politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The media is getting a lot more critical of the government

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

Your argument along the lines of "the government made all these mistakes too, so why talk about that particular mistake" is sounding rather silly.

Mr. Sandpit, that's fair. The way EU proclamations are treated as authoritative rather than subjected to the same level of scrutiny/cynicism the media applies to UK statements is rather stark.

Sad news for TSE

https://twitter.com/LittleMix/status/1252884977773154305?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1252884977773154305&ref_url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-vaccine-ppe-deaths-peak-lockdown/

Not as bad as yesterday, but still bad.

SINGAPORE - The Ministry of Health (MOH) has confirmed 1,016 new Covid-19 cases as of noon on Wednesday (April 22), as cases crossed the 10,000 mark.

Among the new cases, 15 are Singaporeans and permanent residents, while foreign workers living in dormitories continue to drive the increase.

This brings the total number of coronavirus cases in Singapore to 10,141.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/1016-new-coronavirus-cases-take-singapore-tally-past-10000-mark

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

Your argument along the lines of "the government made all these mistakes too, so why talk about that particular mistake" is sounding rather silly.

The argument is closing down different things on different days wouldnt have made much difference, particularly if you only close the smaller things, which despite the big sounding numbers, sporting events are compared to daily transit, offices, schools, and restaurants/pubs.

Clearly changing the precise date for the wider lockdown could have been significant, but that is different to pretending closing one event would have done.

The best reason for closing Cheltenham would have been as a signal this is serious, rather than to stop the virus spreading at Cheltenham, when it is spreading much wider elsewhere.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....

Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...

A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.

This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.

To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.

I'd be amazed if they'd stuck a 90mm gun on a flying airframe though anything's possible I guess. I thought the 75km pak on the German HS 129 was the limit on that kind of thing.

No - they mounted & fired a test of the 32lbr on a Mosquito. It was an attempt to deal with the criticism of the Mollins 6lbr Tetse setup - that it bought the attacking aircraft too close to the submarine.

Apparently the muzzle brake was the Galliot Muzzle Brake - a rather elaborate design.

Green Mace allegedly was a descendant of the Mollins ideas. To be honest it looks more like the Skysweeper mechanism to me...

Argos telling suppliers that the "best case" for reopening their stores is June, with full operation in July. As the best case. Apparently that is based on what they are being told (by government?)

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....

Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...

A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.

This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.

To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.

I'd be amazed if they'd stuck a 90mm gun on a flying airframe though anything's possible I guess. I thought the 75mm pak on the German HS 129 was the limit on that kind of thing.

Ignoring recoilless guns, the biggest one I can think of is the 102mm gun on the Italian Piaggio P.108 - but that was a heavy bomber with four engines, apparently much the same weight as a Lancaster, so it had a lot more inertia than a Hs.129. And the Piaggio was intended for anti-shipping strike. I wouldn't want to fly that thing low and slow over the desert, sniping at tanks.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1252841436317315072

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1252847810367512587

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....

Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...

A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.

This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.

To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.

I'd be amazed if they'd stuck a 90mm gun on a flying airframe though anything's possible I guess. I thought the 75km pak on the German HS 129 was the limit on that kind of thing.

No - they mounted & fired a test of the 32lbr on a Mosquito. It was an attempt to deal with the criticism of the Mollins 6lbr Tetse setup - that it bought the attacking aircraft too close to the submarine.

Apparently the muzzle brake was the Galliot Muzzle Brake - a rather elaborate design.

Green Mace allegedly was a descendant of the Mollins ideas. To be honest it looks more like the Skysweeper mechanism to me...

Thank you! Will look up.

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

The point was about cheering at Cheltenham as opposed to on the tube. An estimated 5 to 10 minutes a day. It is not like a football match where there is singing and chanting through much of the game.

Though from an epidemiological point of view, it was about having lots of people from all over the nation mixing in confined spaces with some from areas (London) with significantly higher rates of infection.

I think we were couple of weeks too late in stopping large events, and a week or so too late in locking down.
Some of that is hindsight, of course, but there were plenty saying so at the time. And given the doubling rate of the disease, that has been very costly.

There would have been hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, using the tube every day then going to a different city in the UK and indeed some of those spreading worldwide. The tube would clearly have been a bigger spreader than Cheltenham because of its size, even on the days Cheltenham was running.

Similarly there were more people travelling between Spain and UK for non football reasons than football reasons even on the days around the Liverpool match, let alone across March.

In London especially, there’s going to have to be several stages in lifting the lockdown, in order to avoid overloading the public transport system. White-collar office workers are likely to be working from home for many months to come.

In my mind, and obviously with hindsight, the biggest single failure so far was the cut in tube services and failure to ration use to key workers at that point, which led to a week or two of massive overcrowding before the formal lockdown started. There were likely thousands of virus transmissions as a result.

UEFA away team ticket allocation is only 3,800 tickets, plus the team 5emselves and a few hangers-on and UEFA officials. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

Keeping Britons alive with EU medical equipment would be treason, explains government

https://bit.ly/2RSuOof

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

It is, because the people there came from all over Britain and Ireland, not like the regulars in the Dog and Duck down the road. A major opportunity, like Italian ski resorts, to spread the bug to new areas and seed now local outbreaks. That there is little evidence of its impact is interesting - but this wasn't to be known at the time.

Oh people travel? That changes everything nobody normally travels do they?

What a silly comment, no disrespect intended. Have you ever driven down a motorway like the M6 or M1? Do you find them normally to be busy or empty?

Have you ever taken a cross country train? Do you seriously think everyone is sat at home all the time only venturing as far as the Dog and Duck down the road except for when events like Cheltenham are on?

What proportion of people travelling nationwide will have been caused by Cheltenham?

I'd hazard a guess an order of magnitude more people travelled from a hotspot like London to the rest of the nation every day than travelled to Cheltenham.

There's still a significant difference - especially if you are thinking from an Irish perspective. There's daily commuting and there's unusual travel patterns. Football matches would tranfer infection to the town of the away team; a rural sport like racing might tranfer infection to many small rural areas.

Fishing said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

NerysHughes said:

noneoftheabove said:

Jonathan said:

What is the role of a minister during a crisis?

Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives)
Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable)
Representing the electorates priorities inside government
Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving)
Communication

Not sure we can give any of them a great score.

objectives have been unrealistic
Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists
civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities
critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective
communication has at times been very confused and counter productive

Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.

Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?

The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved.
What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists?
Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation.
On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time.
Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.

Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.

Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily
Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No
Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked
Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes
Are people still being paid? Yes

The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.

Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.

The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.

"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.

The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe

That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.

Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.

However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe

France does not have a bigger population than the UK.

UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million

https://tradingeconomics.com/france/population

http://population.city/united-kingdom/

It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

United Kingdom: 67,886,011
France: 65,273,511

I think the source of the confusion is that some estimates include frog overseas departments like Reunion, and some don't.

The source HYUFD used for the population of France also had a higher population for the UK, because they were both 2019 estimates, whereas the source he gave for the UK was lower because it was a 2015 estimate.

Disingenuous isn't the word I would use.

Are the Argos stores inside Sainsbury's still open?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Are the Argos stores inside Sainsbury's still open?

Some of them are, some of them are only doing click and collect orders only.

Sainsbury’s are in my bad books. Got our weekly delivery yesterday, one of the substitutions was shocking, disgusting in fact.

Margarine instead of butter.

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:

Theuniondivvie said:

eek said:

MattW said:

Burgessian said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Burgessian said:

How times change.

Six years ago Alex Salmond (remember him?) was promising us, north of the border, a rosy economic future based on oil at $100 per barrel. As a former oil economist who could gainsay him.

Today, Nicola Sturgeon is seeking urgent talks with the UK Government and the industry in order to save thousands of jobs as the price has totally collapsed.

No doubt those nice Dutch and Germans would have stepped in to help had we voted the other way six years ago.

Project Fear I was the original and best album that everyone listened to. Project Fear III is warmed over dribble that only Scottish Tories are going out to buy.

We just need Project Remember.

That'll do the trick.

Unfortunately the Nats only seem to have Project Mudslinging from the Shitpit.

As I said earlier it's their only approach to hiding their (the SNP Government's) disasters / mistakes. And remarkably it still works.

Always enlightening to get views from little England.

Presumably you think it's a supine, uniformly pro SNP media that let's the SNP off with it?

It's not so much that the media is pro-SNP its just that the national broadcast UK media tends to genuflect and takes them at their own estimation largely because they are English, don't wish to seem condescending and are under-briefed . The one notable exception is Andrew Neil - a working-class Scot - who rattled Nicola's cage when he got the chance. No wonder Boris avoided contact.

I'm not sure if the UK media is particularly inclined to give the SNP an easy ride or if in the end it makes much difference to what the average Scot thinks.

D'ye think Carlaw's formal complaint against the BBC for pro SNP bias is either wise or well judged?

Not sure. I think like Sir Keir is finding quite difficult for oppo politicians to get coverage during something like COVID. It's not so much that BBC is pro-SNP its just that their media operation is pretty aggressive/effective like that of Campbell-era New Labour.

Brom said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the BBC are back on the EU procurement schemes, those ones that haven't delivered a single bit of kit yet, while an RAF planes lands with new PPE from Turkey.

Very much the media bubble. This is all very strange we now live in a country where for the first time in my life it seems the government are trusted more than the media.

The BBC cannot be trusted after their NHS Trust head nonsense. It only takes one foul up ....

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Are the Argos stores inside Sainsbury's still open?

Some of them are, some of them are only doing click and collect orders only.

Sainsbury’s are in my bad books. Got our weekly delivery yesterday, one of the substitutions was shocking, disgusting in fact.

Margarine instead of butter.

What would you have preferred instead? Pineapple? And remember you can reject substitutions

noneoftheabove said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

Your argument along the lines of "the government made all these mistakes too, so why talk about that particular mistake" is sounding rather silly.

The argument is closing down different things on different days wouldnt have made much difference, particularly if you only close the smaller things, which despite the big sounding numbers, sporting events are compared to daily transit, offices, schools, and restaurants/pubs.

Clearly changing the precise date for the wider lockdown could have been significant, but that is different to pretending closing one event would have done.

The best reason for closing Cheltenham would have been as a signal this is serious, rather than to stop the virus spreading at Cheltenham, when it is spreading much wider elsewhere.

Indeed. I can tell you that Paddington Station was teeming and at the time the tube (2m passengers per day?) was ram-packed before, during and after Cheltenham.

Cancelling Cheltenham might have been sending a signal but all the damage was being done on the Central/Northern/District/etc lines in the meantime and thereafter.

A lawyers view on that "clarification" letter

https://davidallengreen.com/2020/04/the-extraordinary-sir-simon-mcdonald-clarification-a-guided-tour/

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

It is, because the people there came from all over Britain and Ireland, not like the regulars in the Dog and Duck down the road. A major opportunity, like Italian ski resorts, to spread the bug to new areas and seed now local outbreaks. That there is little evidence of its impact is interesting - but this wasn't to be known at the time.

Oh people travel? That changes everything nobody normally travels do they?

What a silly comment, no disrespect intended. Have you ever driven down a motorway like the M6 or M1? Do you find them normally to be busy or empty?

Have you ever taken a cross country train? Do you seriously think everyone is sat at home all the time only venturing as far as the Dog and Duck down the road except for when events like Cheltenham are on?

What proportion of people travelling nationwide will have been caused by Cheltenham?

I'd hazard a guess an order of magnitude more people travelled from a hotspot like London to the rest of the nation every day than travelled to Cheltenham.

There's still a significant difference - especially if you are thinking from an Irish perspective. There's daily commuting and there's unusual travel patterns. Football matches would tranfer infection to the town of the away team; a rural sport like racing might tranfer infection to many small rural areas.

I'm sorry I 100% disagree. There is no such thing as a "usual travel pattern". People don't live and work in homogenised villages that don't intermingle. Have you ever been to Euston Station to take a train to anywhere else in the nation? Ever seen a crowd there?

People in daily life are travelling across the entire country. Suggesting that events like these are relevant is like suggesting that a plane crash makes air travel more dangerous than travelling by road (hint: it doesn't)

If you think a lockdown is necessary then have a lockdown. Halfhearted measures like cancelling events is not a lockdown and not consequential.

It's not surprising to me that it isn't showing as statistically significant because it isn't a statistically significant proportion of nationwide activity or travel. It's just high profile and being high profile isn't scientifically relevant.

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Are the Argos stores inside Sainsbury's still open?

Some of them are, some of them are only doing click and collect orders only.

Sainsbury’s are in my bad books. Got our weekly delivery yesterday, one of the substitutions was shocking, disgusting in fact.

Margarine instead of butter.

What would you have preferred instead? Pineapple? And remember you can reject substitutions

They aren’t taking back unwanted items.

You can opt for no substituons when ordering but when ordering 500g of butter as a substitute I’d have expect 250g of butter.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Sad news for TSE

https://twitter.com/LittleMix/status/1252884977773154305?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1252884977773154305&ref_url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-vaccine-ppe-deaths-peak-lockdown/

I’ve kinda given on seeing a gig this year, I’m really gutted as I was so looking forward to seeing Scooter next month and New Order in October.

Scooter are still touring? Bring your whistles!

New Order, definitely a band everyone needs to see live at least once.

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

IanB2 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think the time for giving the government the benefit of the doubt is over. There have been so many unforced errors - the decision to allow Cheltenham to go ahead was mystifying to me even at the time - that will undoubtedly have cost lives. I suspect that Johnson's illness bought them some breathing space, but now that he has thankfully recovered it is time to hold his administration to account for its dire performance.

If you were closing Cheltenham why would you allow the tube to run?

Presumably because the tube is essential for getting people to work, whereas Cheltenham is not essential for anything.

And people are at Cheltenham for considerably longer than the typical tube journey, and shooting and cheering loudly, whereas on the tube at least everyone keeps their mouth firmly closed.

There certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that it led to a spike in cases. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/21/experts-inquiry-cheltenham-festival-coronavirus-deaths

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

There's communal facilities likes toilets and bars up and down the entire country. Why would you care about the bars in Cheltenham while ignoring the bars in actual hotspots like London? What percentage of nationwide bar goers do you think were at Cheltenham?

If you want bars closed then close them all. Cheltenham isn't relevant.

Your argument along the lines of "the government made all these mistakes too, so why talk about that particular mistake" is sounding rather silly.

The argument is closing down different things on different days wouldnt have made much difference, particularly if you only close the smaller things, which despite the big sounding numbers, sporting events are compared to daily transit, offices, schools, and restaurants/pubs.

Clearly changing the precise date for the wider lockdown could have been significant, but that is different to pretending closing one event would have done.

The best reason for closing Cheltenham would have been as a signal this is serious, rather than to stop the virus spreading at Cheltenham, when it is spreading much wider elsewhere.

And not doing so sent out quite another signal, obviously.

The transport numbers were already showing a big drop that week so the message that this is dangerous was getting through much more than a message of Cheltenham is going ahead so lets all party.

Excellent article yesterday and sad to hear about your father. Putting untested outpatients back into care homes does sound like it should have been completely unnecessary.

With hotels unused can they not be used as quarantine hotels for both people leaving hospital, and also for people with the virus who are living with family/friends (especially those in cramped conditions) but do not need to be in hospital?

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

I understood that the approach to flak was to aim at an area, rather than aim at a particular target. The box around Valletta Harbour for instance. This creates a wall effect that the planes must fly through, getting significant numbers of hits, or driving the planes so high that they were innaccurate. In effect as an area denying weapon. Perhaps small units took a different tactic.

Yes, I think that's right. Dad's gun would have been on the move a lot of the time and they dug in when and where they could.

I don't think it that unusual to go to war and not kill anyone when you look at the numbers. I think several million infantry went to the Western Front in WW1 and killed perhaps 600 000 Germans. Allowing half to Artillery, that means that the average WW1 infantryman killed about 0.1 German. Probably similar figures on their side.

(Up pops someone to statistically argue that there was little point in sending them, too much spent on Ammo, etc etc! )

He said he didn't see anybody bale out of either of the two planes he hit, so one must guess all occupants died. He never mentioned killing any other Germans though and I suspect he did not.

I'm less sure about one or two of his superior officers though....

PS I should add that his letters home, which I still have, contain some complimentary remarks about the German troops. He certainly didn't hate them. That would not apply to some on his own side!

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Sad news for TSE

https://twitter.com/LittleMix/status/1252884977773154305?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1252884977773154305&ref_url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-vaccine-ppe-deaths-peak-lockdown/

I’ve kinda given on seeing a gig this year, I’m really gutted as I was so looking forward to seeing Scooter next month and New Order in October.

Scooter are still touring? Bring your whistles!

New Order, definitely a band everyone needs to see live at least once.

Scooter are still touring, I had my whistles and glo sticks ready.

Seen New Order a few times but they have been great every time I’ve seen them.

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Circumstantial evidence but until Irish doctors say they have seen a spike amongst 15 to 20,000 Irish racegoers returning home from Cheltenham, that is all it is. And while there is cheering at Cheltenham, it is not like at a football match. Seven races a day, a roar at the start, some cheering at the end, and that is it...

Which ignores use of enclosed communal facilities like toilets and bars.

The point was about cheering at Cheltenham as opposed to on the tube. An estimated 5 to 10 minutes a day. It is not like a football match where there is singing and chanting through much of the game.

Though from an epidemiological point of view, it was about having lots of people from all over the nation mixing in confined spaces with some from areas (London) with significantly higher rates of infection.

I think we were couple of weeks too late in stopping large events, and a week or so too late in locking down.
Some of that is hindsight, of course, but there were plenty saying so at the time. And given the doubling rate of the disease, that has been very costly.

There would have been hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, using the tube every day then going to a different city in the UK and indeed some of those spreading worldwide. The tube would clearly have been a bigger spreader than Cheltenham because of its size, even on the days Cheltenham was running.

Similarly there were more people travelling between Spain and UK for non football reasons than football reasons even on the days around the Liverpool match, let alone across March.

An acquaintance who works for TFL, and could easily work from home, was going in on the tube up until 18/19 of March.

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1252904349291995136

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1252904350319599617

Nigel_Foremain said:

noneoftheabove said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

HYUFD said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

NerysHughes said:

noneoftheabove said:

Jonathan said:

What is the role of a minister during a crisis?

Leadership (Especially setting realistic objectives)
Decision making (timely, good judgement, accountable)
Representing the electorates priorities inside government
Unblocking political problems (using authority to get thing moving)
Communication

Not sure we can give any of them a great score.

objectives have been unrealistic
Decision making has been hesitant and accountability delegated to scientists
civil servants seems to have a better grip on the electorates priorities
critical equipment keeps getting blocked, money has been slow to arrive and ministerial clout seems ineffective
communication has at times been very confused and counter productive

Some ministers are better than others. Some you have to ask, what is the point.

Why would you expect people to get a great score during one of the most challenging crises of our lifetime?

The key objective was to stop the NHS being overwhelmed to the point of it not being able to function - achieved.
What would the response have been if the govt overruled the scientists?
Criticial equipment gets blocked because other countries are chasing the same stuff and people are looking to make quick bucks exploiting the situation.
On the business side, money hasnt been slow imo, we have received a grant already and should get the furlough money by the end of the month. Its an extremely generous scheme given the circumstances and delivered on time.
Communication has been confused because people arent very good at dealing with uncertainty.

Its amazing the number of people sitting at home having a free paid holiday who think they could do better.

Has the NHS coped? Yes, easily
Have the health systems in other countries coped eg Spain,USA, Italy and now Japan? No
Is there food in the supermarkets? Yes the shelves are fully stocked
Are the population following the lockdown rules? Yes
Are people still being paid? Yes

The above are the key points of the Governments response so far and they have passed them all.

Now we have a "scandal" of the UK not signing up to a EU PPE procurement scheme which has so far delivered not a single item of equipment.

The press and posters on PB just need something to criticise the Government about. This is a once in a 100 year pandemic and the UK is coping well.

"Coping well" would surely imply not heading for one on the highest deaths per capita in the world despite having more warning than many countries of the impending problem. "Coping relatively badly" would be a more accurate description.

The UK has the 3rd highest population in Europe but only the 5th highest deaths per capita in Europe

That is both factually and logically wrong. The UK has the 2nd highest population in Europe (not counting Russia, since a lot of it lies in Asia), but there is no logical reason to link population and deaths per capita.

Wrong, Germany and France have bigger populations than the UK.

However despite having the 3rd biggest population in Europe, the UK only has the 4th highest number of deaths in Europe

France does not have a bigger population than the UK.

UK population 66.6 million, France population 67 million

https://tradingeconomics.com/france/population

http://population.city/united-kingdom/

It is disingenuous to compare data complied in different ways like that. Your second source and almost every other table of population size (including the one on Worldometers - see below) indicates that the UK currently has a slightly higher population than France.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

United Kingdom: 67,886,011
France: 65,273,511

My view is that it is not population that matters in this crisis but population density. A selection below

Netherlands 1316 people per square mile
Belgium 991
UK 727
(England 1010)
Germany 623
Italy 533
France 310
Spain 243

It is not surprising that Netherlands, Belgium and England are all suffering badly on that basis. Clearly Germany is doing a lot better than its density would imply but France is doing very, very badly.

The bigger most connected cities have been hit hardest in Europe so population density is likely to be a very significant factor.

Perhaps more interesting to look at European regions (sorry Europhobes, not espousing it as a system I promise!). England, for example has greatly varying pop densities, from London to Lincolnshire. How is London doing compared to Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc.?

The FT have a graph tracking that measure.

https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

London is certainly not the worst large city.

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....

Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...

A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.

This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.

To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.

I'd be amazed if they'd stuck a 90mm gun on a flying airframe though anything's possible I guess. I thought the 75mm pak on the German HS 129 was the limit on that kind of thing.

Ignoring recoilless guns, the biggest one I can think of is the 102mm gun on the Italian Piaggio P.108 - but that was a heavy bomber with four engines, apparently much the same weight as a Lancaster, so it had a lot more inertia than a Hs.129. And the Piaggio was intended for anti-shipping strike. I wouldn't want to fly that thing low and slow over the desert, sniping at tanks.

Amusingly on looking it up, only 25 of the Hs 129's (which I knew about and was fascinated by as a kid) with a PaK were produced whereas 1400+ B25 Mitchells (which I barely knew about) with 75mm guns were produced. It's a metaphor for something or other.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1252904349291995136
ttps://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1252904350319599617

So, how much PPE has this 90-day-old EU initiative so far delivered for the Member States?

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

The antiaircraft gunners often refused to engage tanks - an important point, since heavy AA guns at that time had a secondary capability against tanks. The famous German 88 was originally an AA gun.

If you didn't have AP rounds, I very much doubt the efficacy of firing on armour with AA ones.

Afaik the British 3.7 AA gun (the direct equivalent of the 88) was never used in an AT role, certainly not 1939-40.

Wiki

Like other British guns, the 3.7 had a secondary direct fire role for defending its position against tank attack. During the North African Campaign, the 3.7 was considered for use explicitly as an anti-tank weapon due to the shortage of suitable anti-tank guns. Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations.

The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required.

Dad was a gunner in the North Africa Campaign, mostly on Anti-Aircraft duties. He reckoned it was mostly like trying to shoot flies with a handgun. His gun only made two direct hits he was sure of. One was a bomber that got its timing and navigation wrong and flew low and slow over his unit just as dawn broke. Dad's gun was not the only one that got it.

The other was a fluke. A fighter plane pulled out of its climb at high altitude thinking it was out of range. It was a million to one chance and very bad luck for the crew.

As regards tanks, his crew certainly used them against Italian tanks which was so flimsy he reckons the shells sometimes passed straight through them. It was a different matter when the Germans arrived. Then the problem was you couldn't normally get close enough to hit them without being blasted yourself, and if you did hit them the shell was apt to bounce off the armour.

These are my recollections from what he told me when I was a child. I don't know how it squares with other reports.

The 3.7" had pretty good performance vs armour - it formed the basis for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder. Which was cancelled largely because it was too heavy and too powerful. Yes, in the world of the Tiger II, it was not needed. Apparently, in testing against Tiger hulks, a significant number of shots passed through the glassis, the fighting compartment, the engine compartment and out the back....

Mollins (the cigarette machine company) built an auto-loader for the 32lbr. Installed on a Mosquito and test fired post war. Not sure why anyone thought a round every 1.5 seconds from a gun twice as powerful as an 88 was needed, but hey...

A 3.7 - if it hit - would probably get a one-shot kill vs a Tiger I (pretty rare in N. Africa). The problem was (as the source above mentions) the sights and the mount weren't very good for ground use.

This has been really interesting, especially P-t-P's paternal reminiscences.

To be pedantic, the Mosquito mounting was a 6 pounder (57mm calibre). Are you possibly thinking of Project Ratefixer or Green Mace, the automated AA guns developed late war or postwar? I saw the latter at Woolwich artillerty museum before it was closed to allow commercial redevelopment - massive thing.

I'd be amazed if they'd stuck a 90mm gun on a flying airframe though anything's possible I guess. I thought the 75mm pak on the German HS 129 was the limit on that kind of thing.

Ignoring recoilless guns, the biggest one I can think of is the 102mm gun on the Italian Piaggio P.108 - but that was a heavy bomber with four engines, apparently much the same weight as a Lancaster, so it had a lot more inertia than a Hs.129. And the Piaggio was intended for anti-shipping strike. I wouldn't want to fly that thing low and slow over the desert, sniping at tanks.

Amusingly on looking it up, only 25 of the Hs 129's (which I knew about and was fascinated by as a kid) with a PaK were produced whereas 1400+ B25 Mitchells (which I barely knew about) with 75mm guns were produced. It's a metaphor for something or other.

My "understanding" of what was flying is mainly based on my fading recollection of what Airfix kits I made. I remember the Hs129!

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Possibly. I recall Johnson at an early presser riffing around and tossing out both a 100k and a 250k number. Perhaps that was the origin. Loose talk from the boss feeds down to mega stress on subordinates and - ultimately - poor outcomes. A phenomenon I have certainly encountered many times. Bet we all have.

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Possibly. I recall Johnson at an early presser riffing around and tossing out both a 100k and a 250k number. Perhaps that was the origin. Loose talk from the boss feeds down to mega stress on subordinates and - ultimately - poor outcomes. A phenomenon I have certainly encountered many times. Bet we all have.

No the 250k was to do with antibody tests. Boris claim was they would get to 25k antigen tests and the rest antibody. And we now know the government had 9 different antibody test kits evaluated and all were busts.

And this is really where the issue have come from. The scientists were really sold on these antibody test kits and the government went along with it, with no real plan B. If it had worked out, nobody would be saying anything now.

The issue is that nobody in the world has a reliable large scale antibody test kit that can be done in the community, and now the UK stuck scrambling to try and devise a widespread antigen testing system on the fly.

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Possibly. I recall Johnson at an early presser riffing around and tossing out both a 100k and a 250k number. Perhaps that was the origin. Loose talk from the boss feeds down to mega stress on subordinates and - ultimately - poor outcomes. A phenomenon I have certainly encountered many times. Bet we all have.

The 250k number was a future goal for when then antibody tests come online, IIRC.

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Goodwill is running out all round...

China’s coronavirus diplomacy has finally pushed Europe too far
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/04/22/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/china-coronavirus-diplomacy-europe/
.... With stock prices tumbling on the coronavirus crisis, countries including Germany that have investment screening regulations have tightened them and extended their scope in response to concerns that China, among others, could take controlling stakes in companies suddenly made vulnerable. EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager suggested in a Financial Times interview that governments go further and buy stakes in companies themselves to stave off the threat of Chinese takeovers.

More far-reaching still are proposals to curb dependence on China, not just for medical supplies but in areas such as battery technology for electric vehicles. EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan said last week there’s a need for a discussion “on what it means to be strategically autonomous,” including building “resilient supply chains, based on diversification, acknowledging the simple fact that we will not be able to manufacture everything locally.” Japan already earmarked $2.2 billion from its $1 trillion stimulus package to help its manufacturers shift production away from China.

Without mentioning China, EU trade ministers agreed in an April 16 call on the importance of diversifying to “reduce the reliance on individual countries of supply.” As a first step, Berlin plans state funds and purchase guarantees to start industrial production of millions of surgical and face masks by late summer. China currently exports 25 percent of the world’s face masks....

Excellent. China has next to zero trust in its bank account, and is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative.

Time to choke off the basis of its economic success until it politically reforms.

That is unrealistic, given that they're likely more economically self-sufficient than we are. Increasing our (or Europe's) self-sufficiency is a more realistic and likely fruitful aim.
In any event, cutting off trade will harm everyone. Being more hard headed won't.

I'm sure poorer parts of Spain, Greece, Italy, etc would be ok with PPE manufacturing for the EU

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Isn't it about organising the car parks for testing now ?

We have 533 constituencies in England. One large car park per constituency broadly with a couple of hundred swabs. Some of the London constituencies can be amalgamated, perhaps other inner city ones too with some large constituencies having a couple of small sites (Cumbria ?) but that gives a rough starter for ten. Have a nurse doing the tests and a small number of squaddies at each one to police it all, then at the end of each shift drive the samples back to the labs which are obviously more spread out.
It's not going to be quite that simple but I'd expect that to be a rough basis..

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Yes, why on earth did Hancock offer a personal guarantee of 100k tests by end of April?

I thought it was just a target? Hancock seems to subscribe to the school of management that says all you need to do is think of a stretch goal and write it in big letters.

He framed it as a commitment. That's how I heard it anyway. We WILL be doing 100k tests a day by the end of the month. I found his language quite surprising at the time. Still, it's only the 22nd. 30 days in April.

It does seem like they are finally getting significant lab capacity onboard (although apparently one big issue is most of this has to be done manually, as we don't have many automated robotic machines).

The bottleneck seems to be having only 26 drive through centres. 26....and they say they will get to 50 by the end of the month. That just isn't enough. You need several 100.

These things aren't complex like having PCR machinery. Its a car park and some basic training on how to stick a swab into somebodies nose.

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Isn't it about organising the car parks for testing now ?

We have 533 constituencies in England. One large car park per constituency broadly with a couple of hundred swabs. Some of the London constituencies can be amalgamated, perhaps other inner city ones too with some large constituencies having a couple of small sites (Cumbria ?) but that gives a rough starter for ten. Have a nurse doing the tests and a small number of squaddies at each one to police it all, then at the end of each shift drive the samples back to the labs which are obviously more spread out.
It's not going to be quite that simple but I'd expect that to be a rough basis..

Yes. I can't get my head around that. How hard can it be for a few civil servants to get on Google Maps and find some car parks, ring the owners and say we are having it, and send the army to tape them off and put down a hut.

That really shouldn't take weeks.

I did tell a young ‘un that they haven’t lived until they watched a football match on Ceefax.

I had to explain to them what Ceefax was.

Like the internet on your telly.

On the stories
EU procurement is a red herring. On ventilators we have more than we will ever need. The focus on a local supplier Penlon made a lot of sense.

Lock down was slow by a few days. Cheltenham was a mistake looking back.

Testing has been a disaster from start to finish. PHE arrogance and controlling nature has totally failed. Politicians should have taken direct control much earlier. Still not sure Hancock is fully in charge. The UK has one of the best science bases in the world. Like a English World Cup campaign, good individual players but poor leadership.

PPE is another mess but harder to blame on existing politicians. Hard for everyone globally and we had outsourced our supply chain under Labour to foreigners.

The winners so far have been the front line NHS staff who have continued working under huge personal risk. Just been speaking to a contact in Kent who is in the red zone with a good mask and a plastic apron only today. He is scared but not leaving. The public who followed lock down rigorously so that the R0 is well below 1. The army who have as always just got on with it.

We need a clear plan to move on quickly or people will die not from COVID but everything else and the economy will crater. How do we take people back in hospital when it is clear there is a huge risk they get infected? What risk is related to each activity. I personally think schools should reopen as I don't think children are super spreaders. However the kids need to get there themselves, no pick up at the gates. Will the Government start leading?

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Sad news for TSE

https://twitter.com/LittleMix/status/1252884977773154305?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1252884977773154305&ref_url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-vaccine-ppe-deaths-peak-lockdown/

I’ve kinda given on seeing a gig this year, I’m really gutted as I was so looking forward to seeing Scooter next month and New Order in October.

Scooter are still touring? Bring your whistles!

New Order, definitely a band everyone needs to see live at least once.

Scooter are still touring, I had my whistles and glo sticks ready.

Seen New Order a few times but they have been great every time I’ve seen them.

I was going to see New Order in 2015 for my birthday. In the end, my other half got the flu so we couldn't go.

A couple of weeks later I had a medical. A young male nurse was taking my details and noticed I'd just had my birthday. "What did you do for your birthday?" he asked.

I explained that I'd been going to see New Order but hadn't been able to go.

"Who are New Order?"

They were a big 80s band, most famous for Blue Monday, you must have heard it.

"Sorry, I don't know that one."

It was the biggest-selling 12" of all time.

"What's a 12"?"

I work with someone born after the start of the second Iraq war.

It is quite an experience then not knowing things that I experienced in my late 20s/early 30s given I only entered my 40s 18 months ago.

I did use to work with someone who couldn’t believe I lived in a country with only four tv channels that aired between 9am and 11pm.

Ha! I remember when Channel 4 was a mad innovation that Thatcher got criticised for....

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I did tell a young ‘un that they haven’t lived until they watched a football match on Ceefax.

I had to explain to them what Ceefax was.

Like the internet on your telly.

God I feel old now....

You and me both.

A man in his 30s has been arrested after armed police were deployed near a shopping centre in Kent to reports of a man on a balcony firing weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4AV-dTT8VA

Barnesian said:

Latest data

I look at some key groups.
1. How are major European countries doing?
Growth rate slowing. Italy, Spain and Germany doing better than UK and France.
2. How is Sweden doing with its more lax policy?
It's doing OK. Growth rate slightly less than UK and France.
3. How is US doing?
Similar to UK but much larger of course.
4. How is Russia doing?
Badly.
5. How are developing countries doing? Brazil, India, Nigeria?
Growing a bit faster than the UK but still surprising small in view of their large populations. Not a disaster (yet?)

Russia is looking like the next big problem country.

Developing country statistics very unreliable I'd have thought, and not in a good way. Poor public health systems and not much testing, as well as very dense city populations.

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Floater said:

Sad news for TSE

https://twitter.com/LittleMix/status/1252884977773154305?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1252884977773154305&ref_url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-uk-vaccine-ppe-deaths-peak-lockdown/

I’ve kinda given on seeing a gig this year, I’m really gutted as I was so looking forward to seeing Scooter next month and New Order in October.

Scooter are still touring? Bring your whistles!

New Order, definitely a band everyone needs to see live at least once.

Scooter are still touring, I had my whistles and glo sticks ready.

Seen New Order a few times but they have been great every time I’ve seen them.

I was going to see New Order in 2015 for my birthday. In the end, my other half got the flu so we couldn't go.

A couple of weeks later I had a medical. A young male nurse was taking my details and noticed I'd just had my birthday. "What did you do for your birthday?" he asked.

I explained that I'd been going to see New Order but hadn't been able to go.

"Who are New Order?"

They were a big 80s band, most famous for Blue Monday, you must have heard it.

"Sorry, I don't know that one."

It was the biggest-selling 12" of all time.

"What's a 12"?"

I work with someone born after the start of the second Iraq war.

It is quite an experience then not knowing things that I experienced in my late 20s/early 30s given I only entered my 40s 18 months ago.

I did use to work with someone who couldn’t believe I lived in a country with only four tv channels that aired between 9am and 11pm.

Wait until you get to Big G's and my age!
I can recall the arrival on the scene of Elvis Presley! And dancing in the cinema to Rock around the Clock!

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I reckon the 100k a day number came from looking at Germany's testing capacity at that time which was about that.

Isn't it about organising the car parks for testing now ?

We have 533 constituencies in England. One large car park per constituency broadly with a couple of hundred swabs. Some of the London constituencies can be amalgamated, perhaps other inner city ones too with some large constituencies having a couple of small sites (Cumbria ?) but that gives a rough starter for ten. Have a nurse doing the tests and a small number of squaddies at each one to police it all, then at the end of each shift drive the samples back to the labs which are obviously more spread out.
It's not going to be quite that simple but I'd expect that to be a rough basis..

Yes. I can't get my head around that. How hard can it be for a few civil servants to get on Google Maps and find some car parks, ring the owners and say we are having it, and send the army to tape them off and put down a hut.

That really shouldn't take weeks.

I'm assuming that even in these rudderless times they would still need a member of the government to ask them to organise this?