politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even Tory leavers are giving Starmer positive approval ratings

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

RobD said:

DougSeal said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic he’s a lawyer and the public love lawyers.

Cf Tony Blair.

Mrs Brooke, who is something of a middle of the road floating voter, has taken a dislike to Starmer.

No idea why,

My experience, the more time people spend with lawyers or see more of them on the telly, they love them more.

Is this apology for any offence caused from a parody account, or from a long standing Tory who worked for David Cameron and says he is Europe editor at The Economist?

https://twitter.com/chrislockwd/status/1249590097252663297?s=21

It is a weird acccount because there is no Chris Lockwood listed as being Europe editor at the Economist

http://mediadirectory.economist.com/

And the Chris Lockwood who worked there says he was US and Asia, but not Europe, editor...

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/christopher-lockwood/

I don't get it myself.

I think he used to be their Europe editor, you can find articles by him on their website.

FrancisUrquhart said:

# of tests well down. I think Wednesday is when we will see if deaths really are trailing off.

https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1249693469733421056?s=20

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

If you persuaded Android and Apple to force a prompt with the default as "install" nearly everyone would end up opted in.

There's also the option of getting data direct from the mobile companies, you can get pretty close to a location even without GPS. (Maybe that's what this report is talking about? Hard to say, it's quite vague.)

What about those of us using Maemo as our mobile operating system?

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1249699254500810753?s=21

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

Pagan2 said:

Endillion said:

I approve of Starmer, because I feel unthreatened by him. I can't tell if that's because I can't see him winning an election, or because I'm relaxed about the consequences of him winning an election.

I don't think you can be relaxed about him winning until he has dealt with momentum. It is possible he could win then get ousted by that wing of the party

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.

It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

Well exactly.

I can't see how a voluntary light touch system really works.

As Bill Gates said the other day, it isn't just about test, test, test. You need to rapidly work out who to test next, then order the testing queue appropriately and get them their result within the day.

You can't do this at speed and scale without a huge of data on people's movements and a lot of tech infrastructure.

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

edmundintokyo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

FrancisUrquhart said:

edmundintokyo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.

We are going to need a hell of a lot more than those extra 20,000 police Boris promised.

How do you do that as people pile off the tube? How do you work out which are the ones without the app in the crowd? And then you going to rugby tackle them to the ground in the middle of the Tube station?

The only way I can see is having to spy on people, which then you might as well make the app compulsory as you are having to spy on everybody anyway.

DougSeal said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic he’s a lawyer and the public love lawyers.

Cf Tony Blair.

Mrs Brooke, who is something of a middle of the road floating voter, has taken a dislike to Starmer.

No idea why,

My experience, the more time people spend with lawyers or see more of them on the telly, they love them more.

Is this apology for any offence caused from a parody account, or from a long standing Tory who worked for David Cameron and says he is Europe editor at The Economist?

https://twitter.com/chrislockwd/status/1249590097252663297?s=21

It is a weird acccount because there is no Chris Lockwood listed as being Europe editor at the Economist

http://mediadirectory.economist.com/

And the Chris Lockwood who worked there says he was US and Asia, but not Europe, editor...

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/christopher-lockwood/

I don't get it myself.

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Black_Rook said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

ABZ said:

Endillion said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1249699254500810753?s=21

11 April is currently tracking almost exactly where 8 April was at this point (2 days developed; ~50% deaths reported so far). Apr 9 and 10 are quite a bit below (10-15% lower, and ~70% and ~80% developed respectively). No idea why; best guess at the moment is that it's just random noise.

Reporting pattern seems to have settled down. Still no sign of a slowdown over the Bank Holiday weekend. London looks to be reporting slower than everywhere else, but generally catching up. Seems to be processing delays at a few of the large teaching hospitals so we occasionally get a sudden release of deaths from ages ago, which just gets lost in the noise.

To be fair, you could also argue that 11 April is tracking Apr 9 and 10 instead of April 8 based on those numbers! But more seriously, we just need to wait until later in the week to see what's happening. If it's similar to Italy / Spain then we should see the number of fatalities gradually declining around now so let's hope that is indeed the case.

ukpaul said:

Black_Rook said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Midlands deaths higher than London in the latest set. And North West up there as well.

It seems to be kicking off more up here in Yorkshire now, as well. It appears that the focus may well be moving north of Birmingham for the next stage. Still not up to the level of London’s problem though.

One would expect the number of cases as a proportion of total population to end up varying by region, with the most urbanized areas suffering the worst. We have all been asked to practice social distancing for a reason, after all. This is why, for example, it's no surprise that the East of England, which has no large cities, is suffering less badly than Scotland, which has approximately the same population but where most of the people inhabit the central belt.

Manchester and Leeds/Bradford have seemingly managed to avoid the Birmingham and London type figures so far, though (don’t know about Liverpool, Newcastle etc.). The urban sprawl across the north is as considerable as the South East, so the risk is there.

Pagan2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pagan2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.

There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?

Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.

They avoid that on your average city street how?

TOPPING said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.

edmundintokyo said:

Pagan2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Pagan2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

I'm not really convinced this needs much compulsion but for the sake of argument: Plod's phone sends a message to nearby phones, your phone fails to answer due to lack of the app or lack of existence, plod harasses you for sunbathing or whatever they normally do over there.

There are 30 people in the high st, they get 29 replies because I haven't got my phone on me. They identify which of the 30 people it is how exactly?

Plod doesn't stand in the middle of a crowd for this particular task.

They avoid that on your average city street how?

Do the enforcement on a smaller street. Train turnstiles, entrances to buildings etc would also work.

Enforcement won't be perfect, but enforcement of "only.leave your house for approved activities" isn't perfect. It doesn't have to be, it's a game of averages.

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

TOPPING said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.

Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.

Black_Rook said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?

rcs1000 said:

Black_Rook said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Then you've got to teach them all (including the ones with fingers crippled by arthritis and/or various forms of mild dementia) to use the things. Good luck with that one.

Even if only 80% of people opted in (and you'd make opt-in the default), you'd still reduce R meaningfully.

BannedinnParis said:

isam said:

An AC Grayling retweet

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but...

https://twitter.com/russincheshire/status/1249587870215659520?s=21

I'm not a XXXX but YYYY

edmundintokyo said:

TOPPING said:

edmundintokyo said:

Andy_JS said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

Pagan2 said:

ukpaul said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anybody still thinks we are going to get a South Korean type system without certain sections of the media making a hell of a racket and special interest grouping mounting long winded legal challenges....

Somebody clearly very keen to leak to the Guardian all this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users

Surely the major problem with this app is that it is next to useless unless it is compulsory. A compulsory app and compulsory use of a smartphone if you are outside your house would work. Someone needs to buy me a smartphone, though.

Making smartphone possession and download of apps I think is a step that goes far too far

The choice being between, on the one hand, relative safety plus free movement or, on the other, either a longer lockdown or having to gamble with your health/life? Surely the vast majority of people would prefer the former?

What percentage of people would have to install the app though? I know I wouldn't but then I don't carry my phone with me anyway when out and about

Even 95% takeup would suggest that every time 20 people meet then that group could be compromised. Could businesses make it a condition of employment?

Isn't one approach to start lockdown relaxation by allowing it first to people willing to carry a phone with the app? We could all choose whether the surveillance was so worrying that we preferred to stay at home until further relaxation later. I'd guess that most people would be OK with it, and that would get the economy off the floor.

How would you enforce this? You would need to spy on all those out and about to check if they have the app / bluetooth is on.

You would also need to spy on them to check they had their fricking phones on them.

This assumes that everyone has a smartphone. More people than you might think don't have one. A lot of people manage with old-fashioned phones that just do calls and text messages.

Send the old dears a phone.

Ed you are a fantastic and thoughtful poster; one of the need to listen to PB contributors. But you are developing a tadge of the Expatus Brexititus opining on how those of us living here should have enforced on us and be happy with this that or the other bonkers or freedom-reducing measure.

I'm not advocating compulsion, I'm just responding to people saying compulsion wouldn't be practical.

However I should point out that British people are currently literally banned from leaving their houses except for a few government-approved purposes, and nobody seems to have a plan to end this situation without the virus coming back and you having to do it again, so you may still increase freedom.if you replace one freedom-reducing thing with a less drastic one.

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1249699254500810753?s=21

rcs1000 said:

Congratulations to @Jam_Monkey and @rkrkrk who between them discovered three examples of Senatorial candidates beating the winning vote count from the previous Presidential election.

I have contacted them both and they will both be getting Amazon vouchers

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Theuniondivvie said:

That's one feck of a queue.

https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1249694712937746432?s=20

contrarian said:

Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.

The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.

Malmesbury said:

contrarian said:

Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.

The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.

Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.

At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.

CarlottaVance said:

Annnnddddd.....They're off!

https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/1249666714054397953?s=20

Still doesn't explain how the "saboteurs" managed a hung parliament and the True Believers got a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in 8 decades.....but whatever floats your boat....

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.

On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following

1) Limit participation.
2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable

Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.

CarlottaVance said:

Annnnddddd.....They're off!

https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status/1249666714054397953

MaxPB said:

Black_Rook said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

Do Apple devices and other fantastically expensive premium smartphones have functionality significantly better than something you can pick up for a hundred-or-so quid, or are they just a poser fashion accessory?

Yes, I have a very expensive phone, three years later it still works very well, even the battery life is stil acceptable. Cheap phones have a much shorter shelf life.

rottenborough said:

Malmesbury said:

contrarian said:

Ashcroft has has published some focus group stuff on US 2020 FWIW.

The stat that hit me was that 7 out of ten Bernie supporters intend to turn out for Biden.

Which shows a combination of how crap Biden is as a Democratic candidate and how off the rails some Bernie supporters are.

At this point, given choice between the embalmed corpse of Lenin and Trump, I think that Lenin is preferable.

Are the Greens running this time? Stern gave a place for Sanders supports to run to last time.

CarlottaVance said:

On whether Starmer could be Prime Minister

Net "Yes"
OA: +4
Con: -28
Lab: +60
LibD: +46

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.

On Huawei - the fact that they are ahead in 5G technology was why the technology working group the government runs recommended the following

1) Limit participation.
2) Limit percentage of use in various areas to ensure viable alternatives are rapidly deployable

Note that they had done an in-depth dive through the software and hardware in question. Also note that BT then complained of the *amount of Huawei equipment they would have to remove from the system* to meet the percentage requirements.

Yes I know about all of that, it's all a load of rubbish though, basically the government is giving BT/EE a free ride because it would cost them billions to take Huawei to 0% of the network. That was probably a huge factor in the process.

What is a load of rubbish? The detail analysis of the actual software and hardware involved? Which was carried out by high respected people....

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

It's time for the government to dump Huawei from 5G.

I'm looking forward to getting my Huawei Mate Xs this week.

There's been rumours at work that the company is about to ban Huawei devices for any work correspondence. Not such a big deal for me as I get a device, but loads of junior level people don't and you need to be contactible pretty much at any time and have access to work emails at any time too. Then again, I haven't seen a lot of people with Huawei devices, mostly iPhones and Samsungs.

Still loving my £240 Poco F1. Not for work, that said.

I think it's just Huawei under the spotlight because of he opaque ownership structure. We've also suspended all zoom meetings until we can be sure that recordings are secure. Reverted to Hangouts.

Is there a particular reason why Zoom is superior to the likes of Teams? For me, they are all a much of a muchness, but my use case is quite limited.

Teams has a huge setup investment cost while zoom doesn't aiui.