So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Hello everyone, I used to post as Nigel4England before being banned a couple of years ago. Now that I have confessed to that TSE will probably chop me again, but I hope not as I promise to behave myself.
I have mellowed anyway, I have had to take early retirement as my wife was diagnosed with secondary breast cancer a year ago, it has spread to her bones and as such is incurable.
One of the side effects of this ghastly virus is that part of her treatment has been suspended. She has oral chemotherapy, she takes one tablet every day and another that she takes for 21 days, then has a 7 day break. After that she has a blood test to check that her bloods are OK before the next 21 day course.
We had a call from the oncologist to say that as the drug she takes on a 21 day cycle is an immunosuppressant she has to stop taking it, which the oncologist confirmed will increase the chances of the cancer spreading quicker than otherwise.
I know that others are in a far worse situation but just thought I would highlight an actual example of the true devastating effect of all this.
Sorry to hear that. I remember having a few barneys with your previous incarnation. I think the general policy is fairly forgiving of prodigal sons as long as they learn to count up to 6 million.
Good luck, I hope your situation improves.
What a dreadful tale from "backinthedhss"! Sincerely hope Mrs B gets back into treatment PDQ. Bro in law is due to start treatment for Alzheimers, but apparently that's been 'delayed'.
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Sorry to hear that Kle. Hope you feel better soon (remember a lot of things that aren't Covid-19 can give you a cough - hopefully you don't have Coronavirus)
Just seen the Johnson speech footage. He looks and sounds well below par. I think he’s come back way too soon. That will be bad for him and, by extension, bad for us. He’s not going to have the stamina or concentration to do the job that needs doing.
No, this is what the virus does.
Then he should hand over to someone fit.
My concern for the past few weeks is that now, just when we need a government functioning at 100%, we have been missing a prime minister. 90% of the people on here thought I was being crazy - why on earth would we need a fully fit PM when we are going through one of the worst crises of our lifetimes, but I digress.
I was happy to see him back and am sure that his mental capacity remains as per the status quo ante (ie solipsistic shit, but fully functioning).
If it is not, then he should step down.
He may be functioning at 9.00am. He still needs to be at 9.00pm. He was visibly and audibly flagging by the end of that speech. It’s a worry for me.
Boris' role is to be a Reagan like frontman cheering up the nation and setting the direction, like Reagan he can leave implementing the detail to the Cabinet
Perhaps Boris will appear on the The Andrew Marr Show this Sunday. There are certainly a lot of questions for him that people would like answers to. Even if your role is as a frontman, you need to have answers to the main questions such as what is the strategy to end the lockdown, what criteria need to be met, when will restrictions start being lifted etc. I give Boris two days, or perhaps until the next PMQs on Wednesday to come up with the answers. There is no halfway house with being Prime Minister. If he wants to come back to the job, he has to do the job.
Boris will act as per the advice he gets and as he has a comfortable majority of 80 and most new Tory MPs owe their election to him regardless of what you think there is no prospect of him ceasing to be PM for years
You are a stalwart Conservative, would be councillor and have been loyal to the party for many years. It is something to be proud of.
But what is disappointing is that you seem to be putting party before country. Now, that may just be the way things are on both sides of the political divide. But it is disappointing and not a great way to run a country.
Boris is in my view still the best PM for the country and half the art of doing the job effectively is delegation, as Brown and May showed overwork and control freaked ends in disaster
A 100% Boris you may well be right, at least until we get the measure of SKS.
But at present we don't have a 100% Boris. We until this morning had a 0% Boris. Now we have a ??% Boris. That is the issue.
Boris started by centralising power at Number 10. He then infected half of Whitehall which is the only reason neither he nor Cummings could exercise it.
I see the Boris/brexit derangement crowd are now saying that Boris was simultaneously not that sick and his hospitalisation was a hoax for sympathy but still very sick so why did he come back.
I don't think that at all but I do think he acted irresponsibly, didn't take the virus seriously, didn't listen to the advice, carried on shaking hands, attended the rugby at Twickenham etc etc.
Did he consider that as PM he had a responsibility to try to ensure he didn't get the virus? I doubt that crossed his mind for an instant, even Trump managed to follow the guidelines and avoid it.
Result being he went MIA again at a critical time as he did for the last 2 weeks of Feb when he was sorting out his private life holed up at Chevening.
Boris does not take things seriously but we all knew that before he was elected.
That's David Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, a constituency in the Scottish Borders.
Indeed. Further, they've stopped travel between the Australian states and I have no doubt certain US States are considering ways they could acheive some border control, so this proposal is hardly "madcap".
HYUFD has posted some interesting stuff this morning though probably not for the reason he thinks. He appears to be in the same place as the Daily Mail - Boris is Back and we're Saved.
Surely the problem is that Boris rejoicing is needed because the rest of the Cabinet have proven themselves to be useless. Not only inept and incompetent but rabbit in the headlights visibly no idea what they are doing useless. I've found myself wondering if they are in the Gordon Brown's 2009 cabinet levels of shit (Bob Ainsworth) or just merely John Major 1994 levels of shit (Jeremy Hanley). And have concluded that its a combination of the worst of both.
Just as people don’t know as much history as they should, they also don’t understand the English language.
A heating engineer came round to check our boiler the other day (don’t worry I stood a long way away) and he told me his work was mainly “reactionary”. He meant “reactive”. But the concept of “reactionary work” rather appeals. And I understood what he meant so his novel use of language worked.
Reactionary heating is what the Russian aristocracy used to do: if they were having a ball they would bring in hundreds of peasants to stand motionless in the ballroom all day to warm it up for the evening.
Poor physics. They've have been better off asking them to run around.
Better to get them to lie on the floor I think. Maximum transfer of body heat, floor can then slowly warm up the room.
Lower maximum density of peasants though (unless lying on top of one another).
Layer on the floor, the rest running around on top of them. Also minimises muddy footprints.
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Sorry to hear that Kle. Hope you feel better soon (remember a lot of things that aren't Covid-19 can give you a cough - hopefully you don't have Coronavirus)
That's kind, thank you. I feel fine, other than a cough, so sure it's nothing,
I can only repeat what I said. The key decisions here are not about health or about the economy or about personal liberty. They are about politics. And the calculus of political risk is IMO clear. It steers to keeping the lockdown largely in place for a while yet. I explained why this is the case. The government agrees with me.
Perhaps you are right and me and "Boris" are wrong. Perhaps there would be little public backlash if the UK ends up with a second wave and the worst Covid-19 death toll in Europe. Hopefully we will not get to test that hypothesis.
If you’re right - and I think you are - that this is a political decision, let’s stop having all this bollocks about “we’re just following the science”. Governments have never just followed the science before - even when we’ve had diseases quite as infectious or dangerous as this one.
The science plays an important part in the decision-making, maybe the most important part for now. But it is not the only factor. Here or in any other country.
I think your conclusion is right but you've undermined it in your first sentence unnecessarily.
That there are political considerations and political decisions does not mean the emphasis on following the science is 'bollocks'. Its not complete, as a decision based on scientific advice remains partly political or based on other factors depending on range of options is indeed not just following science. But that doesnt mean its bollocks.
But I am surprised and disappointed that you trivialise the emphasis as bollocks as though that decision to have that emphasis is meaningless. I think that's quite petty and mistaken particularly as you're hanging it all on a single word 'just' which is not even universally used when they talk about following the science.
The reasons the phrase (which is used repeatedly, to deflect questions on all conceivable subjects) is indeed 'bollocks' are twofold. First, as you rightly point out, as there is a large political element to any policy question, the are no >just< following the science. Second, and just as important, there is no single settled 'science' to follow on many of the pertinent issues. There is, perhaps, a consensus on the advisory group, but sometimes even this is controversial (and we are granted little information on how it was arrived at, or even who were the people involved).
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Sorry to hear that Kle. Hope you feel better soon (remember a lot of things that aren't Covid-19 can give you a cough - hopefully you don't have Coronavirus)
That's kind, thank you. I feel fine, other than a cough, so sure it's nothing,
There seems to have been a hay fever upsurge this weekend, FWIW.
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Give them a good grilling. Are they coughing too ?
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Give them a good grilling. Are they coughing too ?
Not yet, but I'm keeping an eye on them...
It's postal workers who may get the blame from some!
That seems unacceptable to me. Delaying key cancer treatment. I can't get my head around that - even allowing for the imperative to stay on top of the virus.
I feel the same about the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying.
These are value judgments that I struggle to share.
It sounds like the advice of the oncologist is trying to balance the risk of faster cancer development against the risk of being infected with Covid-19 whilst taking immunosuppressant drugs.
iow, it’s a medical decision, not a delayed treatment?
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Give them a good grilling. Are they coughing too ?
It's not uncommon to develop a cough when the temperature changes. I don't often get a cold/cough but I can feel it trying to start up when the weather gets warmer or colder, seasonally.
We all live with viruses lying dormant in the body that make hay when our immune system has a low patch. I suspect that's what has happened to you.
I can only repeat what I said. The key decisions here are not about health or about the economy or about personal liberty. They are about politics. And the calculus of political risk is IMO clear. It steers to keeping the lockdown largely in place for a while yet. I explained why this is the case. The government agrees with me.
Perhaps you are right and me and "Boris" are wrong. Perhaps there would be little public backlash if the UK ends up with a second wave and the worst Covid-19 death toll in Europe. Hopefully we will not get to test that hypothesis.
If you’re right - and I think you are - that this is a political decision, let’s stop having all this bollocks about “we’re just following the science”. Governments have never just followed the science before - even when we’ve had diseases quite as infectious or dangerous as this one.
The science plays an important part in the decision-making, maybe the most important part for now. But it is not the only factor. Here or in any other country.
I think your conclusion is right but you've undermined it in your first sentence unnecessarily.
That there are political considerations and political decisions does not mean the emphasis on following the science is 'bollocks'. Its not complete, as a decision based on scientific advice remains partly political or based on other factors depending on range of options is indeed not just following science. But that doesnt mean its bollocks.
But I am surprised and disappointed that you trivialise the emphasis as bollocks as though that decision to have that emphasis is meaningless. I think that's quite petty and mistaken particularly as you're hanging it all on a single word 'just' which is not even universally used when they talk about following the science.
The reasons the phrase (which is used repeatedly, to deflect questions on all conceivable subjects) is indeed 'bollocks' are twofold. First, as you rightly point out, as there is a large political element to any policy question, the are no >just< following the science. Second, and just as important, there is no single settled 'science' to follow on many of the pertinent issues. There is, perhaps, a consensus on the advisory group, but sometimes even this is controversial (and we are granted little information on how it was arrived at, or even who were the people involved).
But as I also noted, they are not rigorous in saying they are 'just' following the science, certainly not every time they say they follow the science do they inclued 'just', so while I do think they are indeed seeking to avoid some questions on decision making by presenting it as a settled and obvious question of science, which as you note is not always the case, I find it a stretch to call it bollocks by hanging it all on that word 'just'.
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Sorry to hear that Kle. Hope you feel better soon (remember a lot of things that aren't Covid-19 can give you a cough - hopefully you don't have Coronavirus)
That's kind, thank you. I feel fine, other than a cough, so sure it's nothing,
There seems to have been a hay fever upsurge this weekend, FWIW.
Surely if the virus is mostly spread from coughs and sneezes expelling it then the amount of non-covid19 colds/flus/viruses and hayfever seem quite important in predicting the future spread of the virus. Why are we not putting much effort into tracking those?
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
It would help if the politicians didn't keep repeating the lie "we have always made the right decisions at the right time" in a Stepford Wives kind of intonation
That's David Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, a constituency in the Scottish Borders.
Only the best bit of DCT is in the Borders the rest is Dumfries and Galloway which is its own thing
I suppose you'd have to cross the border between them to find that out.
I have never visited the borders properly. I would like to see Abbotsford.
Done a few day trips and a couple of long weekends, mostly on the west side, lots of very attractive scenery and some nice pubs though some surprisingly bleak bits also. I believe Abbotsford is a bit of a mock baronial concoction but very good if you're a Sir Walter fan.
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
Why do you assume yourself to be better qualified than the scientists and medics who's advice the Govt is following? No Govt is going to ignore its specialist experts. Your arrogance is astounding though understandable.
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
It would help if the politicians didn't keep repeating the lie "we have always made the right decisions at the right time" in a Stepford Wives kind of intonation
I don't recall this comment. Stick a "what we thought were" and I can see it. Can you remind me who said your quote please.
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
Why do you assume yourself to be better qualified than the scientists and medics who's advice the Govt is following? No Govt is going to ignore its specialist experts. Your arrogance is astounding though understandable.
How on earth did you read that into what I wrote?
I meant that the politicians who are making important decisions should be able to justify those decisions. The way you do that is by asking hard questions. That is not casting blame
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
Yes, a very interesting tweet, posted yesterday by @Scott_xP
Seems very plausible. Could explain why few third world / Eastern European countries have it bad - no one returning from posh skiing holidays/do’s
So I looked at this link ready to post a line about never believing anything you read in newspaper headlines but I don't really see the problem with it?
They replaced "confidence" with the shorter word "trust", which I guess is a superset of confidence - ie it can mean "are you confident that I can do this" or "do you think I'm lying" - but in the context I think it's clear which one it is. Then they used "plummet" for a change from about +40 to +19, which I guess is a *little* bit over-dramatic but not drastically so.
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
Why do you assume yourself to be better qualified than the scientists and medics who's advice the Govt is following? No Govt is going to ignore its specialist experts. Your arrogance is astounding though understandable.
How on earth did you read that into what I wrote?
I meant that the politicians who are making important decisions should be able to justify those decisions. The way you do that is by asking hard questions. That is not casting blame
It is a very young country, with a median age of 27 and only 1% of the male population above 80 (compared to Italy 5% UK 4%) and entirely demolishes your claim about old age being the most important predictor of outcomes
Median age is irrelevant, there are far more over 70s and over 80s in Ecuador than most developing countries certainly compared to Nigeria or India as a percentage of population for example. Plus Ecuador still has a significantly lower death rate than Italy and the UK anyway.
So it entirely supports my claim that old age is the main predictor of outcomes
You cannot be serious about believing the numbers on Worldometer surely? If you look at excess deaths- the most reliable game in town - Ecuador is 83% above the norm; UK 33%
Wow. 10,000 extra deaths prorated up = 39,000 extra uk deaths. In fact uk has 15,600 extra deaths. Knocking on the head both "it's worse with older populations" and "it doesn't like the heat."
And good for Ecuador for producing what I thought we would never see - first world quality data from a third world country.
Ecuador is not third world, second world at most
I thought "second world" was the USSR and it's sphere of influence?
So we still have a first world and third world but don't really have a second world any more.
I didn't know that, thank you. And bringing yours post together with the new username backinthedhss I have a rather excellent Beatles ear worm!
It is a very young country, with a median age of 27 and only 1% of the male population above 80 (compared to Italy 5% UK 4%) and entirely demolishes your claim about old age being the most important predictor of outcomes
Median age is irrelevant, there are far more over 70s and over 80s in Ecuador than most developing countries certainly compared to Nigeria or India as a percentage of population for example. Plus Ecuador still has a significantly lower death rate than Italy and the UK anyway.
So it entirely supports my claim that old age is the main predictor of outcomes
You cannot be serious about believing the numbers on Worldometer surely? If you look at excess deaths- the most reliable game in town - Ecuador is 83% above the norm; UK 33%
Wow. 10,000 extra deaths prorated up = 39,000 extra uk deaths. In fact uk has 15,600 extra deaths. Knocking on the head both "it's worse with older populations" and "it doesn't like the heat."
And good for Ecuador for producing what I thought we would never see - first world quality data from a third world country.
Ecuador is not third world, second world at most
I thought "second world" was the USSR and it's sphere of influence?
So we still have a first world and third world but don't really have a second world any more.
I didn't know that, thank you. And bringing yours post together with the new username backinthedhss I have a rather excellent Beatles ear worm!
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
It would help if the politicians didn't keep repeating the lie "we have always made the right decisions at the right time" in a Stepford Wives kind of intonation
I don't recall this comment. Stick a "what we thought were" and I can see it. Can you remind me who said your quote please.
I heard it every time I heard the daily briefings, which is probably only about 3 times admittedly.
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
It would help if the politicians didn't keep repeating the lie "we have always made the right decisions at the right time" in a Stepford Wives kind of intonation
I don't recall this comment. Stick a "what we thought were" and I can see it. Can you remind me who said your quote please.
I heard it every time I heard the daily briefings, which is probably only about 3 times admittedly.
They must have been the ones I missed and went unreported. The Grauniad must have missed them too.
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
And mentions a couple of counter examples (call centres); there are also, for example & not noted in the article, workers' dormitories in Singapore. It does seem his approach involves a large amount of selection bias, both intentional - ...I have chosen to exclude SSEs that center on hospitals and old-age homes, despite the fact that in many countries (including Canada, where I live), these comprise the main spawning ground for COVID-19. This is because the purpose of this exercise is to gain information about the relative effects of three broad modes of COVID-19 transmission—large droplets transmitted ballistically, persistent concentrations of tiny airborne droplets, and contaminated surfaces. In hospitals and old-age homes, all three of these mechanisms are almost invariably at play—as these tend to be shared spaces full of commonly touched surfaces and close interpersonal contact among residents and staff. And so such SSEs serve to inflate the size of the database without providing assistance in isolating variables. The same principle is true of COVID-19 transmission within households, which is why I have excluded intra-household clusters as well.... - and unintentional: how do you document, or even notice, that a crowded bus or tube train was a 'superspreader' event.
So interesting, and certainly adds evidence for one particular route of transmission. But doesn't rule out any of the other ones.
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
Entirley consistent with what I posted here some while back. Although the notion of concerts is very upper middle class. Polite ripple of applause and the odd "bravo!" might be safe enough. Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a concert hall when the guy two rows back hollers his approval when the Stones start up his favourite track...
The SSEs thing, I am not that convinced it tells us too much. It read as finding evidence that supported their thinking, rather than letting the evidence lead them.
That isn't to say ramming 100s of people in a hot sweaty room together shouting at one another, hugging, kissing, etc isn't a terrible idea when it comes to CV, but I think there is still a lot of unknowns and lot more to find out about what are the routes by which this thing spreads most efficiently.
That's David Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, a constituency in the Scottish Borders.
Only the best bit of DCT is in the Borders the rest is Dumfries and Galloway which is its own thing
I suppose you'd have to cross the border between them to find that out.
I have never visited the borders properly. I would like to see Abbotsford.
Done a few day trips and a couple of long weekends, mostly on the west side, lots of very attractive scenery and some nice pubs though some surprisingly bleak bits also. I believe Abbotsford is a bit of a mock baronial concoction but very good if you're a Sir Walter fan.
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
Entirley consistent with what I posted here some while back. Although the notion of concerts is very upper middle class. Polite ripple of applause and the odd "bravo!" might be safe enough. Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a concert hall when the guy two rows back hollers his approval when the Stones start up his favourite track...
They clearly never been to some of the gigs I have...
I'd amend to say we're not interested in blaming our leaders 'right now'.
I agree with not blaming... But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
It would help if the politicians didn't keep repeating the lie "we have always made the right decisions at the right time" in a Stepford Wives kind of intonation
I don't recall this comment. Stick a "what we thought were" and I can see it. Can you remind me who said your quote please.
I heard it every time I heard the daily briefings, which is probably only about 3 times admittedly.
They must have been the ones I missed and went unreported. The Grauniad must have missed them too.
I guess you are right and you missed them.
Here is one example from many: "At every stage in this crisis, we have been guided by the scientific advice and have been making the right decisions at the right time"
So despite being on lockdown and only going to the shop once a week, keeping as much distance as possible, I appear to have developed a cough. Methinks my lockdown buddy must have met up with people during their daily excursions and infected me, the bastard!
Oh dear. I really hope it is just a cough and nothing more. Take care of yourself. Gargling with aspirin or salted water may help.
That seems unacceptable to me. Delaying key cancer treatment. I can't get my head around that - even allowing for the imperative to stay on top of the virus.
I feel the same about the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying.
These are value judgments that I struggle to share.
It sounds like the advice of the oncologist is trying to balance the risk of faster cancer development against the risk of being infected with Covid-19 whilst taking immunosuppressant drugs.
iow, it’s a medical decision, not a delayed treatment?
Yes - and if so I can see it how it could be a difficult but correct decision.
As opposed to, say, delaying a treatment on the grounds of it being too dangerous to administer in current circumstances or because resource has been exhausted by virus related matters.
So I looked at this link ready to post a line about never believing anything you read in newspaper headlines but I don't really see the problem with it?
They replaced "confidence" with the shorter word "trust", which I guess is a superset of confidence - ie it can mean "are you confident that I can do this" or "do you think I'm lying" - but in the context I think it's clear which one it is. Then they used "plummet" for a change from about +40 to +19, which I guess is a *little* bit over-dramatic but not drastically so.
I read this yesterday and the issue I had is that, yes, it's a big difference compared with 2 weeks ago, or even 4 weeks ago BUT if you go back 3 weeks, or 5 weeks, it's not.
Clearly everything is so volatile that it's almost pointless making such sweeping statements.
The longer this goes on, the more likely people will be unhappy, and there's a time coming soon when we catch up in the timeline with Spain and Italy, and may start to look a lot worse.
On the other hand, any loosening of the lockdown is likely to cause a boost, and when people start receiving payments from the govt. there could be another boost.
Too early to say where this will end up for the govt.
Forget the language howler, the article she is talking about is very, very interesting indeed - a must-read IMO. It's a bit long, and hedged about with loads of caveats, but it looks quite convincing to me in terms of helping understand the dominant modes of transmission. It's worth reading the whole thing, but look in particular at his conclusion of where the main 'super-spreader events' (SSEs) took place:
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
On the white collar farm bit the counter example is
That seems unacceptable to me. Delaying key cancer treatment. I can't get my head around that - even allowing for the imperative to stay on top of the virus.
I feel the same about the restrictions around funerals and visiting the sick and dying.
These are value judgments that I struggle to share.
It sounds like the advice of the oncologist is trying to balance the risk of faster cancer development against the risk of being infected with Covid-19 whilst taking immunosuppressant drugs.
iow, it’s a medical decision, not a delayed treatment?
Yes - and if so I can see it how it could be a difficult but correct decision.
As opposed to, say, delaying a treatment on the grounds of it being too dangerous to practically administer in current circumstances or because resource has been exhausted by virus related matters.
When I was at the hospital (taking an elderly relative for an appointment) the consultant I spoke to said that they had a big problem with no-shows.
That is, people with real problems, treatment booked, everything and everyone ready to go on the medical side. Patient not showing up....
Yes it is - and a very nice one. Lots of lovely plants coming through - hostas I see. Try putting copper rings around them to avoid the dreaded slugs. You might want to plant some summer flowering bulbs and tubers: gladioli, rudbeckia and dahlias for instance.
That's David Mundell, MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, a constituency in the Scottish Borders.
Only the best bit of DCT is in the Borders the rest is Dumfries and Galloway which is its own thing
I suppose you'd have to cross the border between them to find that out.
I have never visited the borders properly. I would like to see Abbotsford.
Done a few day trips and a couple of long weekends, mostly on the west side, lots of very attractive scenery and some nice pubs though some surprisingly bleak bits also. I believe Abbotsford is a bit of a mock baronial concoction but very good if you're a Sir Walter fan.
Very much up my Strasse. Love an unnecessary turret or five.
How? They still not got through 30k yet, even with these online booking slots all taken up in minutes.
Dunno exactly, but they're spinning to journalists they might not make it on Thursday, but need a few days with lags for test processing and tests coming back in the past. Suggests they think they're pretty close.
Guessing that means the next mega-lab is about to open, and they have a heavy backlog of tests to feed through.
How? They still not got through 30k yet, even with these online booking slots all taken up in minutes.
Dunno exactly, but they're spinning to journalists they might not make it on Thursday, but need a few days with lags for test processing and tests coming back in the past. Suggests they think they're pretty close.
Guessing that means the next mega-lab is about to open, and they have a heavy backlog of tests to feed through.
That sounds more like please don't roast us on Thursday, kick can, hope to get there in another week or so.
The problem is they have made such a big deal of this arbitrary 100k a day figure, Hancock is going to get absolutely lambasted.
So I looked at this link ready to post a line about never believing anything you read in newspaper headlines but I don't really see the problem with it?
They replaced "confidence" with the shorter word "trust", which I guess is a superset of confidence - ie it can mean "are you confident that I can do this" or "do you think I'm lying" - but in the context I think it's clear which one it is. Then they used "plummet" for a change from about +40 to +19, which I guess is a *little* bit over-dramatic but not drastically so.
Plummets from a healthy majority to a, er, healthy majority. I worry that if they use words like that to describe relatively minor shifts (given the trend), they are going to run out of superlatives to describe the real thing.
How? They still not got through 30k yet, even with these online booking slots all taken up in minutes.
Dunno exactly, but they're spinning to journalists they might not make it on Thursday, but need a few days with lags for test processing and tests coming back in the past. Suggests they think they're pretty close.
Guessing that means the next mega-lab is about to open, and they have a heavy backlog of tests to feed through.
Guess what? - the journalists didn't bother to ask *when* the booked slots were for.
The transformation of Unionists from 'I'm as proud a Scot as anyone', 'the Saltire is also our flag' & 'no one is saying Scotland couldn't be an independent country, but' to..er..whatever they are now is something to ponder upon.
'No one is saying the word Scotland doesn't refer to a region of the northern part of the UK that had a short, unimportant period as a barely independent nation.'
How? They still not got through 30k yet, even with these online booking slots all taken up in minutes.
Dunno exactly, but they're spinning to journalists they might not make it on Thursday, but need a few days with lags for test processing and tests coming back in the past. Suggests they think they're pretty close.
Guessing that means the next mega-lab is about to open, and they have a heavy backlog of tests to feed through.
That sounds more like please don't roast us on Thursday, kick can, hope to get there in another week or so.
The problem is they have made such a big deal of this arbitrary 100k a day figure, Hancock is going to get absolutely lambasted.
Will the media realise that the testing figures released on the 30th relate to testing processed the day before?
Just seen the Johnson speech footage. He looks and sounds well below par. I think he’s come back way too soon. That will be bad for him and, by extension, bad for us. He’s not going to have the stamina or concentration to do the job that needs doing.
No, this is what the virus does.
Then he should hand over to someone fit.
My concern for the past few weeks is that now, just when we need a government functioning at 100%, we have been missing a prime minister. 90% of the people on here thought I was being crazy - why on earth would we need a fully fit PM when we are going through one of the worst crises of our lifetimes, but I digress.
I was happy to see him back and am sure that his mental capacity remains as per the status quo ante (ie solipsistic shit, but fully functioning).
If it is not, then he should step down.
He may be functioning at 9.00am. He still needs to be at 9.00pm. He was visibly and audibly flagging by the end of that speech. It’s a worry for me.
Boris' role is to be a Reagan like frontman cheering up the nation and setting the direction, like Reagan he can leave implementing the detail to the Cabinet
The transformation of Unionists from 'I'm as proud a Scot as anyone', 'the Saltire is also our flag' & 'no one is saying Scotland couldn't be an independent country, but' to..er..whatever they are now is something to ponder upon.
'No one is saying the word Scotland doesn't refer to a region of the northern part of the UK that had a short, unimportant period as a barely independent nation.'
I can only repeat what I said. The key decisions here are not about health or about the economy or about personal liberty. They are about politics. And the calculus of political risk is IMO clear. It steers to keeping the lockdown largely in place for a while yet. I explained why this is the case. The government agrees with me.
Perhaps you are right and me and "Boris" are wrong. Perhaps there would be little public backlash if the UK ends up with a second wave and the worst Covid-19 death toll in Europe. Hopefully we will not get to test that hypothesis.
If you’re right - and I think you are - that this is a political decision, let’s stop having all this bollocks about “we’re just following the science”. Governments have never just followed the science before - even when we’ve had diseases quite as infectious or dangerous as this one.
The science plays an important part in the decision-making, maybe the most important part for now. But it is not the only factor. Here or in any other country.
I think your conclusion is right but you've undermined it in your first sentence unnecessarily.
That there are political considerations and political decisions does not mean the emphasis on following the science is 'bollocks'. Its not complete, as a decision based on scientific advice remains partly political or based on other factors depending on range of options is indeed not just following science. But that doesnt mean its bollocks.
But I am surprised and disappointed that you trivialise the emphasis as bollocks as though that decision to have that emphasis is meaningless. I think that's quite petty and mistaken particularly as you're hanging it all on a single word 'just' which is not even universally used when they talk about following the science.
The reasons the phrase (which is used repeatedly, to deflect questions on all conceivable subjects) is indeed 'bollocks' are twofold. First, as you rightly point out, as there is a large political element to any policy question, the are no >just< following the science. Second, and just as important, there is no single settled 'science' to follow on many of the pertinent issues. There is, perhaps, a consensus on the advisory group, but sometimes even this is controversial (and we are granted little information on how it was arrived at, or even who were the people involved).
But as I also noted, they are not rigorous in saying they are 'just' following the science, certainly not every time they say they follow the science do they inclued 'just', so while I do think they are indeed seeking to avoid some questions on decision making by presenting it as a settled and obvious question of science, which as you note is not always the case, I find it a stretch to call it bollocks by hanging it all on that word 'just'.
I think "bollocks" is not a million miles off but to chip in with a point the other way -
"These are complex decisions involving the inherently uncertain estimation of disease spread and medical outcomes, and the no less uncertain estimation of economic consequences, and in taking the decisions we seek to get the balance right, to the extent there is a balance, between health and the economy, and in doing so we take full account of the best advice from independent experts, particularly in the field of epidemiology."
This is no good in the era of Get Brexit Done. We Are Following The Science (with or without the "just") is more the mark. And it has the useful additional features of closing down debate and of providing political cover for what are highly political decisions.
NB: But never mind all this. Your cough! I hope it's just that. I bet it is.
The transformation of Unionists from 'I'm as proud a Scot as anyone', 'the Saltire is also our flag' & 'no one is saying Scotland couldn't be an independent country, but' to..er..whatever they are now is something to ponder upon.
'No one is saying the word Scotland doesn't refer to a region of the northern part of the UK that had a short, unimportant period as a barely independent nation.'
The more sensible point is whether or not there is "a border", there is no infrastructure between England and Scotland that would facilitate any sort of controls. Sturgeon believes, presumably, that it is worth creating some.
Just seen the Johnson speech footage. He looks and sounds well below par. I think he’s come back way too soon. That will be bad for him and, by extension, bad for us. He’s not going to have the stamina or concentration to do the job that needs doing.
No, this is what the virus does.
Then he should hand over to someone fit.
My concern for the past few weeks is that now, just when we need a government functioning at 100%, we have been missing a prime minister. 90% of the people on here thought I was being crazy - why on earth would we need a fully fit PM when we are going through one of the worst crises of our lifetimes, but I digress.
I was happy to see him back and am sure that his mental capacity remains as per the status quo ante (ie solipsistic shit, but fully functioning).
If it is not, then he should step down.
He may be functioning at 9.00am. He still needs to be at 9.00pm. He was visibly and audibly flagging by the end of that speech. It’s a worry for me.
Boris' role is to be a Reagan like frontman cheering up the nation and setting the direction, like Reagan he can leave implementing the detail to the Cabinet
Reagan's cabinet were competent.
Can you name any of them (without wiki)?
Casper W?
Al Haig, Jean(?) Kirkpatrick, James Baker, someone Regan. Slightly easier than it sounds because many also served under Bush and they became well-known here because of the Falklands and later the Gulf War.
So I looked at this link ready to post a line about never believing anything you read in newspaper headlines but I don't really see the problem with it?
They replaced "confidence" with the shorter word "trust", which I guess is a superset of confidence - ie it can mean "are you confident that I can do this" or "do you think I'm lying" - but in the context I think it's clear which one it is. Then they used "plummet" for a change from about +40 to +19, which I guess is a *little* bit over-dramatic but not drastically so.
Plummets from a healthy majority to a, er, healthy majority. I worry that if they use words like that to describe relatively minor shifts (given the trend), they are going to run out of superlatives to describe the real thing.
As the government claims that public confidence in the media has "collapsed" on even flimsier evidence I guess the media think the government is fair game.
The transformation of Unionists from 'I'm as proud a Scot as anyone', 'the Saltire is also our flag' & 'no one is saying Scotland couldn't be an independent country, but' to..er..whatever they are now is something to ponder upon.
'No one is saying the word Scotland doesn't refer to a region of the northern part of the UK that had a short, unimportant period as a barely independent nation.'
The more sensible point is whether or not there is "a border", there is no infrastructure between England and Scotland that would facilitate any sort of controls. Sturgeon believes, presumably, that it is worth creating some.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DavidMundellDCT/status/1254686110762053632?s=19
The pair went diving in Lyme Bay, sparking a massive search on Saturday after one of them went missing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-52440033
Just my daily exercise officer.
I'll have to crunch the full numbers later but I'm seeing 20% extra at most.
Did he consider that as PM he had a responsibility to try to ensure he didn't get the virus? I doubt that crossed his mind for an instant, even Trump managed to follow the guidelines and avoid it.
Result being he went MIA again at a critical time as he did for the last 2 weeks of Feb when he was sorting out his private life holed up at Chevening.
Boris does not take things seriously but we all knew that before he was elected.
HYUFD has posted some interesting stuff this morning though probably not for the reason he thinks. He appears to be in the same place as the Daily Mail - Boris is Back and we're Saved.
Surely the problem is that Boris rejoicing is needed because the rest of the Cabinet have proven themselves to be useless. Not only inept and incompetent but rabbit in the headlights visibly no idea what they are doing useless. I've found myself wondering if they are in the Gordon Brown's 2009 cabinet levels of shit (Bob Ainsworth) or just merely John Major 1994 levels of shit (Jeremy Hanley). And have concluded that its a combination of the worst of both.
Which is what appears people are doing in regards Piers Morgan.
First, as you rightly point out, as there is a large political element to any policy question, the are no >just< following the science.
Second, and just as important, there is no single settled 'science' to follow on many of the pertinent issues. There is, perhaps, a consensus on the advisory group, but sometimes even this is controversial (and we are granted little information on how it was arrived at, or even who were the people involved).
It's postal workers who may get the blame from some!
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1254735469688107015?s=20
iow, it’s a medical decision, not a delayed treatment?
We all live with viruses lying dormant in the body that make hay when our immune system has a low patch. I suspect that's what has happened to you.
It is very clearly a Flower Arranger's garden I have inherited, with a lot of interesting leaves and colours.
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1254722538338467840
But they should still be pressurised into making the best decisions from the available information, aka holding them to account.
When do COVID-19 SSEs happen? Based on the list I’ve assembled, the short answer is: Wherever and whenever people are up in each other’s faces, laughing, shouting, cheering, sobbing, singing, greeting, and praying. You don’t have to be a 19th-century German bacteriologist or MIT expert in mucosalivary ballistics to understand what this tells us about the most likely mode of transmission.
It’s worth scanning all the myriad forms of common human activity that aren’t represented among these listed SSEs: watching movies in a theater, being on a train or bus, attending theater, opera, or symphony (these latter activities may seem like rarified examples, but they are important once you take stock of all those wealthy infectees who got sick in March, and consider that New York City is a major COVID-19 hot spot). These are activities where people often find themselves surrounded by strangers in densely packed rooms—as with all those above-described SSEs—but, crucially, where attendees also are expected to sit still and talk in hushed tones.
The world’s untold thousands of white-collar cubicle farms don’t seem to be generating abundant COVID-19 SSEs—despite the uneven quality of ventilation one finds in global workplaces....
(He gives a few more examples in similar vein).
Some Tory MPs on the other hand.....
https://twitter.com/DanJohnsonNews/status/1254442072662323202?s=20
I meant that the politicians who are making important decisions should be able to justify those decisions. The way you do that is by asking hard questions. That is not casting blame
Seems very plausible. Could explain why few third world / Eastern European countries have it bad - no one returning from posh skiing holidays/do’s
They replaced "confidence" with the shorter word "trust", which I guess is a superset of confidence - ie it can mean "are you confident that I can do this" or "do you think I'm lying" - but in the context I think it's clear which one it is. Then they used "plummet" for a change from about +40 to +19, which I guess is a *little* bit over-dramatic but not drastically so.
https://twitter.com/tristangrayedi/status/1254707730096558080?s=19
It does seem his approach involves a large amount of selection bias, both intentional - ...I have chosen to exclude SSEs that center on hospitals and old-age homes, despite the fact that in many countries (including Canada, where I live), these comprise the main spawning ground for COVID-19. This is because the purpose of this exercise is to gain information about the relative effects of three broad modes of COVID-19 transmission—large droplets transmitted ballistically, persistent concentrations of tiny airborne droplets, and contaminated surfaces. In hospitals and old-age homes, all three of these mechanisms are almost invariably at play—as these tend to be shared spaces full of commonly touched surfaces and close interpersonal contact among residents and staff. And so such SSEs serve to inflate the size of the database without providing assistance in isolating variables. The same principle is true of COVID-19 transmission within households, which is why I have excluded intra-household clusters as well....
- and unintentional: how do you document, or even notice, that a crowded bus or tube train was a 'superspreader' event.
So interesting, and certainly adds evidence for one particular route of transmission. But doesn't rule out any of the other ones.
Great walks, mountain biking, birth place of Hugh Macdiarmid.
Visit Langholm.
That isn't to say ramming 100s of people in a hot sweaty room together shouting at one another, hugging, kissing, etc isn't a terrible idea when it comes to CV, but I think there is still a lot of unknowns and lot more to find out about what are the routes by which this thing spreads most efficiently.
https://twitter.com/philmackie/status/1254738460746952706?s=20
Here is one example from many:
"At every stage in this crisis, we have been guided by the scientific advice and have been making the right decisions at the right time"
RIshi Sunak daily briefing 20th April.
As opposed to, say, delaying a treatment on the grounds of it being too dangerous to administer in current circumstances or because resource has been exhausted by virus related matters.
Clearly everything is so volatile that it's almost pointless making such sweeping statements.
The longer this goes on, the more likely people will be unhappy, and there's a time coming soon when we catch up in the timeline with Spain and Italy, and may start to look a lot worse.
On the other hand, any loosening of the lockdown is likely to cause a boost, and when people start receiving payments from the govt. there could be another boost.
Too early to say where this will end up for the govt.
https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/1253781288735199232
That is, people with real problems, treatment booked, everything and everyone ready to go on the medical side. Patient not showing up....
Guessing that means the next mega-lab is about to open, and they have a heavy backlog of tests to feed through.
The problem is they have made such a big deal of this arbitrary 100k a day figure, Hancock is going to get absolutely lambasted.
'No one is saying the word Scotland doesn't refer to a region of the northern part of the UK that had a short, unimportant period as a barely independent nation.'
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1254722728504016896?s=19
You can hear from the Chief Scientist himself. Live-streamed naturally.
"These are complex decisions involving the inherently uncertain estimation of disease spread and medical outcomes, and the no less uncertain estimation of economic consequences, and in taking the decisions we seek to get the balance right, to the extent there is a balance, between health and the economy, and in doing so we take full account of the best advice from independent experts, particularly in the field of epidemiology."
This is no good in the era of Get Brexit Done. We Are Following The Science (with or without the "just") is more the mark. And it has the useful additional features of closing down debate and of providing political cover for what are highly political decisions.
NB: But never mind all this. Your cough! I hope it's just that. I bet it is.
On a clear day the views are sensational.
The more sensible point is whether or not there is "a border", there is no infrastructure between England and Scotland that would facilitate any sort of controls. Sturgeon believes, presumably, that it is worth creating some.
https://twitter.com/Jumbocords/status/1254684473268080641?s=20