politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pale Horse. Politics in the shadow of Covid-19

Pagan2 said:

Charles said:

Pagan2 said:

OnboardG1 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pagan2 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pagan2 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gardenwalker said:

The BBC needs a kick up the arse.
It’s news operation is complacent. It’s drama is too worthy. Much of its output is very predictable.

But scrap the BBC? Fuck off.
It’s a great national asset, like the NHS, the monarchy, the armed forces, and the National Trust.

I don't think anyone said it should be scrapped.

Those who want it should voluntarily subscribe to it. There already is a subscription fee, just break the link to having to pay for it if you wish to watch other live TV channels would be my only adjustment.

This amounts to scrapping it, as far as I am concerned.

Just fund it through taxation, with some kind of lock on the funding to safeguard its non-political role.

Next.

If that amounts to scrapping it you are admitting its a service that people don't think is worth the money when given the choice and that they would instead choose other service.

Your takeaway from that is lets force them to pay for it anyway via tax even though they don't consider it value for money ?

I haven't had a tv license or tv for about a decade frankly as I long ago discovered that what was broadcast had no value to me and I really don't see why I should be expected to pay for your entertainment just because you like it.

Yes.

Public service broadcasting even benefits people who don’t watch it.

See also, public health services, public education systems, public transport networks etc.

The bbc does very little public service broadcasting 99.9% of its output is crap like eastenders and bake off / home/ holiday ripoffs.

You want it you pay for it. It is no benefit to me in the least and no nor do I listen to the radio. If the bbc disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't affect how informed people are in the slightest.

“I have no kids, why do I have to pay for schools”.
Just pure selfishness.

I have no love for the argument that "I don't use something so I don't see why I should have to pay for it". Sheer libertarian twaddle. People benefit from the BBC in plenty of ways, from weather forecast distribution to enjoying soap operas. It's the key vector for important national news, is the default channel for most radio listeners because it understands its audience. It has a public education role (and produces the best documentaries in the world) which it is good at, and its kids TV has been superb ever since I was a kid.

There is a world of difference between educating our children which helps the country and people being able to enjoy master chef or what it is called.

Educational films are better done by youtube
Weather you can get direct from any number of weather forecasters without needing some overdressed presenter
News there are plenty of source
Best documentaries in the world? opinion sorry about the only thing I rate is some of the wildlife stuff and that is usually made by third parties in any case. Kids tv is available widely on netflix, prime, disney

There is nothing the bbc does that is not done better elsewhere

I just read Michael Lewis's latest work.

Interestingly, the independent weather forecasts all depend on government funded work (he was referring to the US, but I assume it is the same in the UK)

The met office being government funded though has no bearing on the BBC argument especially as they don't even use the Met office for their forecasts they use someone called the Meteo group since 2018 which is I think dutch

Meteo gets its data from the Dutch government.

Fundamentally weather forecasting is good because of access to things like the ocean surface buoy data from NOAH. In the US private weather companies don't pay for that data (the government isn't allowed to charge for it) but they then package and sell it.

If the government stopped collecting the data it wouldn't be economic to do it privately.

OllyT said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

That's a very good header, Alastair.

I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.

If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.

And if they do it I won't be voting Conservative next time, Boris or no Boris

Boris is instinctively a big state spender. This crisis will make him even more so. He is also a social liberal. The Conservative Party won the last election but what follows will probably be unrecognisable to economic or social conservatives. Cheer away because your side won but in many respects a Boris Government is not going to look much different from a Blair one.

If he wins three thumping election victories I daresay he will be forgiven for a certain latitude in fiscal matters.

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LOL!

One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.

It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!

The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.

Some polling here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522509/Research_to_explore_public_views_about_the_BBC.pdf

Some findings that may surprise you:
"There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."

"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "

"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."

They don't surprise me but they should appall anyone who believes in the licence fee.

Barely a majority support the licence fee "or a variant" - that's not a healthy consensus to expect it to last long.

A third consider it bad value for money - hardly a surprise either. That not even a majority consider it being good value for money is not a good sign for longevity of the Beeb either.

That younger people are more positive does surprise me, but then they've done the threshold of "not young" as "over-25s" and there's not that big of a difference there. I don't think Beeb lovers should see those 18-24 year olds as being overly in love with the Beeb.

over 25's are more likely to have started having to pay for their tv is probably the answer. People are always more favourable to stuff they aren't paying for.

Not even sure where they got 54% from on the variant as no option scored over 50% and as I noted missed options like subscription only altogether of questioning the actual figures were

Good Bad
Lower fee for some 49% 24%
current fee 47% 22%
universal levy 37% 34%
lower fee & sub 34% 38%
current fee & sub 28% 43%

MarqueeMark said:

Special Request Moth du Jour: Puss Moth

Cheers. Many thanks. Cool moth.

Did it go into the trap?. The one time I attracted some i found them resting outside.

kinabalu said:

Viewed another way this is one of the (many) excellent arguments against private schools. In their absence the influential and affluent would be invested in the state sector and this would feed through to higher general standards.

Not really, the wealthy just game the system by moving into the catchment area of a good state school.

Philip_Thompson said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

MattW said:

Bad news for the PB Bicycle Baiters.

Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.

Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.

My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.

100% agreed.

Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.

I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.

I 100% agree with that one too!

A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.

Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.

Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.

Why should cyclists be able to but not cars?

If anyone can it should be the same for all - like in America cars can turn right on red if its safe to do so.

I'm not arguing on any particular side, but I guess the consequences of a car driver getting this wrong would be more disastrous than those of a cyclist doing so.

I doubt it. A car driver getting this wrong and hitting another car (if both cars aren't driving fast) is probably safer than a cyclist getting this wrong and hitting another car.

Just because a cyclist screwing up may only kill himself and not others is no consolation for those involved in an accident that results in death.

I was thinking more of a pedestrian being hit, but as I said I'm not really arguing for it.

Cookie said:

Captain Tom has made £13m. Currently going at £250,000 an hour.

Absolutely everything about that story makes you want to punch the air and shout "Hell YES!!!!!!"

Burgessian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Special Request Moth du Jour: Puss Moth

Cheers. Many thanks. Cool moth.

Did it go into the trap?. The one time I attracted some i found them resting outside.

Nope. I get one or two a year - they always rest outside.

Stark_Dawning said:

Why pick on Ollie Robbins? I thought he was just a masochistic Remainer who gladly went along with everything Barnier proposed. Surely DD, who genuinely thought he could give the EU a fight, should be the main object of your ire.

I thought Robbins did OK. He negotiated a deal which the EU were not massively keen on. Of course if he had known we were prepared to cave in and accept the EU's first choice deal - the one which effectively annexed Northern Ireland - his job would have been much easier. Could have been done & dusted by end of 2018.

MarqueeMark said:

Burgessian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Special Request Moth du Jour: Puss Moth

Cheers. Many thanks. Cool moth.

Did it go into the trap?. The one time I attracted some i found them resting outside.

Nope. I get one or two a year - they always rest outside.

You have to get up early then to beat the great tits!

Philip_Thompson said:

logical_song said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LOL!

One thing that makes it difficult online is the lack of other information to go with profiles. EG I'd be curious to know the age profile of the BBC debate. I'm 37 and I'm curious if anyone my age or younger is on the side of compulsory BBC payments.

It does seem (no disrespect intended) that the desire to see the BBC paid for by all is a metric of the elderly. While simultaneously not wanting the elderly to pay for it!

The difference between most young-old debates though is that as people get older their views change on many things, but I wager it won't on the BBC. People who've grown up to view entertainment on a plethora of platforms aren't going to grow up into viewing the BBC as special for entertainment above all others.

Some polling here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/522509/Research_to_explore_public_views_about_the_BBC.pdf

Some findings that may surprise you:
"There was more support for the BBC being funded by the licence fee than by any of the alternatives. Over half (54%) chose the current fee or a variant with more exemptions for those on lower incomes."

"More people saw the current licence fee as being good value (44%) rather than bad value (32%) "

"women being more favourable [towards the BBC] than men (6.6 v 6.3) and younger people (6.8) more positive than the over-25s (6.4)."

They don't surprise me but they should appall anyone who believes in the licence fee.

Barely a majority support the licence fee "or a variant" - that's not a healthy consensus to expect it to last long.

A third consider it bad value for money - hardly a surprise either. That not even a majority consider it being good value for money is not a good sign for longevity of the Beeb either.

That younger people are more positive does surprise me, but then they've done the threshold of "not young" as "over-25s" and there's not that big of a difference there. I don't think Beeb lovers should see those 18-24 year olds as being overly in love with the Beeb.

You won't know what you've lost til it's gone.

You're right I won't because I don't need it.

Luddites always think that.

I've already lost almost anything I valued from the BBC. It really isn't what it used to be even ten years ago. The only things left are Only Connect and Richard Osman's House of Games. Neither of which, frankly, are fundamental to my life.

Andy_JS said:

"US intelligence and national security officials say the United States government is looking into the possibility that the novel coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory rather than a market, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter who caution it is premature to draw any conclusions."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/politics/us-intelligence-virus-started-chinese-lab/index.html

"US intelligence is reviewing sensitive intelligence collection aimed at the Chinese government, according to the intelligence source, as they pursue the theory. But some intelligence officials say it is possible the actual cause may never be know"

100% certain the Chinese will know. They have the ability to track everybody, so they will be able to review all the movements etc, and contact trace all the way back.

The question is do foreign security services have good enough intel to find out these communications and if they do find it was a leak from a lab, want to upset the whole apple cart and reveal it.

Charles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250695060766720000?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250697711944454144?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250700351763894272?s=20

Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.

They're all wrong and we're right?

But that really isn't the choice, is it ?
We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.

What are the Dutch doing at Schipol?

I ask because I think the British assumption is that cases will enter the country anyway and monitoring would give rise to a false sense of security.

The Dutch are doing pretty much the same as us.

Monitoring doesn't work because asymptomatic carriers by definition don't have a temperature. Quarantining for 14 days is the approach adopted by most countries for arrivals (those who haven't banned foreign arrivals or transit pax absolutely - like Singapore, for example). Most are doing it by "Stay at Home Notices".

Aren't all these arrivals in the UK going directly into lock-down anyway, so the call for them to be quarantined is a bit of a distinction without a difference?

No.

They can leave their homes
i) to go to work, if you can't wfh
ii) shop for essentials,
iii) exercise,
iv) take care of medical needs.

In quarantine you can do none of those.

kle4 said:

They wont, I'd stake my reputation on it.

Fear not. Your rep is as safe as houses.

When it comes to holding China to account for anything, I don't hold my breath e.g. Analysis of official deceased organ donation data casts doubt on the credibility of China’s organ transplant reform

https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0406-6

China have repeatedly claimed they stopped doing this, not only do the numbers not add up, even two months ago they performed the worlds first double lung transplant after finding a donor in less than 5 days. Given they have bugger all people on their donor lists, chances of somebody having died on the list with exactly the correct genetics and both lungs in perfect shape (during a CV outbreak) is just not credible.

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/1250727863529193472

Alistair said:

Quincel said:

Browsing Betfair this morning I can see that, at some point, someone had £360 matched laying Michelle Obama as VP pick at 4.8, and I'm physically sick with envy.

Some of the matches on the various US markets are absolutely disgusting.

I was pleased to lay Mitt Romney at 14/1. It's really strange when these stupid bets have won me more than any considered betting (overall).

malcolmg said:

Except those with a brain, both him and Gove are absolute arses. Would be too tough to expect him to read a few sheets of paper, that might sound like work.

Well I see Gove hoovering up material and orally briefing his master - the PM - at least twice a day as he lies in his four poster at Chequers.

All very well but if it goes on too long there will start to be a "malingering Johnson" feel about proceedings.

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

MattW said:

Bad news for the PB Bicycle Baiters.

Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.

Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.

My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.

100% agreed.

Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.

I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.

I 100% agree with that one too!

A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.

Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.

Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.

Ah, so the cyclist turns left and realises the turn is too sharp for their speed, so they swing out and collide with a car going straight across the junction on green from their right

They should stop at the light and give way.

FF43 said:

kinabalu said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More likely no-one can decide whether the cream or jam goes on first until Boris is fully recuperated. Dom did not appoint the Cabinet to think for themselves. The government's failure to get a grip will be ruthlessly exploited by Starmer unless Sir Keith Kieth started by announcing he did not want to criticise the government. Oh.

Johnson is in a fantastic position right now. Most of the country believes that through a mixture of his indomitable spirit and the NHS miracle workers involved in his care he has just come through a near death experience in a personal battle against the very virus the nation is at war with. This is PR gold and he will not want to jeopardize it by returning to the fray too quickly. If he did there is a risk of people going, “hang on, he looks OK to me, was he really quite as sick as they were making out?” Whatever the answer to this it is not a question he wants out there being floated. So, rest assured we will not see him chairing cabinets or cobras or fronting up daily pressers any time soon. What we will get is the occasional short and inspirational video in which he talks directly to his people. To us. Behind the scenes, however, he will be in charge. I expect the line within government is that he is a little too weak to be doing things like reading documents, especially any with lots of numbers in, but is absolutely up to making the big “Great Man” calls based on being orally briefed by his key colleagues and advisors, especially Michael Gove. So, all in all, if you’re Boris Johnson, a most satisfactory state of affairs and one he will be keen to prolong for as long as is humanly possible.

The video from last week was remarkable. He was at death's door but came out with a video that most people thought was sincere. Which at the same time rehearsed the soundbites several times ("engaged in a national battle"), set himself up as the Churchill of the moment and contained the typical Johnsonian contradictions (Does he still think Luis from Porto has been treating the UK as his own country for too long?)

The press loves a human interest story...


https://mylifeasgraham.blog/2020/04/13/hes-not-the-messiah-hes-just-a-convenient-distraction/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Personally as long as the non-commercial bits of the BBC continued to be publicly funded in some way - like BBC News for instance, I'd be fine with the rest going to a subscription model.

felix said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.

Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?

The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.

Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.

It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?

Well the evidence is there in the fact that the growth in cases pre-lockdown was massively more than it is now with no flattening of the curve. Had that been allowed to continue the hospitals would have been overwhelmed throughout the country instead of just in a few areas. The curve has been flattened considerably but the lag is considerable. You seem to not appreciate how dangerous the position is.

NH posts anecdotes that support his belief that it's all a fuss about nothing.

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Angela Merkel is winning new fans.

twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1250728495552045057?s=21

Maybe the media can be grown ups too?

I don't see how that is any different to the regular explanations the likes of Witty and Vallance have given at the press conferences. But then straight after that, we get the "but can I have daughter's friends over for a play date", "no", "well these rules are too confusing".

Time for a game of 'Suggest the ultimate crap journo question on the virus':

"It is obvious now that we locked down far too late, but what the public really want to know is will it end this weekend?"

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Andy_JS said:

MattW said:

Bad news for the PB Bicycle Baiters.

Spoke to my local independent cycle repair shop, and so many people are cycling that they are so busy they need one week's advance notice for a bike service.

Being out on the bike is like the 1940s. Cars? What cars.

My only complaint about cyclists is the way a lot of them in places like London seem to think it's okay to go through red lights.

100% agreed.

Cyclists who obey the law I have no problems with. Cyclist law breakers I do.

I'm not a cyclist but the Highway code should be amended to go left (cautiously) on red.

I 100% agree with that one too!

A car (or any other vehicle) turning left on red cautiously is safer than cyclists simply going straight on at a red whenever they want to do so.

Wait for the first accident where a car turning left on red is hit by a cyclist going straight on, through the red, on their inside.

Err yes cars can't turn left on red ! Cyclists should be able to - unless there is a pedestrian crossing on the left in which case they should exercise caution and give way to pedestrians crossing.

Ah, so the cyclist turns left and realises the turn is too sharp for their speed, so they swing out and collide with a car going straight across the junction on green from their right

Please, read what I'm writing properly - the cyclist turns left carefully keeping to the inside. It's safer than turning left on green if a truck is also turning left next to you (No they shouldn't be up the inside of a truck)

Cuckoo........

In a development that runs contrary to the rules of science and technology, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps claims to have invented a device that can detect the presence of coronavirus at a distance of 100 metres, writes Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor.

The IRGC, subject to intense US sanctions and seen by Washington as the source of instability across the Middle East, unveiled the device earlier this week at a ceremony hosted by its commander Maj Gen Hossein Salami.

The device “creates a magnetic field, and by using an embedded bipolar virus, any infected area can be detected within a 100-metre radius”, according to the IRGC, which said the process takes under five seconds.

Salami said:

This device does not require blood transfusions and operates remotely and intelligently, i.e. it is used for mass screening and fully detects infected surfaces and people who are infected.

He said it would also act as a smart disinfectant since it would know which areas need disinfecting.

This is an amazing scientific phenomenon, and it has been tested in various hospitals, and it has answered more than 80% of its accuracy, and it will be a very good basis for any kind of virus.

It is fair to say that the device’s unveiling led to a degree of scepticism on social media, with some Iranians saying they did not know whether to laugh or cry.

Separately Babak Shokri, vice-chancellor of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences claimed Iran will be able to market a coronavirus-resistant fabric within a month.

Just donated to Captain Tom Moore's appeal. He's currently on £13,352,046.95.

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Angela Merkel is winning new fans.

twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1250728495552045057?s=21

Maybe the media can be grown ups too?

I don't see how that is any different to the regular explanations the likes of Witty and Vallance have given at the press conferences. But then straight after that, we get the "but can I have daughter's friends over for a play date", "no", "well these rules are too confusing".

That's the problem with having (had) a science career. You think that everyone else is prepared to listen to a clear and simple explanation without thinking "shit I can't do science"

TGOHF666 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TGOHF666 said:

Scotland deaths +80
only 699 previously.

Big jump

Wasn't there around that amount announced yesterday as well?

84 yesterday.

I'd guess it might be catching up from the weekend though (9 and ~26 deaths were reported I think). Scotland has averaged around 50 deaths a day so a couple of days with ~80 deaths would capture the under-reporting from the weekend perhaps?

Floater said:

Cuckoo........

In a development that runs contrary to the rules of science and technology, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps claims to have invented a device that can detect the presence of coronavirus at a distance of 100 metres, writes Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor.

The IRGC, subject to intense US sanctions and seen by Washington as the source of instability across the Middle East, unveiled the device earlier this week at a ceremony hosted by its commander Maj Gen Hossein Salami.

The device “creates a magnetic field, and by using an embedded bipolar virus, any infected area can be detected within a 100-metre radius”, according to the IRGC, which said the process takes under five seconds.

Salami said:

This device does not require blood transfusions and operates remotely and intelligently, i.e. it is used for mass screening and fully detects infected surfaces and people who are infected.

He said it would also act as a smart disinfectant since it would know which areas need disinfecting.

This is an amazing scientific phenomenon, and it has been tested in various hospitals, and it has answered more than 80% of its accuracy, and it will be a very good basis for any kind of virus.

It is fair to say that the device’s unveiling led to a degree of scepticism on social media, with some Iranians saying they did not know whether to laugh or cry.

Separately Babak Shokri, vice-chancellor of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences claimed Iran will be able to market a coronavirus-resistant fabric within a month.

So Iran has either been recently visited by time-travellers who were happy to offer them some advanced scanning technology from the future, or...

Tobes is never done setting up websites and forums. A busy man.

https://twitter.com/SimonMBeard/status/1250459005572571138?s=20

eek said:

williamglenn said:

Angela Merkel is winning new fans.

twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1250728495552045057?s=21

It's the advantage of having a scientist as a leader rather than media savvy classicists.

But it is something I would give Boris a lot of credit for. He has never tried to give the billy bullshit on the science side, instead saying here are our two experts, they will now explain the situation. And they have, regularly, and clearly.

Out of interest, does Merkel or Macron do a daily press conference? Because our media demanded our government did, then get bored when nothing is really announced.

RobD said:

.

Andy_JS said:

Just donated to Captain Tom Moore's appeal. He's currently on £13,352,046.95.

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs

I wonder how much the justgiving company are going to make from that?

5% or so..

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Quiz questions: @rcs1000 This was mine from last week. Think carefully before answering. Difficulty: medium
QUIZ Questions - not the expected answer

1. Wife and I had Bombay Duck for dinner. What type of animal did we eat?
2. An aeroplane contains a device called a Flight Data Recorder, that is used to help investigate accidents. Commonly known as the Black Box, what colour is it?
3. What is the chemical symbol for the element Potassium?
4. Before the discovery of Mt Everest, what was the world’s tallest mountain?
5. A doctor gives you three pills and says to take one every 30 minutes. How long do they last?
6. According to the world records, the highest speed men’s running race is held over what distance?
7. If you navigate the Suez Canal by boat, how many locks do you have to pass through?
8. Launched in 2008, what was the name given to the second generation iPhone?
9. Write down the number eleven thousand, eleven hundred and eleven
10. Where is the Sea of Tranquility?

Extra Questions
1. What has four eyes and runs 2,000 miles?
2. Who is the Prime Minister of France?
3. Rapper Eminem was in a band called D12. Otherwise known as the Dirty Dozen, how many members did this band have?

TIE BREAKER Airbus A380 - How many people evacuated in 90 seconds for certification test? (plane was full of economy seats).

QUIZ Answers.

1. Fish
2. Orange (or red)
3. K (Po is Polonium, don’t get them confused!)
4. Mt Everest
5. 60 minutes (0m, 30m and 60m)
6. 400m (4x100m relay)
7. None (the Panama Canal is the one with the big locks)
8. iPhone 3G
9. 12,111 (11,111 is 11k *one* hundred and 11)
10. On the Moon

Extras
1. Mississippi
2. Eduard Philippe
3. Six (Each had two names)
TIE BREAKER - 873 people!

5 is misleading - arguably the medical effect of the pills lasts 90m, even though you consume the last one at 60m

And what is the harm in getting potassium and polonium confused? You do not want to be swallowing either one of them.

I vaguely recall one of my kids having a potassium deficiency at one point which was causing problems. I think it is one of these things that is essential in small doses. Polonium not so much.

TGOHF666 said:

Scotland deaths +80
only 699 previously.

Big jump

But are we still catching up nursing home deaths? We seem to have contrived another layer of confusion to an already murky picture here.

eek said:

RobD said:

.

Andy_JS said:

Just donated to Captain Tom Moore's appeal. He's currently on £13,352,046.95.

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/tomswalkforthenhs

I wonder how much the justgiving company are going to make from that?

5% or so..

Actually that's what it was years ago before VirginGiving kicked them up the backside but it seems a lot more reasonable and the fees are listed at https://www.justgiving.com/info/fees-2019-march

so it's 1.9% + 20p from every transaction (a lot of which will be going to the bank who provides the processing gateway) and 5% of the gift aided reclaim amount.

Socky said:

Not really, the wealthy just game the system by moving into the catchment area of a good state school.

Schools are one factor in where people choose to live. That will always be the case. The question is - if society's most influential people are reliant on a public service, will it act to raise the level of that service?

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

williamglenn said:

Angela Merkel is winning new fans.

twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1250728495552045057?s=21

Maybe the media can be grown ups too?

I don't see how that is any different to the regular explanations the likes of Witty and Vallance have given at the press conferences. But then straight after that, we get the "but can I have daughter's friends over for a play date", "no", "well these rules are too confusing".

I missed that particular instance but we do know the rules are too confusing because we have seen the public, the police, and politicians misunderstand them.

No, they might claim they are too confusing, but it as an convenient excuse. I didn't know I couldn't go on a 300 miles round trip to the lake district to have a BBQ officer....

The rules are really very simple. And it is why 90 odd percentage of people have had no issue following them.

But - "Can I go on a 301 mile round trip to the lake district to have a BBQ, officer...."

NerysHughes said:

OllyT said:

felix said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

NerysHughes said:

felix said:

Poor figures from Spain again today more than 5000 new cases and more than 500 new deaths. Still a long way to go.

Is their truly any evidence that lockdowns work or is the virus just following its curve?

The spanish Health service is very good but has come close to collapse this time. Very close indeed. No lockdown would have been a massacre of the people and the service.

Spain has been in a severe lockdown for 34 days, yet there were 5000 new cases yesterday. Italy has been in lockdown for 38 days, yet there were 3000 new cases yesterday.

It may be that without a lockdown the number of cases would have been 100 times higher, but is there any evidence of that?

Well the evidence is there in the fact that the growth in cases pre-lockdown was massively more than it is now with no flattening of the curve. Had that been allowed to continue the hospitals would have been overwhelmed throughout the country instead of just in a few areas. The curve has been flattened considerably but the lag is considerable. You seem to not appreciate how dangerous the position is.

NH posts anecdotes that support his belief that it's all a fuss about nothing.

What the one from Matt Hancock yesterday when he said there were more empty beds in the NHS yesterday than at any point in its history?

So I suppose you conclude from that that we may as well not have bothered with a lockdown

Floater said:

Cuckoo........

In a development that runs contrary to the rules of science and technology, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps claims to have invented a device that can detect the presence of coronavirus at a distance of 100 metres, writes Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor.

The IRGC, subject to intense US sanctions and seen by Washington as the source of instability across the Middle East, unveiled the device earlier this week at a ceremony hosted by its commander Maj Gen Hossein Salami.

The device “creates a magnetic field, and by using an embedded bipolar virus, any infected area can be detected within a 100-metre radius”, according to the IRGC, which said the process takes under five seconds.

Salami said:

This device does not require blood transfusions and operates remotely and intelligently, i.e. it is used for mass screening and fully detects infected surfaces and people who are infected.

He said it would also act as a smart disinfectant since it would know which areas need disinfecting.

This is an amazing scientific phenomenon, and it has been tested in various hospitals, and it has answered more than 80% of its accuracy, and it will be a very good basis for any kind of virus.

It is fair to say that the device’s unveiling led to a degree of scepticism on social media, with some Iranians saying they did not know whether to laugh or cry.

Separately Babak Shokri, vice-chancellor of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences claimed Iran will be able to market a coronavirus-resistant fabric within a month.

It must be faith-powered.....

DavidL said:

TGOHF666 said:

Scotland deaths +80
only 699 previously.

Big jump

But are we still catching up nursing home deaths? We seem to have contrived another layer of confusion to an already murky picture here.

The very same murky picture we appear to be completely relying on to determine decisions that will profoundly affect our lives for decades.

CarlottaVance said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250695060766720000?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250697711944454144?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250700351763894272?s=20
Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.
They're all wrong and we're right?

But that really isn't the choice, is it ?
We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.

We could ban all non-national arrivals (USA, Singapore, Australia et al) or we could mandate 14 day self quarantine for ALL arrivals (countries too numerous to mention) - but we've chosen "nothing".
Government asleep at the wheel.

I agree with you completely, Mrs Vance. But this is a Conservative Government, and normally for you it can do no wrong.

The whole world seems to be changing.

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

TGOHF666 said:

Scotland deaths +80
only 699 previously.

Big jump

But are we still catching up nursing home deaths? We seem to have contrived another layer of confusion to an already murky picture here.

The very same murky picture we appear to be completely relying on to determine decisions that will profoundly affect our lives for decades.

Luckily the government's advisors are aware of things like the ONS, unlike the media who report these things.

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

TGOHF666 said:

Scotland deaths +80
only 699 previously.

Big jump

But are we still catching up nursing home deaths? We seem to have contrived another layer of confusion to an already murky picture here.

The very same murky picture we appear to be completely relying on to determine decisions that will profoundly affect our lives for decades.

But that is really the point. The absolute numbers are a list of individual tragedies but in the overall scheme of things they don't actually matter too much so far as policy is concerned. What is important is the direction of travel and to measure that you need to have a consistent basis of recording (and be satisfied that that element that you are recording is genuinely indicative of the overall situation). If you start mucking about with the basis of recording half way through this becomes much more difficult. You simply don't have a data base upon which to base your decisions.

Pulpstar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250695060766720000?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250697711944454144?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250700351763894272?s=20

Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.

They're all wrong and we're right?

But that really isn't the choice, is it ?
We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.

I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,

New Zealand managed it. If people genuinely, really genuinely need to fly they'll accept quarantine on each end.

The difference being that the number of visitors who genuinely, really genuinely, need to fly to New Zealand is statistically zero.

Anabobazina said:

The PB Bicycle Baiters should get on their bikes.

They need to pedal their hate elsewhere.

OllyT said:

BluestBlue said:

kinabalu said:

That's a very good header, Alastair.

I wonder if the government will have the guts and integrity to adopt the only approach to the economic crisis which is both feasible and fair - higher and steeply progressive taxation with a focus on wealth.

If they do I'll be voting Conservative next time, Starmer or no Starmer.

And if they do it I won't be voting Conservative next time, Boris or no Boris

Boris is instinctively a big state spender. This crisis will make him even more so. He is also a social liberal. The Conservative Party won the last election but what follows will probably be unrecognisable to economic or social conservatives. Cheer away because your side won but in many respects a Boris Government is not going to look much different from a Blair one.

Apart from Brexit of course

Anabobazina said:

Pulpstar said:

JohnLilburne said:

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250695060766720000?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250697711944454144?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexInAir/status/1250700351763894272?s=20

Of course many countries have simply banned arrivals from Britain, except for their own nationals.

They're all wrong and we're right?

But that really isn't the choice, is it ?
We're talking about a complete absence of any kind of screening. Asking if we should ban all arrivals isn't an answer to that.

I think the answer is that it doesn't work. Screening by temperature misses the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms, and catches a lot of other people. No other country is currently much worse than us so it doesn't really matter. And to do it properly the Government would have to rent hotels and quarantine everyone for 14 days under house arrest,

New Zealand managed it. If people genuinely, really genuinely need to fly they'll accept quarantine on each end.

The difference being that the number of visitors who genuinely, really genuinely, need to fly to New Zealand is statistically zero.

Why do people (Other than repatriation) need to fly here during a lockdown ?