I think London could do worse than proclaim they are going to copy Eyam in Derbyshire during the '65 plague. Lock themselves away to make sure it doesn't spread anymore. With being stacked on top of one another, it will eventually ensure a bit more space.
Coronavirus is clearly racist....obviously nothing to do with things like it is known that a number of underlying health conditions are much more prevalent in black and Asian people for not totally understood genetic reasons.
And Asians much more likely to live in multi-generational households e.g. like Northern Italy. And live in urban areas, which much higher population density.
And organized places of worship appear to be a very good transport vector.
Jews are being disproportionally affected as well. So CV is clearly antisemtic as well.
Don't forget sexist, the two 'X' chromosomes help protect women.
I honestly wonder if the WHO will survive their handling of this.
No tanks in Baghdad Only 3,000 deaths in China...
Difficult to take any graph that still has the China figures on seriously.
Seriously, I would love to know what percentage of the true figure you think the UK case numbers represent.
Do you really think the UK confirmed cases are more than 1% of the real number of infections?
Uk is publishing positive tests figures and deaths.
Guesses at "no of cases" would be up there with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.
You're unable even to guess how many cases there are in the UK.
Perhaps if you weren't so keen to dismiss such evidence as we have, you wouldn't be in quite such a complete state of ignorance.
You seem to be using karate on a straw man.
Do you believe the Chinese death figures Y/N ?
The Chinese government murderously lied about the existence of COVID19 The Chinese government murderously lied about human-to-human transmission The Chinese government told the exact truth, openly, about the death rate from COVID19
Correct.
Now if Chris has evidence that the Uk government is hiding deaths then that would be a story.
Why do I keep coming back here and wasting my time on this kind of drivel?
She was quite prominent a couple of weeks ago when the police were asked to police lockdown.
Overall that's gone/is going quite well. What else is there for her to do at this point?
Gone well? Some forces went absolutely crazy acting extra-judiciously and had to be reigned in to start rescinding the tickets they had wrongly issued. The emergency regulations did not back up the pronouncements being made by ministers. Either the regulations were poorly written or the Home Office was deficient in reminding forces that a ministerial announcement is not the law.
The police got back in their box fairly rapidly. Given their history, it was to be expected that some forces/areas would go loopy at the thought of new powers.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
You live in some well off fringe bubble! NHS workers personally known to me are starting to be taken into intensive care now. Even the PM is stricken, nearly 1000 people a day are dying and its getting worse. I'm glad your rural hospital cosmetics department is a bit quiet! Why are you in denial?
We are saying it is patchy e.g. London and West Midlands are two places were it is very bad. Also, one of the sites is most definitely urban and the people I spoke to are on the CV frontline. I was taken aback when they told me.
And we aren't saying it won't get bad, just the wave hasn't hit YET.
It isn't just me either, the egg-heads said yesterday said that they are confidence now the NHS will manage, yes there will be the odd hospital at max capacity, but across the system there will be enough to manage this wave of the outbreak. They also don't think the Excel centre will ever have to be used at max capacity.
This is all very positive new, against a background of this horrific virus.
I honestly wonder if the WHO will survive their handling of this.
No tanks in Baghdad Only 3,000 deaths in China...
Difficult to take any graph that still has the China figures on seriously.
Seriously, I would love to know what percentage of the true figure you think the UK case numbers represent.
Do you really think the UK confirmed cases are more than 1% of the real number of infections?
Uk is publishing positive tests figures and deaths.
Guesses at "no of cases" would be up there with Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.
You're unable even to guess how many cases there are in the UK.
Perhaps if you weren't so keen to dismiss such evidence as we have, you wouldn't be in quite such a complete state of ignorance.
You seem to be using karate on a straw man.
Do you believe the Chinese death figures Y/N ?
The Chinese government murderously lied about the existence of COVID19 The Chinese government murderously lied about human-to-human transmission The Chinese government told the exact truth, openly, about the death rate from COVID19
Correct.
Now if Chris has evidence that the Uk government is hiding deaths then that would be a story.
Why do I keep coming back here and wasting my time on this kind of drivel?
Bye!!!!
Because Ramseys' Kitchen Nightmares USA has been replaced by Come Dine With Me today. Gutted.
Other reports say his temperature is also dropping
Great news if true.
It is. The one thing I do not understand. From my experience if you can manage with oxygen only, you would be in HDU not intensive care unit.
I have a feeling they were probably concerned about how quickly he was deteriorating on Monday and expected that if he carried on going down hill at the rate he was they'd need to put him on a vent.
If they've managed to stop the deterioration and he's even showing signs of improvement (temperature dropping etc) then hopefully they'll be able to move him out of ICU soon.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
Doctors Surgerys are the same, very few patients coming in, some telephone consultations, thats it. Strangely they have to open on Good Friday and Bank Holiday Monday. I doubt they will get many customers.
The sarcastic in me suggests that a lot of the time wasting stuff on the NHS has gone away.
The realist in me says, true, but also too many people who should have gone to see a doctor won't. For fear of catching COVID19.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
You live in some well off fringe bubble! NHS workers personally known to me are starting to be taken into intensive care now. Even the PM is stricken, nearly 1000 people a day are dying and its getting worse. I'm glad your rural hospital cosmetics department is a bit quiet! Why are you in denial?
I suspect, from semi-rural Essex, that that's correct. Something might be coming, but as of today, it hasn't arrived.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
You live in some well off fringe bubble! NHS workers personally known to me are starting to be taken into intensive care now. Even the PM is stricken, nearly 1000 people a day are dying and its getting worse. I'm glad your rural hospital cosmetics department is a bit quiet! Why are you in denial?
We are saying it is patchy e.g. London and West Midlands are two places were it is very bad. Also, one of the sites is most definitely urban and the people I spoke to are on the CV frontline. I was taken aback when they told me.
And we aren't saying it won't get bad, just the wave hasn't hit YET.
It isn't just me either, the egg-heads said yesterday said that they are confidence now the NHS will manage, yes there will be the odd hospital at max capacity, but across the system there will be enough to manage this wave of the outbreak.
Yes I can see there is a definite argument for regional lockdown. North London and Herts are riddled with it but maybe Bude or Hunstanton not as bad by quite a degree. No wonder Bunbrying is so frowned upon nowadays
Almost as if the Grim Reaper has a quota, but beyond that, isn't much interested.
Although, I suspect he will get a produtivity bonus for April.
That’s pretty much what I have been thinking. A certain amount of people die each year, and if we have a few months of low death rate, expect a bad few to come, or a bad year.
It’s like if you expect 10 corners in a football match. Most of the time the split will be 4/6 first/second half, but sometimes it’s 0/10, and sometimes there are 5 and others 15. Or if a scratch golfer birdies the first 6 holes, expect a few bogeys
What I find most baffling, @Anabobazina seems to concur, is the anger that considering graphs, numbers whatever from people who disagree with the government provokes. This situation is quite unprecedented and no one has a definitive answer, so why not keep an open mind rather than throw your lot in behind the consensus of a narrow band of officials?
Quite right. I concur absolutely.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
Regarding Patel, that she has gone away is a Good Thing. Not least for the Conservative Party because whilst you HYUFD-wing may like her, most normals are repelled by her.
As for borders this ties directly into Brexit. A key fundament for our Need to Leave was to control our borders. In the EU it was illegal* for us to restrict freedom of movement, EU states can't close or even restrict access through their borders for people and stuff therefore we had to leave not just the EU but all the non-EU things like the EEA which people were encouraged to confuse with the EU.
So we left the EU. And here we are, sovereign borders and all letting in literally anyone without checks. Whereas in the EU and even in Schengen where it is illegal* to have a border they have closed their borders at time and imposed checks and restrictions. Huzzah for Patel and Boris's Brexit policy!
The negotiations we are told must plow on to the schedule. Set aside the absurdity of trying to negotiate this at impossible speed in the midst of a pandemic, what specifically are we negotiating towards? We need to leave everything so that we can impose checks which are illegal* and impossible in the EU which have now been imposed in the EU. We have to leave the Free Trade Area and all free trade agreements so that we can have free trade. The need for trade after the pandemic will make this absurdity patently batshit, and with all the restrictions that will have appeared, I sense that we can conclude our negotiations be laregly cementing into place the status quo and declaring success. After all its what he did with his renegotiation of May's terrible deal by simply agreeing to everything the EU demanded about a border down the Irish Sea whilst telling everyone that the border just agreed hadn't been agreed to.
I hope that once we get through the Pandemic that Starmer will patently tear this all apart lie by lie by absurdity.
*not illegal but never mind
It was more controls on workers coming to the UK (especially from Eastern Europe after Blair failed to impose transition controls) that drove the Leave vote.
The current temporary border restrictions within the EU have been made for health reasons, not to impose restrictions on workers moving within the EEA which the Patel points system would do once the transition period ends
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
Wow, looks like the Eurogroup meeting was a complete disaster. Northern Europe insisting on ESM usage with a standard reform package (Greek austerity) attached. Southern Europe insisting on no-strings coronabonds. The positions seem unbridgeable.
I have on order from Amazon the Sharon Moleam book (published yesterday). 'The Better Half: On the genetic superiority of women.'
He proposes the extra X chromosome conveys immunological advantages amongst its assets. It was once assumed the extra X was inactivated (Lyonised after Mary Lyon who died recently), however epigenetics is the new growth area,
It should be an interesting, if speculative, read.
We have 10,000s dying of a killer disease around the world and the media are getting their knickers in a twist of what exact terms are verboten.
Calm down dear.
Rather than wasting their time on this crap, they should perhaps watch some videos and read some papers on maths and science so they can at least get some basic shit right about this outbreak.
Almost as if the Grim Reaper has a quota, but beyond that, isn't much interested.
Although, I suspect he will get a produtivity bonus for April.
That’s pretty much what I have been thinking. A certain amount of people die each year, and if we have a few months of low death rate, expect a bad few to come, or a bad year.
It’s like if you expect 10 corners in a football match. Most of the time the split will be 4/6 first/second half, but sometimes it’s 0/10, and sometimes there are 5 and others 15. Or if a scratch golfer birdies the first 6 holes, expect a few bogeys
What I find most baffling, @Anabobazina seems to concur, is the anger that considering graphs, numbers whatever from people who disagree with the government provokes. This situation is quite unprecedented and no one has a definitive answer, so why not keep an open mind rather than throw your lot in behind the consensus of a narrow band of officials?
Quite right. I concur absolutely.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
People can disagree with the government. People can agree with it, what's the issue?
I dare say I'm personally a bit too trusting of authority at times but it didnt and wouldnt prevent criticism for instance on advice to police, or if they dismiss advice due to ideological choices.
It is possible that open minds exist even if people have indicated they support one view more than another. Thats not predetermination, as the localism act helpfully clarified, its fine to instinctively lean one way so long as the mind is not outright closed to consideration of additional facts or evidence.
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
Yep. Became a binary choice and SCon more credible as unswerving Unionist party than Labour. Ironically SNP success de-toxified SCon.
It was Nicola's de-emphasising of IndyRef and focus on Brexit during GE19 that allowed them to take back some of those Tory seats. Don't think that will work next year when the election will inevitably be about IndyRef again.
Now what did the government say when the media screamed we should lock everybody down in February...then some lab techs and MSc students wrote a letter saying they were taking bollocks about behavioural science.
"It is too soon to judge the ultimate soundness of the UK’s early response. If history concludes that it was lacking, then the criticism levelled at the prime minister may be that, rather than ignoring the advice of his scientific advisers, he failed to question their assumptions."
Erhh, I don't mean to be funny, but do we want a bloke with a classics degree going all Robert Peston and thinking he knows the assumptions in complex mathematical models of expert in this field were wrong?
Imagine for a second he had overruled them, bloody hell fire the media would have gone total batshit crazy.
Assumptions are the input to the model. It doesn't matter how complex the model is.
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
With diminishing returns even during the Ruth Davidson No To A Second IndyRef party transition phase.
If as the Unionists keep claiming Covid 19 makes indy very much a secondary issue, with what are their parties going to fill that gaping hole? Ian Murray is stolidly banging the No To A Second IndyRef drum so I suspect they'll keep battling over the same 40% of more-or-less committed Unionist votes until something turns up.
I get the point but I think fighting against cliches is not a fight that is necessary or can be won. I mean, most of the time public figures say everyone's thoughts and prayers are ewith person x, but it's not worth jumping down their throats if they just said prayers, excluding those in 'everyone' who are atheist.
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
Yep. Became a binary choice and SCon more credible as unswerving Unionist party than Labour. Ironically SNP success de-toxified SCon.
It was Nicola's de-emphasising of IndyRef and focus on Brexit during GE19 that allowed them to take back some of those Tory seats. Don't think that will work next year when the election will inevitably be about IndyRef again.
Except that's not true. They de emphasised IndyRef at 2017. In 2019 IndyRef was front and centre, it led the campaign. Big G was constantly asking if I thought the SNP's focus on IndyRef was going to damage them in 2019 election.
Now what did the government say when the media screamed we should lock everybody down in February...then some lab techs and MSc students wrote a letter saying they were taking bollocks about behavioural science.
As long as (most) people are observing the lock down and the numbers start to come down soon so we can all get out of this nightmare nothing else really matters at this point.
But what alternative did the level-headed propose? Covid-19 was always going to make the health service fall over, with consequences for all its patients. The thrust of Covid-19 preparation has been to expand capacity to reduce the extent of the falling over, to the benefit of everybody involved. What less mad course of action should have been followed?
Almost as if the Grim Reaper has a quota, but beyond that, isn't much interested.
Although, I suspect he will get a produtivity bonus for April.
That’s pretty much what I have been thinking. A certain amount of people die each year, and if we have a few months of low death rate, expect a bad few to come, or a bad year.
It’s like if you expect 10 corners in a football match. Most of the time the split will be 4/6 first/second half, but sometimes it’s 0/10, and sometimes there are 5 and others 15. Or if a scratch golfer birdies the first 6 holes, expect a few bogeys
What I find most baffling, @Anabobazina seems to concur, is the anger that considering graphs, numbers whatever from people who disagree with the government provokes. This situation is quite unprecedented and no one has a definitive answer, so why not keep an open mind rather than throw your lot in behind the consensus of a narrow band of officials?
Quite right. I concur absolutely.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
These graphs are interesting, but I don't see what point people think they make. Deaths from covid-19 through march are low (we know this from other figures) so are hardly going to detectable on overall deaths to that point. If we've had a better year than average so far for other deaths then total deaths will also be below average. We'll likely see higher than normal April deaths, but maybe not hugely so. But the whole point of lockdown is to try and minimise covid-19 deaths. If we didn't lock down and the 250k model was right, then that chart would have looked very different at the end of April. Not seeing a big effect after we've pulled out all the stops to avoid a big effect - we'll, that's exactly what we're trying to achieve. We may find out later that the threat was never as high as feared (many asymptomatic infections not picked up yet) but the graphs don't tell us anything about that.
. Ruth Davidson was transformative and the SNP were unsettled by her. They just love Leonard though.
The entirety of her electoral success was made by abandoning the approach she was elected on and adopting Murdo Fraser's ideas.
My thesis is that Murdo Fraser would have done exactly as well as Davidson electorally.
Well not entirely. Granted, she did move in his direction but Murdo's signature proposal was to bin the Party's identity and start afresh with a new name etc. Ruth certainly didn't do that and was right not to. Also, I think you underestimate the personal impact Ruth had in dispelling the stereotypical Tory image. Murdo would not have done so well although he's very competent.
They were literally putting out election leaflets that did not mention the word Conservative except for the legally mandated printing note.
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
With diminishing returns even during the Ruth Davidson No To A Second IndyRef party transition phase.
If as the Unionists keep claiming Covid 19 makes indy very much a secondary issue, with what are their parties going to fill that gaping hole? Ian Murray is stolidly banging the No To A Second IndyRef drum so I suspect they'll keep battling over the same 40% of more-or-less committed Unionist votes until something turns up.
It'll be about turnout.
Will pro-Indy coalition still be champing at the bit next year? Will constitution still seem so relevant? If so, another pro-Indy maj at Holyrood if they get the vote out. . Or will it be economy and public services? If latter, should help SLAB. Time will tell.
She was quite prominent a couple of weeks ago when the police were asked to police lockdown.
Overall that's gone/is going quite well. What else is there for her to do at this point?
Gone well? Some forces went absolutely crazy acting extra-judiciously and had to be reigned in to start rescinding the tickets they had wrongly issued. The emergency regulations did not back up the pronouncements being made by ministers. Either the regulations were poorly written or the Home Office was deficient in reminding forces that a ministerial announcement is not the law.
I think it is clear that the Police over-reached their power and my very personal view is that is entirely the fault of the police not the Government. We see it all the time with petty functionaries abusing the powers they are given.
I get the point but I think fighting against cliches is not a fight that is necessary or can be won. I mean, most of the time public figures say everyone's thoughts and prayers are ewith person x, but it's not worth jumping down their throats if they just said prayers, excluding those in 'everyone' who are atheist.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
Regarding Patel, that she has gone away is a Good Thing. Not least for the Conservative Party because whilst you HYUFD-wing may like her, most normals are repelled by her.
As for borders this ties directly into Brexit. A key fundament for our Need to Leave was to control our borders. In the EU it was illegal* for us to restrict freedom of movement, EU states can't close or even restrict access through their borders for people and stuff therefore we had to leave not just the EU but all the non-EU things like the EEA which people were encouraged to confuse with the EU.
So we left the EU. And here we are, sovereign borders and all letting in literally anyone without checks. Whereas in the EU and even in Schengen where it is illegal* to have a border they have closed their borders at time and imposed checks and restrictions. Huzzah for Patel and Boris's Brexit policy!
The negotiations we are told must plow on to the schedule. Set aside the absurdity of trying to negotiate this at impossible speed in the midst of a pandemic, what specifically are we negotiating towards? We need to leave everything so that we can impose checks which are illegal* and impossible in the EU which have now been imposed in the EU. We have to leave the Free Trade Area and all free trade agreements so that we can have free trade. The need for trade after the pandemic will make this absurdity patently batshit, and with all the restrictions that will have appeared, I sense that we can conclude our negotiations be laregly cementing into place the status quo and declaring success. After all its what he did with his renegotiation of May's terrible deal by simply agreeing to everything the EU demanded about a border down the Irish Sea whilst telling everyone that the border just agreed hadn't been agreed to.
I hope that once we get through the Pandemic that Starmer will patently tear this all apart lie by lie by absurdity.
*not illegal but never mind
The only 'lies' are those being told by the unrequited Eurofanatics who will never accept we have left. Temporary restrictions on movement for reasons of health are not the same as permanently revoking the EU freedom of movement rules. And yes, whilst in the EU it was illegal to restrict freedom of movement for anything other than reasons of national security and even then it was something the EU has objected to.
She was quite prominent a couple of weeks ago when the police were asked to police lockdown.
Overall that's gone/is going quite well. What else is there for her to do at this point?
Gone well? Some forces went absolutely crazy acting extra-judiciously and had to be reigned in to start rescinding the tickets they had wrongly issued. The emergency regulations did not back up the pronouncements being made by ministers. Either the regulations were poorly written or the Home Office was deficient in reminding forces that a ministerial announcement is not the law.
I think it is clear that the Police over-reached their power and my very personal view is that is entirely the fault of the police not the Government. We see it all the time with petty functionaries abusing the powers they are given.
Indeed - when I have questioned (in a formal setting) why the police are still using anti-terrorism legislation to stop Afro-Caribbean teenagers/young men in large numbers they always reply on some variation of "We have to use all the powers we have, to the maximum extent. We can't exercise judgement".
Its not much of a step from there to arresting people for wearing loud shirts in a built up area.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
You live in some well off fringe bubble! NHS workers personally known to me are starting to be taken into intensive care now. Even the PM is stricken, nearly 1000 people a day are dying and its getting worse. I'm glad your rural hospital cosmetics department is a bit quiet! Why are you in denial?
I suspect, from semi-rural Essex, that that's correct. Something might be coming, but as of today, it hasn't arrived.
I can assure you that Essex hospitals are busy, we may not be at the peak but the cases and the stress are there for sure.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
You live in some well off fringe bubble! NHS workers personally known to me are starting to be taken into intensive care now. Even the PM is stricken, nearly 1000 people a day are dying and its getting worse. I'm glad your rural hospital cosmetics department is a bit quiet! Why are you in denial?
While I accept you are being deeply and distressingly impacted by this crisis I think your comment is very unfair. Freely available data shows that there is a marked difference in hospital admissions across the country and your “cosmetics department” jibe is just crass.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
In a couple of weeks time the people sharing that graph now will mysteriously stop doing so, while other people currently not taking an interest in it will suddenly share it like crazy.
I'm sure certain people will suddenly find a different graph that just happens to support their contention that we've massively overreacted.
Mr. Phil, that sounds plausible. I wonder if we might end up with geographical lockdowns (big cities, either collectively or individually) or if it'll be all or nothing each time.
If the government can organise it effectively, then regional variation might make a lot of sense. London & the West Midlands are the current hotspots for instance - you could imagine letting things open up in the rest of the country first.
Clear communication would be key to this working effectively though, unless we put in place the kind of draconian controls the Chinese chose to use, which would be challenging.
(All the 2nd home owners who have decided it’s a great idea to head down to Cornwall for Easter from London are probably going to turn the SW into the next hotspot...)
Do you know where you can check where the hotspots are at the moment?
The "How many confirmed cases are in your area?" part on the BBC doesn't seem to be updated properly now. It has just 273 cases for Havering, but there's been 138 deaths at Queens hospital alone there.
My partner has been offered the chance to stay in the mother and baby unit at Wythenshawe for a week or two after the birth (hopefully) next week, but we don't know what the risks might be.
She was quite prominent a couple of weeks ago when the police were asked to police lockdown.
Overall that's gone/is going quite well. What else is there for her to do at this point?
Gone well? Some forces went absolutely crazy acting extra-judiciously and had to be reigned in to start rescinding the tickets they had wrongly issued. The emergency regulations did not back up the pronouncements being made by ministers. Either the regulations were poorly written or the Home Office was deficient in reminding forces that a ministerial announcement is not the law.
I think it is clear that the Police over-reached their power and my very personal view is that is entirely the fault of the police not the Government. We see it all the time with petty functionaries abusing the powers they are given.
David Allen Green had a set of tweets yesterday which showed very easily how the problem could be fixed
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
It is also very heavily based on the work of notorious ideologue, liar and forger Richard Horton, and must therefore be treated with extreme caution.
I'd forgotten Horton published the Wakefield MMR paper in the Lancet and didn't remove it for 12 years - I wonder how many avoidable deaths that caused? He also defended Sir Roy Meadow, leaving Sally Clark behind bars for 3 years. And then there was the "Iraq War Deaths" count - about four to six times the Iraq government estimate. Why's he still in his job?
It’s very obvious that after the initial lockdown, which will (hopefully) crush the exponential rise in cases that threatens to completely overwhelm our health services, we will move to something like the Swedish model, probably swinging back and forth between tighter & looser lockdown as the case load indicates.
Blowhards like Hitchens will of course claim that this "climbdown" means that "they were right all along".
You mean you will never admit they where correct all along.
If it turns out that the true infection rate was very high & the lockdown was unnecessary as near herd immunity was already on the cards then I for one will very gladly cheer it from the rooftops, since it will mean that the long term bad outcomes are much, much less likely.
I’m not sure what outcome would make me "admit they were correct all along" however: the likely range of outcomes given the known features of the disease in the middle of March easily include 500k deaths in the near term if no corrective action was taken. Might it have turned out differently had we done nothing? Yes, but in these circumstances you have to make difficult choices with imperfect information.
What leads you to believe Hitchens is correct in the here and now, and that these measures are unnecessary given our current knowledge of how the virus propagates & the range of likely outcomes for those infected?
The virus spreads at a rate of 2.6 new infections to each old one, if 1) no isolation happens and there is no 'heard immunity' if we find ways of reducing it to below 1 then the virus slows down and stops,
Given that people where largely and willingly and voluntarily going for many of the easy isolation taketicks, not shacking hands, washing hands, working form home if they could, not going to cinema, then that number comes down a lot.
61.5% of the population would need to have had it and be immune for the 2.6 to come down to 1, if all people are equal, but they are not, some people are highly sochall and touchy others because of there job meet a lot of others, e.g. shop workers, and at their other end some people are more like hermits, or don't meet a lot of people at work. as a result the sochall people are much more lickly to get it early, recover and then stop being a threat to others, therefor the that 61.5% is not accurate, the herd immunity effect starts to kick in a lot early.
As a result of theses two factors combined the worst case was never a credible scenario.
however there is still a possibility/probability that 60% ish will get it at some point, even the most optimistic people are saying 6 months till a vaccine, moor are talking about 18 months and maybe longer but in rality there is no grantee we will ever have one. we could keep a lock-down going for 18 months or more everybody and then it dyes out or we can have voluntary isolation for 6 months and everybody gets it, its only differences is if the NHS gets overrun, which they will not. but the difference to our freedoms and liberty is massive and will have long term effects.
The calls for the lock-down where coming the lowdest from those who detest individual freedom, it was there chance to see the exercise of state power, which should have been the giveaway that it was not needed.
Time to end the lock-down now, and rely of personal responsibility.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Here's a guy who the virus needn't even think about attacking because it would get its butt well and truly kicked -
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
PHE blocked the privet secter ftome getting involved in the initall testing so it looks lick they have not learnt there lessons.
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
PHE blocked the privet secter ftome getting involved in the initall testing so it looks lick they have not learnt there lessons.
Worth pointing out that in Germany, it was a private lab that developed their gold standard test.
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
In a couple of weeks time the people sharing that graph now will mysteriously stop doing so, while other people currently not taking an interest in it will suddenly share it like crazy.
I'm sure certain people will suddenly find a different graph that just happens to support their contention that we've massively overreacted.
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof" - Galbraith.
Even when the consequences of being wrong could be half a million dead.
She was quite prominent a couple of weeks ago when the police were asked to police lockdown.
Overall that's gone/is going quite well. What else is there for her to do at this point?
Gone well? Some forces went absolutely crazy acting extra-judiciously and had to be reigned in to start rescinding the tickets they had wrongly issued. The emergency regulations did not back up the pronouncements being made by ministers. Either the regulations were poorly written or the Home Office was deficient in reminding forces that a ministerial announcement is not the law.
I think it is clear that the Police over-reached their power and my very personal view is that is entirely the fault of the police not the Government. We see it all the time with petty functionaries abusing the powers they are given.
David Allen Green had a set of tweets yesterday which showed very easily how the problem could be fixed
He also notes (with reference to who's on first in charge and when are we going to have a review):
"The Health Secretary, however, is obliged to keep the need for the restrictions and requirements under review at least every 21 days, with the first review being carried out on 16 April (Regulation 3(2))."
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
PHE does not appear to have covered itself in glory in this. A bit too much "command and control".
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Almost as if the Grim Reaper has a quota, but beyond that, isn't much interested.
Although, I suspect he will get a produtivity bonus for April.
That’s pretty much what I have been thinking. A certain amount of people die each year, and if we have a few months of low death rate, expect a bad few to come, or a bad year.
It’s like if you expect 10 corners in a football match. Most of the time the split will be 4/6 first/second half, but sometimes it’s 0/10, and sometimes there are 5 and others 15. Or if a scratch golfer birdies the first 6 holes, expect a few bogeys
What I find most baffling, @Anabobazina seems to concur, is the anger that considering graphs, numbers whatever from people who disagree with the government provokes. This situation is quite unprecedented and no one has a definitive answer, so why not keep an open mind rather than throw your lot in behind the consensus of a narrow band of officials?
Quite right. I concur absolutely.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
Nobody - I hope - has a problem with the questioning of the official version. The problem is with the extreme, jaw-dropping stupidity of many of the minimiser arguments, in a context where to be stupid endangers life. We have had arguments on here in the last few weeks that CV could be ignored because so many more people die of road deaths in Italy and suicide in the UK. Current CV death rates are now about 50 times higher in both cases, and this was inescapably predictable, and predicted, when those arguments were advanced.
One place that nobody seems to be talking about, Australia.
Only 50 people have died so far. And from the 6,000 cases, a large proportion of that was imported / very close circle around them. They seem to stopped massive widespread community transition. No idea if it being summer has helped that.
The sheer volume of cases hospitals WON'T be seeing at the moment is mind boggling. Car accidents way down, Weekend alcohol violence surges eliminated etc, all gone.
Quick question - has there been any polling done on attitudes to Covid-19 broken down by Leave/Remain vote? I.e. "Leave voters are more likely to think X, Remain voters are more likely to think Y".
Almost as if the Grim Reaper has a quota, but beyond that, isn't much interested.
Although, I suspect he will get a produtivity bonus for April.
That’s pretty much what I have been thinking. A certain amount of people die each year, and if we have a few months of low death rate, expect a bad few to come, or a bad year.
It’s like if you expect 10 corners in a football match. Most of the time the split will be 4/6 first/second half, but sometimes it’s 0/10, and sometimes there are 5 and others 15. Or if a scratch golfer birdies the first 6 holes, expect a few bogeys
What I find most baffling, @Anabobazina seems to concur, is the anger that considering graphs, numbers whatever from people who disagree with the government provokes. This situation is quite unprecedented and no one has a definitive answer, so why not keep an open mind rather than throw your lot in behind the consensus of a narrow band of officials?
Quite right. I concur absolutely.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
Nobody - I hope - has a problem with the questioning of the official version. The problem is with the extreme, jaw-dropping stupidity of many of the minimiser arguments, in a context where to be stupid endangers life. We have had arguments on here in the last few weeks that CV could be ignored because so many more people die of road deaths in Italy and suicide in the UK. Current CV death rates are now about 50 times higher in both cases, and this was inescapably predictable, and predicted, when those arguments were advanced.
Minimiser Dan, a minimiser's minimiser, the minimiser par excellence.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Haven't read her columns recently but they're usually pretty good and funny. That you think she only writes about the Tories and Boris suggests you aren't really that familiar.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Haven't read her columns recently but they're usually pretty good and funny. That you think she only writes about the Tories and Boris suggests you aren't really that familiar.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
PHE does not appear to have covered itself in glory in this. A bit too much "command and control".
I would be interested to see what happens to whoever breaks that log jam after the crisis is over.
My guess it that the apparatchiks will destroy him/her for being guilt of going against the system.
The only 'lies' are those being told by the unrequited Eurofanatics who will never accept we have left. Temporary restrictions on movement for reasons of health are not the same as permanently revoking the EU freedom of movement rules. And yes, whilst in the EU it was illegal to restrict freedom of movement for anything other than reasons of national security and even then it was something the EU has objected to.
We have left - that's a fact - but I wonder when we will really leave?
It would be good see a Betfair market on End of Transition if they can find a way to define it with exactitude.
OT/ I've just had a letter from my bank and building society telling me the interest on my savings account has dropped from 0.1% to 0.01% and 1.10% to 0.35%. I may as well move my money (such as it is), "under the bed". Do you think the banks are doing enough to help support companies or are the pensioner savings being called upon instead?
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
Doctors Surgerys are the same, very few patients coming in, some telephone consultations, thats it. Strangely they have to open on Good Friday and Bank Holiday Monday. I doubt they will get many customers.
They are having to open because that is when the tsunami is/was expected to hit.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Amazing magical talent to have, to know that stuff is shite without reading it.
The German economy is expected to shrink by nearly 10% in the second quarter as a result of the economic impact of lockdown conditions to stem the spread of coronavirus, according to research institutes in the country.
“The corona pandemic will trigger a serious recession in Germany,” the six think tanks including Ifo, DIW and RWI said in their annual spring report, according to AFP.
Gross domestic product likely contracted by 1.9 percent in the first three months of 2020, and is set to shrink by a 9.8 percent year-on-year in the second quarter, with normal economic life still essentially frozen by widespread shutdowns.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Haven't read her columns recently but they're usually pretty good and funny. That you think she only writes about the Tories and Boris suggests you aren't really that familiar.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Is this really the time for language policing, BB?
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
The point I take from it is there are a lot of people, for want of a better phrase, ‘living on borrowed time’, because flu usually kills thousands more in Jan & Feb than it did this year
Given that people where largely and willingly and voluntarily going for many of the easy isolation taketicks, not shacking hands, washing hands, working form home if they could, not going to cinema, then that number comes down a lot.
I think we’ve reached the end of the line here, but just a small note to this point: the problem here is that the infection rate doesn’t respond linearly to changes in people’s behaviour. Each of the things you quote above in fact only has a small impact & if the virus is already well established then reducing R (the number of people each infected person goes on to infect) just slows the exponential spread.
"comes down a lot" isn’t enough if it only reduces an R of 2.5 to, say, 1.5 (which would be a huge impact) in a population where the infected already threaten to overwhelm the health service. Exponential growth is still exponential growth, just slower.
You have to get R below 1 in order to cut off that exponential growth. That’s the whole point of the current lockdown.
In a few weeks, we re-assess and take a long hard look at what’s possible & what we can cope with in the light of better information about the virus & it’s spread.
Care homes are where the real horror of this pandemic will have been unleashed when the final tallies are made.
We already seeing that as France start to process the numbers and Spain have admitted they know very large number have died, but don't have exact figures and aren't including them (at the moment).
To emphasis just how easily this thing spreads, Sky had a report from really rural part of France, literally more cows than people, but it had ripped through the whole area and killed 10s of oldies in a local care home already.
Ok, I've read the header, I've read the thread, what are these critical decisions, exactly?
The only one mentioned is when we come out of lockdown. And the answer is when we are well past the peak and the NHS is no longer at capacity. Which is 3-4 weeks away.
Next.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but the NHS is not at capacity. The picture, I think, is patchy. Some hospitals are surprisingly quiet accoriding to some reports I`ve heard, including from a friend who works in a large hospital in Devon.
Past week I have spoken to a number of healthcare professions in two parts of the country and both side they have actually never been quieter, as the number of non-CV admissions is only the very ill e.g. no time wasters in A&E, no picking up drunks fighting, few car accidents, no elective surgery and they don't take edge cases where they might usually take them in for observations.
They are ready and waiting for the CV wave to hit, been told coming, coming, coming...but as of yet not hit.
One of the first things that must come out of lockdown will be the hospitals that have put standard cancer etc treatments on hold. Designate an ever reducing number of hospitals as CV-19 specialists, but the rest should avoid cases if at all possible.
Given that people where largely and willingly and voluntarily going for many of the easy isolation taketicks, not shacking hands, washing hands, working form home if they could, not going to cinema, then that number comes down a lot.
I think we’ve reached the end of the line here, but just a small note to this point: the problem here is that the infection rate doesn’t respond linearly to changes in people’s behaviour. Each of the things you quote above in fact only has a small impact & if the virus is already well established then reducing R (the number of people each infected person goes on to infect) just slows the exponential spread.
"comes down a lot" isn’t enough if it only reduces an R of 2.5 to, say, 1.5 (which would be a huge impact) in a population where the infected already threaten to overwhelm the health service. Exponential growth is still exponential growth, just slower.
You have to get R below 1 in order to cut off that exponential growth. That’s the whole point of the current lockdown.
In a few weeks, we re-assess and take a long hard look at what’s possible & what we can cope with in the light of better information about the virus & it’s spread.
Especially as I've seen estimates for R0 following a retrospective analysis of the speed of outbreak putting R0 as high as 5.7
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Amazing magical talent to have, to know that stuff is shite without reading it.
Saves me bundles of time . Havent read a thing in 10 years .
I'm possibly not seeing the point. What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic? I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
In a couple of weeks time the people sharing that graph now will mysteriously stop doing so, while other people currently not taking an interest in it will suddenly share it like crazy.
I'm sure certain people will suddenly find a different graph that just happens to support their contention that we've massively overreacted.
eh, same as people sharing that Italy graphic a week or so back.
I get the point but I think fighting against cliches is not a fight that is necessary or can be won. I mean, most of the time public figures say everyone's thoughts and prayers are ewith person x, but it's not worth jumping down their throats if they just said prayers, excluding those in 'everyone' who are atheist.
I feel that about cancer. Someone with it always seems to be 'battling'; I didn't feel I was doing that when I was being treated. I felt I was acting in accordance with the advice of my one-time colleagues. Whom I trusted.
The sheer volume of cases hospitals WON'T be seeing at the moment is mind boggling. Car accidents way down, Weekend alcohol violence surges eliminated etc, all gone.
Car accidents run at 68 serious injuries a day - not huge - and some of the weekend alcohol violence will be rebadging itself as domestic and spreading itself over the week.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Haven't read her columns recently but they're usually pretty good and funny. That you think she only writes about the Tories and Boris suggests you aren't really that familiar.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Is this really the time for language policing, BB?
Language police, like the grammar police division, are always on duty.
Michael Howard being interviewed on BBC about the power vacuum. Mentioned cabinet responsibility. No mention of Dominic Raab. Worrying?
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
We do have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. And while the PM is incapacitated the Cabinet (especially Raab) can take on the PM's responsibilities. There's no story here.
Given that people where largely and willingly and voluntarily going for many of the easy isolation taketicks, not shacking hands, washing hands, working form home if they could, not going to cinema, then that number comes down a lot.
I think we’ve reached the end of the line here, but just a small note to this point: the problem here is that the infection rate doesn’t respond linearly to changes in people’s behaviour. Each of the things you quote above in fact only has a small impact & if the virus is already well established then reducing R (the number of people each infected person goes on to infect) just slows the exponential spread.
"comes down a lot" isn’t enough if it only reduces an R of 2.5 to, say, 1.5 (which would be a huge impact) in a population where the infected already threaten to overwhelm the health service. Exponential growth is still exponential growth, just slower.
You have to get R below 1 in order to cut off that exponential growth. That’s the whole point of the current lockdown.
In a few weeks, we re-assess and take a long hard look at what’s possible & what we can cope with in the light of better information about the virus & it’s spread.
Every indication from Sweden is that voluntary distancing is working as well as the lock-down.
The big risk now is that if/when the government releases the rules, that is misinterpreted as a free for all and then shoots back up.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
That's interesting that you find a talent such as Hyde relentlessly unfunny. It means that your politics plays a big role in what makes you laugh. Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all, but this is not so much the case with me. I often wish it was, actually, because I do not enjoy chuckling at the occasional zinger that, for example, the ghastly Rod Liddle comes out with. Fortunately (for me) there is a genuine and objectively verified negative correlation between right wing views and a facility with comic prose, so although it does happen - me creasing up at the likes of Rod - it is not a routine everyday event.
The sheer volume of cases hospitals WON'T be seeing at the moment is mind boggling. Car accidents way down, Weekend alcohol violence surges eliminated etc, all gone.
Car accidents run at 68 serious injuries a day - not huge - and some of the weekend alcohol violence will be rebadging itself as domestic and spreading itself over the week.
68 a day is nearly 1k per fortnight. Not inconsequential.
I agree and disagree with the criticism of describing suffering from a disease as a 'battle'. On the one hand, I totally disagree with the notion that the individual's actions and mental state have no bearing on their health outcome. That is patently absurd. They play a huge role.
Where I would agree somewhat is that the language of being 'locked in a battle' tends to focus far too much attention on the disease, not the restoration of good health, which is where it should be. Focusing on 'CANCER CANCER CANCER' or 'COVID COVID COVID' isn't a good place to be in.
The problem with the "fighting" one is that it's insidious- it implies a certain way of thinking about disease which is harmful and which insults victims. We might not eradicate it, but I think pushing back where we see it is worthwhile.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be said that people don’t die from this ghastly illness because of a lack of fight, whatever that might mean. Patients don’t “lose” against coronavirus because they failed to smite it or to personally out-strategise it. In recent years there has been a growing attempt to actually listen to people with cancer on the language used around the disease, and mountains of evidence has found that they largely disdain and frequently loathe the characterisation of their sickness as a “battle”. The absurdity of putting the burden of healing on the patient incenses many, who don’t care to be told that they are “winning their war”, or to be remembered as having “lost their battle”.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
Ironic that someone like Hyde, whose sole professional competence is to churn out nasty shite about Boris and the Tories on a regular basis, is suddenly deeply concerned about the negative psychological effects of language...
Haven't read her columns recently but they're usually pretty good and funny. That you think she only writes about the Tories and Boris suggests you aren't really that familiar.
I stopped reading once I no longer found them funny. Which, as far as I recall, was after the second one. Plenty of her recent stuff is vicious shite, and she's a hypocrite for suddenly shedding crocodile tears over how language makes people feel.
Is this really the time for language policing, BB?
If you bothered to comprehend what I wrote, you'd see that I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the language police. As far as I'm concerned, she's free to keep writing whatever stupid shit she pleases - and I'm equally free to disdain it.
"It is too soon to judge the ultimate soundness of the UK’s early response. If history concludes that it was lacking, then the criticism levelled at the prime minister may be that, rather than ignoring the advice of his scientific advisers, he failed to question their assumptions."
Erhh, I don't mean to be funny, but do we want a bloke with a classics degree going all Robert Peston and thinking he knows the assumptions in complex mathematical models of expert in this field were wrong?
Imagine for a second he had overruled them, bloody hell fire the media would have gone total batshit crazy.
Effectivley they are suggesting he should have done a Donald Trump. FFS
Comments
The one thing I do not understand.
From my experience if you can manage with oxygen only, you would be in HDU not intensive care unit.
Come on, London, take one for the team.
The police got back in their box fairly rapidly. Given their history, it was to be expected that some forces/areas would go loopy at the thought of new powers.
And we aren't saying it won't get bad, just the wave hasn't hit YET.
It isn't just me either, the egg-heads said yesterday said that they are confidence now the NHS will manage, yes there will be the odd hospital at max capacity, but across the system there will be enough to manage this wave of the outbreak. They also don't think the Excel centre will ever have to be used at max capacity.
This is all very positive new, against a background of this horrific virus.
If they've managed to stop the deterioration and he's even showing signs of improvement (temperature dropping etc) then hopefully they'll be able to move him out of ICU soon.
The realist in me says, true, but also too many people who should have gone to see a doctor won't. For fear of catching COVID19.
It’s a dumb, unthinking approach at best - on a site that is populated by people who should know better.
The current temporary border restrictions within the EU have been made for health reasons, not to impose restrictions on workers moving within the EEA which the Patel points system would do once the transition period ends
They stopped being the SCons and became the No To A Second IndyRef party.
https://twitter.com/LisaSaysThis/status/1247550313143373824
I have on order from Amazon the Sharon Moleam book (published yesterday). 'The Better Half: On the genetic superiority of women.'
He proposes the extra X chromosome conveys immunological advantages amongst its assets. It was once assumed the extra X was inactivated (Lyonised after Mary Lyon who died recently), however epigenetics is the new growth area,
It should be an interesting, if speculative, read.
Calm down dear.
Rather than wasting their time on this crap, they should perhaps watch some videos and read some papers on maths and science so they can at least get some basic shit right about this outbreak.
I dare say I'm personally a bit too trusting of authority at times but it didnt and wouldnt prevent criticism for instance on advice to police, or if they dismiss advice due to ideological choices.
It is possible that open minds exist even if people have indicated they support one view more than another. Thats not predetermination, as the localism act helpfully clarified, its fine to instinctively lean one way so long as the mind is not outright closed to consideration of additional facts or evidence.
It was Nicola's de-emphasising of IndyRef and focus on Brexit during GE19 that allowed them to take back some of those Tory seats. Don't think that will work next year when the election will inevitably be about IndyRef again.
A great escape from todays reality.
If as the Unionists keep claiming Covid 19 makes indy very much a secondary issue, with what are their parties going to fill that gaping hole? Ian Murray is stolidly banging the No To A Second IndyRef drum so I suspect they'll keep battling over the same 40% of more-or-less committed Unionist votes until something turns up.
They de emphasised IndyRef at 2017. In 2019 IndyRef was front and centre, it led the campaign. Big G was constantly asking if I thought the SNP's focus on IndyRef was going to damage them in 2019 election.
Not seeing a big effect after we've pulled out all the stops to avoid a big effect - we'll, that's exactly what we're trying to achieve.
We may find out later that the threat was never as high as feared (many asymptomatic infections not picked up yet) but the graphs don't tell us anything about that.
Will pro-Indy coalition still be champing at the bit next year? Will constitution still seem so relevant? If so, another pro-Indy maj at Holyrood if they get the vote out. .
Or will it be economy and public services? If latter, should help SLAB. Time will tell.
What have death counts for January and February being quite good got to do with the current pandemic?
I thought we were concerned about the covid-19 deaths that started to shoot upwards on an exponential line over the past 10 days or so - beyond the scope of that graph.
And even more concerned with preventing that exponential from getting traction and out of control. I mean, yes, if we can stop the upwards line from running away, we can keep deaths down to [eyeballs the y-axis, does some mental arithmetic, realises that the extra 5000 deaths over the past week, unless offset by far fewer deaths than normal will already spike us to the past the highest point on that graph in midwinter 2015] maybe the top of that graph? Without needing to redo the y-axis.
So, yes, it's a good way of re-emphasising that it's not too late as long as we stick with the measures we're taking, I suppose. We can still stop this being a runaway disaster. Sure, it'll probably look pretty bad when the last week's figures are added to it - after all, we're getting a spike upwards starting already, even though "only" 1200 people had died by then (950 covid-19 deaths in the week leading up to the final point on the graph).
Its not much of a step from there to arresting people for wearing loud shirts in a built up area.
Perhaps it would be better for us all if we resisted talking about coronavirus in this way. Last year, new research found that the ubiquity of military metaphors in cancer discussions could do more psychological harm than good, making people fatalistic about treatment chances and encouraging the feeling that altering their own behaviours was beyond them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/07/horror-coronavirus-real-imaginary-war-britain
I'm sure certain people will suddenly find a different graph that just happens to support their contention that we've massively overreacted.
The "How many confirmed cases are in your area?" part on the BBC doesn't seem to be updated properly now. It has just 273 cases for Havering, but there's been 138 deaths at Queens hospital alone there.
My partner has been offered the chance to stay in the mother and baby unit at Wythenshawe for a week or two after the birth (hopefully) next week, but we don't know what the risks might be.
Why is this cat from a household riddled with plague being allowed out?
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1247476915415498752
Private labs claim PHE is refusing to share blood samples
Public Health England is hampering the development of accurate antibody tests by refusing to share vital blood samples from Covid-19 patients, private laboratories have claimed.
The tests, which have been heralded as a potential “game changer” by the Prime Minister, are used to confirm whether an individual has previously had a coronavirus infection and may now be immune.
But private laboratories have claimed that Public Health England (PHE) has not responded to multiple requests asking for blood samples from Covid-19 patients, despite interventions from the former Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt.
These blood samples are required to validate the antibody assays.
According to leaked correspondence shown to The Telegraph, John Bell, a professor from Oxford University who is advising the Government about antibody tests, is among those who has not received assistance from official sources.
Given that people where largely and willingly and voluntarily going for many of the easy isolation taketicks, not shacking hands, washing hands, working form home if they could, not going to cinema, then that number comes down a lot.
61.5% of the population would need to have had it and be immune for the 2.6 to come down to 1, if all people are equal, but they are not, some people are highly sochall and touchy others because of there job meet a lot of others, e.g. shop workers, and at their other end some people are more like hermits, or don't meet a lot of people at work. as a result the sochall people are much more lickly to get it early, recover and then stop being a threat to others, therefor the that 61.5% is not accurate, the herd immunity effect starts to kick in a lot early.
As a result of theses two factors combined the worst case was never a credible scenario.
however there is still a possibility/probability that 60% ish will get it at some point, even the most optimistic people are saying 6 months till a vaccine, moor are talking about 18 months and maybe longer but in rality there is no grantee we will ever have one. we could keep a lock-down going for 18 months or more everybody and then it dyes out or we can have voluntary isolation for 6 months and everybody gets it, its only differences is if the NHS gets overrun, which they will not. but the difference to our freedoms and liberty is massive and will have long term effects.
The calls for the lock-down where coming the lowdest from those who detest individual freedom, it was there chance to see the exercise of state power, which should have been the giveaway that it was not needed.
Time to end the lock-down now, and rely of personal responsibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7p8hfaVz6E
Even when the consequences of being wrong could be half a million dead.
on firstin charge and when are we going to have a review):"The Health Secretary, however, is obliged to keep the need for the restrictions and requirements under review at least every 21 days, with the first review being carried out on 16 April (Regulation 3(2))."
https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1247819687171424256?s=20
Only 50 people have died so far. And from the 6,000 cases, a large proportion of that was imported / very close circle around them. They seem to stopped massive widespread community transition. No idea if it being summer has helped that.
Yes we have cabinet responsibility but we also have a Prime minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/08/icu-doctor-covid-crisis-hospital
Quick question - has there been any polling done on attitudes to Covid-19 broken down by Leave/Remain vote? I.e. "Leave voters are more likely to think X, Remain voters are more likely to think Y".
https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1247812931082911744?s=20
My guess it that the apparatchiks will destroy him/her for being guilt of going against the system.
It would be good see a Betfair market on End of Transition if they can find a way to define it with exactitude.
I've just had a letter from my bank and building society telling me the interest on my savings account has dropped from 0.1% to 0.01% and 1.10% to 0.35%. I may as well move my money (such as it is), "under the bed". Do you think the banks are doing enough to help support companies or are the pensioner savings being called upon instead?
“The corona pandemic will trigger a serious recession in Germany,” the six think tanks including Ifo, DIW and RWI said in their annual spring report, according to AFP.
Gross domestic product likely contracted by 1.9 percent in the first three months of 2020, and is set to shrink by a 9.8 percent year-on-year in the second quarter, with normal economic life still essentially frozen by widespread shutdowns.
"comes down a lot" isn’t enough if it only reduces an R of 2.5 to, say, 1.5 (which would be a huge impact) in a population where the infected already threaten to overwhelm the health service. Exponential growth is still exponential growth, just slower.
You have to get R below 1 in order to cut off that exponential growth. That’s the whole point of the current lockdown.
In a few weeks, we re-assess and take a long hard look at what’s possible & what we can cope with in the light of better information about the virus & it’s spread.
To emphasis just how easily this thing spreads, Sky had a report from really rural part of France, literally more cows than people, but it had ripped through the whole area and killed 10s of oldies in a local care home already.
a) use 2 blues
b) put them next to one another
particularly as one was enormously big and the other miniscule.
Whom I trusted.
The big risk now is that if/when the government releases the rules, that is misinterpreted as a free for all and then shoots back up.
Where I would agree somewhat is that the language of being 'locked in a battle' tends to focus far too much attention on the disease, not the restoration of good health, which is where it should be. Focusing on 'CANCER CANCER CANCER' or 'COVID COVID COVID' isn't a good place to be in.
Is that the record for longest time?
https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1247842097836810240
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1247843256156794881
and so on...