagged you as off topic, it's very small on my phone, and don't seem to be able to unflag it. But surely a runner is a pedestrian and has equal priority with a walker. Personally, I have been trying to run against the flow of traffic so I can more safely step into the road. Most people are very good but you get offenders of all types. Including couples and family groups of walkers who insist on taking the whole pavement, and runners and cyclists who will not adjust their line or slow down (or cycle on the pavement). It's a bit like driving on a narrow country lane: you need to have a passing strategy and plan passing places ahead
Runners and cyclists are both moving faster, and more likely to be panting (& therefore far more likely to be generating aerosol), so they ought to bear a greater responsibility.
True, although I don't normally run fast enough to pant. But if you are running along a pavement next to a busy road and the pedestrians are bimbling around in a bunch, it cuts down your options. What's wrong with walking line astern? (And why are you exercising with family members anyway? You are banged up with them 24/7, surely you need time to yourself?)
The latest fashion appears to be walking along, talking to someone next to you, about a metre apart. Not actually social distancing, but nicely blocking the pavement.
I've tried locally suggesting that people walking west go on the north side of the road, east on the south etc.
An off-topic flashback to my schooldays, and one teacher helping to manage staircase congestion with her cry of, "up on the left; down on the right".
Going up on the left means your sword arm is free to engage
That would mean you were the attacker. I always note when spiral staircases are round the wrong way, giving the attacker the advantage.
I assumed the attacker starts at the bottom. It’s only Errol Flynn who does it the other way round 😆
Yes he does. But if you're the defender, you will have built your castle so that you gain the upper, ie free hand as you descend to protect your domain from intruders thus putting the attacker at a disadvantage (cf spiral staircases also as @Morris has also noted).
Have at thee!
("Upper hand" comes from sword fighting - if your sword is on top our your opponent's it's easier to disarm them)
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
We are agreeing.
For lols I once insisted on trying some fencing up and down a (partially) spiral staircase. The lower position has an advantage in many ways - you are stretching up and away from your body, while the defender above is reaching down past their own legs. If hits to the legs count, you would be in big trouble...
Not sure, they were made of stern stuff in days of yore.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
TIL: the French for curfew (and, I'm guessing, etymology of the word) is couvre feu.
You're right on the etymology. There was a law at some point (back when houses were wooden) that you had to put out your hearth fires at a given time - and the watchmen used to walk around shouting "couvre feu"
Jesus F##king Christ, Fat Head is now speculating on a mechanisms and timing of a Tory party leadership election...
I think you may be at the wrong website?
Somebody save us from Patel!!!!!
I can't help thinking both Patel and Raab are in such high offices to please the Brexiteers rather than actually being the best people for the job.
Probably, but are people ever in high offices purely by being the best people for the job? If it were possible to objectively assess the merits of all MPs and put those best placed in the most appropriate positions I imagine government and opposition alike would look very different.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
So the prime minister being incapacitated and a reasonable proportion of people of good working age being at death's door or dying can be ignored, because "It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions"
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo said he has seen very promising results when prescribing hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients.
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
Jesus F##king Christ, Fat Head is now speculating on a mechanisms and timing of a Tory party leadership election...
I think you may be at the wrong website?
Somebody save us from Patel!!!!!
I can't help thinking both Patel and Raab are in such high offices to please the Brexiteers rather than actually being the best people for the job.
There is this fantasy on all sides of the political debate that people who reach high office either in government or opposition are thick as two short planks.
Clue: they are not. They are very very smart and moreso diligent. Look at Raab or Lammy's CV. Outstanding.
Problem is they have to deal with, appeal to, and somehow try to satisfy us lot, the public, and we are thick as fuck.
Just saw the Harry and Meghan stuff. What a pair of tits. The royals are better off without them, she strikes me as the worst type of social climber and grasper.
Has she used her feminine wiles to befuddle and corrupt our Harry?
Wave 1 might have done... Unless it's 100% stabbed out (and it won't be) future waves are inevitable.
Evidence?
Well, it might be pointed out that the Black Death continued to come in waves in Europe for over 350 years, with the last major outbreak occurring in Marseilles in 1720.
Then there were significant outbreaks in Asia, particularly China, in the late nineteenth century and carried on the trade routes there were major outbreaks in California as late as 1924.
Since that time bubonic plague has declined across the globe for some reason. Nobody seems to know why.
Hopefully it won’t take 500 years this time.
That’s not evidence, next.
You are the one positing a miracle, because for every infectious disease ever documented bar about 2, once it's there it is there to stay. I am pretty certain people will still be getting flu, colds and chicken pox in 2030. So the burden of proof is with you.
I’m not positing anything of the sort. I don’t know. I merely asked for evidence, which I have yet to receive.
But if gifts to parties don't require tax then that should be consistent between minor parties like UKIP and Greens whether they have one MP or not.
I agree, but to me the tax issue highlights the low-level corruption of the "establishment". Tax breaks for the big old parties but not for their rivals.
The punishment should be for all parties to pay more tax. They are not after all slow to criticise private companies (or schools) avoiding tax.
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
The aim “to do something that matters” makes it sound like a spoof. Or the 21st century version of those 18th century bubble companies: “For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
Checking local news reports in Spain on Facebook I see that Hotels in Mallorca are now suggesting they will not be able to re-open until 2021 and asking for tax breaks. I suspect that will be part of a developing trend now.
I can't believe people are even considering foreign holidays at the moment. In other news my better half has headed off to run the gauntlet at the supermarket.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
I have to say, sitting here at home, working, dabbling on PB, listening to Kleiber's Brahms 4, beautiful day outside.
Checking local news reports in Spain on Facebook I see that Hotels in Mallorca are now suggesting they will not be able to re-open until 2021 and asking for tax breaks. I suspect that will be part of a developing trend now.
I can't believe people are even considering foreign holidays at the moment. In other news my better half has headed off to run the gauntlet at the supermarket.
Until there is real time testing and immunity passports, I don't see how we get back to travel for pleasure.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
Gives them an excuse for not actually doing anything, but they have the announcement to point to when someone criticises them for it
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
The aim “to do something that matters” makes it sound like a spoof. Or the 21st century version of those 18th century bubble companies: “For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”.
Where can I invest? I only have some tulip bulbs - perhaps we can do a swap for some shares?
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
The aim “to do something that matters” makes it sound like a spoof. Or the 21st century version of those 18th century bubble companies: “For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”.
There was a great Bloomberg DES(cription) of a company just listed on Nasdaq during the dot-com bubble which said something along the lines of: this company has no business or business interests but is actively looking for opportunities to invest in.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
I hope they keep posting because reading all the bad news is super depressing.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
If people are overwhelmed by events out of their control and are fearful, a natural instinct is to go for the most controlled scenario they can think of.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
Interesting Spanish article on the slow stages back to 'normality' after the peak and subsequent decline of the virus. The gist is: very slow return with continues isolation for all risk groups well into the summer and beyond. Slow return to work, even slower re-opening of tourist centres, bars, restaurants , etc. In short no return to normality much beyond getting more people back to work who can do so relatively safely. Remember, the UK is signficantly further back down the road than Spain and Italy.
Against that there is recent evidence from China that the large majority of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms. Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said the findings were “very, very important.” He told The BMJ, “The sample is small, and more data will become available. Also, it’s not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let’s just say they are generalisable. And even if they are 10% out, then this suggests the virus is everywhere. If—and I stress, if—the results are representative, then we have to ask, ‘What the hell are we locking down for?’” https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375
The almost global lockdown applies the 'precautionary principle' to the whole of society and economy at a staggering cost. The uncertain trade-off between economic/social damage and deaths/respiratory morbidity surely needs modification and revision as we learn more facts like these. The Swedish approach is often called an 'experiment', but we are all experimenting with this known unknown. What is sure is that strict adherence to the precautionary principle will be seen retrospectively as a deviation from optimal treatment of the pandemic. Hindsight will be a wonderful thing.
I think now that the government is understandably distracted, and that any evidence coming from new scientific studies may be ignored in the short term. I have been reading The TImes newspaper, and recent articles have shown that there is considerable debate among scientists about COVID including the impact and effectiveness of social distancing and estimates of the number of people who have been infected.
I would like the government to explain, where scientists disagree, how the government decides on which scientists to listen to, and on what basis scientists are chosen to work on the government's advisory panels. How is a consensus arrived at, and do ministers intervene and affect the final decision and if so on what basis?
At times it is hard to put aside short-term pressures to analyse the evidence, such as it is, but this will be needed later in this situation.
I wish Boris Johnson all the best for a full recovery.
I would call that a speculation, and we can't work on the basis of speculations.
The author admits that himself.
"Also, it’s not clear exactly how these cases were identified. But let’s just say they are generalisable. "
"Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine". Hmmm.
Being waspish, perhaps "Evidence Abused Medicine" would be more accurate here.
Not being clear - my comment relates to the quote. And I wonder if actually I have overdone the scepticism.
Apologies for my tone. Not appropriate at this time.
A lot of medical research is on low profile issues such as compression stockings in the treatment of lymphedema, nevertheless the correct research methodologies are supposed to be used.
I suspect that the debate over COVID policy will not be conducted like an academic debate as the stakes are so high and the public are directly involved. It seems unlikely that academic reassurances will be enough to get many members of the public to accept a lifting of the lockdown. If the number of cases is less than about 400,000 a year herd immunity will not be achieved as the population is changing due to births and deaths. If a vaccine is not found, we will will face a choice between lifting the lockdown or accepting it essentially forever.
Later this year the economic consequences of the lockdown will start to bite. The virus is unpopular but people don't want to starve either. Interesting times are ahead.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
Perhaps that’s why TSE doesn’t do subtlety.
Wordsworth, greatest of all Cumbrians, born 250 years ago today. April 7th 1770.
Reuters is reporting that Germany has recorded another 3,834 cases of Covid-19, bringing its total number of cases to 99,225, with 1,607 deaths.
That's France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Japan are recording "worse" numbers.
I think those talking about lifting the lockdown and his will be done and dusted in a few weeks from now are deluded.
They had 103,375 cases as of yesterday according to worldometers
Deutschlandfunk has been reporting for probably two weeks now both the Robert Koch counts and the Johns Hopkins counts. It feels like they give a different reason every day as to why the two are different.
Some of it is delay, but that can't explain the whole difference. I see two possible reasons, the first is that some test results are being reported to Johns Hopkins but not the RKI (bad, very bad) the second is that some test resuts are being reported directly to JH and then indirectly by the German State or the RKI, i.e. double counting by JH (sloppy by JH).
Agreed. But the idea that an extreme extended lockdown is controlled is an illusion and a delusion. Its effects are deeply uncontrollable and will probably cause untold permanent damage far in excess of that caused by the virus itself.
I do wonder about who is advising them, although perhaps they aren't taking any notice. I can't believe any PR expert would be suggesting this is a good idea at the moment.
And that name is Consignia level bad. Unpronounceable and overtones of arch, hell and chew (18th century synonym for a blowjob according to William Golding).
That middle "e" is going to irritate me every time I see it. Which won't be that often, I hope.
The aim “to do something that matters” makes it sound like a spoof. Or the 21st century version of those 18th century bubble companies: “For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
"The figure includes deaths outside hospitals, including those in homes and care homes, and includes patients who have not tested positive for the virus but are suspected of having the disease."
We know that of those admitted to hospital with very serious CV type symptoms and are tested, only about 33-40% actually turn out to be positive.
Not even almost crap statistics. Looks as though ALL deaths are being reported. Would it not be sensible, when producing these graphs to have a baseline of, say, the daily deaths for March and April in 2019? That way we might have some real idea.
What are you saying that people die of other stuff too? I never knew that :-)
As you say, we need to see what the normal average daily deaths at this time of year, with variance intervals, and then plot them against this.
Yup. A similar chart was reported in the Sunday Times. Death rate down on the average in Q1. I believe it was you showing ‘normal’ pneumonia deaths falling off a cliff - of course many of those deaths are now being credited to Coronavirus. Sadly most of our journalists are innumerate and don’t grasp the concept of baselines (or don’t want to).
It may be that the vast majority of coronavirus deaths are people who would have died at some time within the next 12 months or so anyway of other conditions, and what's happening is that the numbers are being compressed into a shorter period of time. We'll know if that's true because there'll be less deaths than expected later on.
All 5 of the people that I know of personally or relatives of persons known to me who have died of it were not on their last legs. 3 were in their fifties (all men) and 2 were spritely females in their mid seventies.
The "nothing to see here" crowd need to get out more. Only they cannot.
Where are this crowd? Andy is certainly not among them. He is simply offering an alternative interpretation of the numbers to yours.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
Perhaps that’s why TSE doesn’t do subtlety.
Wordsworth, greatest of all Cumbrians, born 250 years ago today. April 7th 1770.
The greatest master of the English language was born on this day.
Agreed. But the idea that an extreme extended lockdown is controlled is an illusion and a delusion. Its effects are deeply uncontrollable and will probably cause untold permanent damage far in excess of that caused by the virus itself.
Agree absolutely. They are panicking. No good decisions are made in a panic.
There is this fantasy on all sides of the political debate that people who reach high office either in government or opposition are thick as two short planks.
Clue: they are not. They are very very smart and moreso diligent. Look at Raab or Lammy's CV. Outstanding.
Problem is they have to deal with, appeal to, and somehow try to satisfy us lot, the public, and we are thick as fuck.
Fully behind your general point, which is more than reasonably solid, it's undeniably true. Almost every top politician is cleverer than most of the people who comment adversely on the intelligence of politicians. There are exceptions, however, e.g. Priti Patel. My genuine sense of her intellect is that it's not materially above average.
@AlastairMeeks - yes, the same poem has been ringing in my ears for the last 24 hours. When my colleagues adopted an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude, it was the first thing I thought.
What's so frustrating is how powerless we are. I'm not physically able to volunteer to help others, so the best thing I can do is stay at home and not be a drain on hospital resources. It feels cowardly, yet it's the only course of action.
--AS
They also serve who only stand and wait.
I’d quote the whole thing, but out of deference to @Casino_Royale I'll go light on the poetry.
Poetry is one of my consolations. I am going to do something I have not done for a long time which is to learn poems off by heart and recite them. There is no-one to hear them apart from my daughter (and she is well used to my eccentricities), the horse in the next field and the cats.
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
I have to say, sitting here at home, working, dabbling on PB, listening to Kleiber's Brahms 4, beautiful day outside.
It could be worse.
I have The Tao of Pooh arriving later from Amazon.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
Or providing misinformation
I welcome good news. I do not welcome clutching at straws being passed off as good news, e.g. the number of deaths on one day being lower than on the previous day. Unfounded optimism can also kill if it leads to people getting the wrong message.
There seems to be an unwelcome virus fascism settling in on PB, where any piece of potential good news is derided, those offering more positive interpretations of the data are attacked, and positions other than extreme extended lockdowns are castigated as irresponsible.
If people are overwhelmed by events out of their control and are fearful, a natural instinct is to go for the most controlled scenario they can think of.
Won't somebody pleeeeeeeease think of the children!!!!!!!
‘Before the virus hit Europe, Italy sent tons of PPE to China to help China protect its own population,’ the administration official explained. ‘China then has sent Italian PPE back to Italy — some of it, not even all of it … and charged them for it.’
China taking advantage of Italy’s generosity is just the latest example of its disastrous diplomacy in the wake of the pandemic. Much of the supplies and testing kits China has sold to other countries have turned out to be defective. Spain had to return 50,000 quick-testing kits to China after discovering that they were faulty. In some cases, instead of apologizing or fixing the issue, China has blamed its defective equipment on others. China condescendingly told the Netherlands to ‘double-check the instructions’ on its masks, for example, after the Netherlands complained that half of the masks they were sent did not meet safety standards.
There is this fantasy on all sides of the political debate that people who reach high office either in government or opposition are thick as two short planks.
Clue: they are not. They are very very smart and moreso diligent. Look at Raab or Lammy's CV. Outstanding.
Problem is they have to deal with, appeal to, and somehow try to satisfy us lot, the public, and we are thick as fuck.
Fully behind your general point, which is more than reasonably solid, it's undeniably true. Almost every top politician is cleverer than most of the people who comment adversely on the intelligence of politicians. There are exceptions, however, e.g. Priti Patel. My genuine sense of her intellect is that it's not materially above average.
She was clever enough to understand what she wanted and then to know how to go out and achieve it. By convincing people like me and you to vote for her and convincing her peers that she was able to handle high office.
Comments
So are there consequences for the lower court judges for making the 'wrong' decision?
Soap, thermometers, shampoo, moisturiser
He is part of the Boulton, Burley, Rigby group on Sky of sad journalists forever looking for 'gotcha' moment or just asking insensitive or inane questions, and at the same time having an enormous opinion of themselves, and their value to journalism
No wonder Sky only had approx 750,000 viewing the Queens Speech against the BBC of 14 million plus
We also used to fund things through philanthropy - Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, for example, was privately funded as was the University of Westminster.
The "nothing to see here" crowd need to get out more. Only they cannot.
Obviously this may well be found to be utterly misguided.
But the design of the spiral staircase is to allow the defenders to use the central pillar to protect the left side of the body thereby allow them to be more aggressive while exposing the attacker's left flank as they climb the stairs.
Prime minister Jacinda Ardern says she would have sacked him under normal circumstances"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/coronavirus-new-zealand-david-clark-health-minister-lockdown-beach-a9451521.html
"Every patient I've prescribed it to has been very, very ill and within 8 to 12 hours, they were basically symptom-free," Cardillo told Eyewitness News. "So clinically I am seeing a resolution."
He said he has found it only works if combined with zinc. The drug, he said, opens a channel for the zinc to enter the cell and block virus replication.
https://abc7.com/coronavirus-drug-covid-19-malaria-hydroxychloroquine/6079864/
In the Imperial College report that brought about the "U-turn"* the suppression strategy that was modelled was for a period of 5 MONTHS. This is not a state secret, any interested journalist can go read the report from the 16th March. Also the report makes quite clear that only deals with the first wave, and it models a 2/3 ON and 1/3 OFF repeated supression strategy to deal with future outbreaks until there is a vaccine or herd immunity.
Unless we are incredibly lucky we will be taking drastic action to deal with COVID-19 all through this year, and probably most of next year as well.
* It's more complicated than that, it was a switch between mitigation and supression, and even those strategies form a continuum of possible actions.
Personally I would levy a 50% sin tax on all party donations.
But if gifts to parties don't require tax then that should be consistent between minor parties like UKIP and Greens whether they have one MP or not.
And also just seen this:
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/04/07/british-holiday-makers-wanting-to-book-for-the-costa-del-sol-and-the-costa-blanca-warned-against-travelling-to-spain/?fbclid=IwAR3WX_25toVqMuUO8AsQqIGnyHKqvu_AjfslHjWYnWnj6bpuFlquX6LdyIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
I can't help thinking both Patel and Raab are in such high offices to please the Brexiteers rather than actually being the best people for the job.
The Home Secretary, in a time of National crisis, would normally be expected to be much more visible
At my primary school the nuns made us learn a poem every week and on Tuesday morning before classes started someone would be picked to recite it. It was a marvellous way of improving memory and above all giving us an ear for the sheer beauty and musicality of the English language. And I did lots of poetry reading when I studied drama. At one point we also did poems in Latin and, somewhere in the attic, is my certificate for 1st place in a Latin poetry reciting competition. Now is the time to revive such skills.
I used to recite poems to my children at bed-time: nonsense rhymes and the rest but The Owl and the Pussycat was a particular favourite.
Occasionally I have been known to put obscure references to snatches of poems in my headers. Not that anyone notices ........
Clue: they are not. They are very very smart and moreso diligent. Look at Raab or Lammy's CV. Outstanding.
Problem is they have to deal with, appeal to, and somehow try to satisfy us lot, the public, and we are thick as fuck.
The punishment should be for all parties to pay more tax. They are not after all slow to criticise private companies (or schools) avoiding tax.
It could be worse.
I suspect that the debate over COVID policy will not be conducted like an academic debate as the stakes are so high and the public are directly involved. It seems unlikely that academic reassurances will be enough to get many members of the public to accept a lifting of the lockdown. If the number of cases is less than about 400,000 a year herd immunity will not be achieved as the population is changing due to births and deaths. If a vaccine is not found, we will will face a choice between lifting the lockdown or accepting it essentially forever.
Later this year the economic consequences of the lockdown will start to bite. The virus is unpopular but people don't want to starve either. Interesting times are ahead.
I’m in even more sympathy with @Cyclefree about subtlety...
Some of it is delay, but that can't explain the whole difference. I see two possible reasons, the first is that some test results are being reported to Johns Hopkins but not the RKI (bad, very bad) the second is that some test resuts are being reported directly to JH and then indirectly by the German State or the RKI, i.e. double counting by JH (sloppy by JH).
Agreed. But the idea that an extreme extended lockdown is controlled is an illusion and a delusion. Its effects are deeply uncontrollable and will probably cause untold permanent damage far in excess of that caused by the virus itself.
Do they have a logo? What about this:
And so was Wordsworth...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
I had honestly thought the complaint was over the timing. Like you said, the name really doesn't matter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-wisconsin.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage