Interesting exchange between Hancock and Ashworth in the HOC
Ashworth made a snide comment about a private sector company to which Hancock retorted we would have had no testing without them
And Hancock's response was to chide Ashworth that he thought labour had moved on from that a month ago and to be fair Ashworth laughed at the comment.
However, on the wider issue of the NHS and social care the idea 'public sector good, private sector bad' is over.
The only future for the NHS and social care is a public - private sector model where both are respected for their contributions to the future health of the nation
This is one of many changes that will come about due to covid
It is a point well made, though I would argue that the NHS has always, in reality, been a public-private partnership. Not only is there much usage of private facilities, the NHS would not be able to function at all without the services and products sold by private companies. Personally I believe that the NHS should simply be a public body that enables patients to be treated freely at the point of need. How it delivers that best, whether from private or public should not matter. Public sector trade unions and the BMA will not agree though. In reality they prioritise the wellbeing of their members well above the wellbeing of patients.
Thank you, and your last sentence demonstrates why it has to change
Problem is once you convert the NHS from an institution with a physical presence to merely an entitlement, it will be easy to chip away at that entitlement until it disappears. The Tories aren't stupid enough to do that in one go. They'd grandfather it so their elderly vote banks would keep turning out. It would start with incentives for the young, healthy and wealthy to opt out. Then it would atrophy until what was left was a crappy service for the poor plus some basic provision for the elderly. As long as the NHS is provision and not just entitlement, it's a lot harder to dismantle. Personally, if I trusted the Tories not to try to dismantle it I would be happy to experiment with a lot more mixed provision, there are probably efficiency and quality gains to be made, although not as many as a lot of people think.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
What we need to do is settle this argument using Archimedes principle. We immerse Boris completely, to calculate his volume, and from this can calculate his relative density and percentage of body fat.
Interesting exchange between Hancock and Ashworth in the HOC
Ashworth made a snide comment about a private sector company to which Hancock retorted we would have had no testing without them
And Hancock's response was to chide Ashworth that he thought labour had moved on from that a month ago and to be fair Ashworth laughed at the comment.
However, on the wider issue of the NHS and social care the idea 'public sector good, private sector bad' is over.
The only future for the NHS and social care is a public - private sector model where both are respected for their contributions to the future health of the nation
This is one of many changes that will come about due to covid
Indeed. Hopefully too after this people can start thinking about what other nations (like Germany) do well and what lessons we can learn rather than acting like it's a stark choice between purely public NHS or an American system.
Such an attitude would be welcome but the mother of all battles. Are Johnson and co up for it, with a stack of red wall seats at stake?
I don't see why it's an anti red wall situation?
Surely what matters most in the red wall is what works. If as Pioneers just wrote using the private sector smartly can bring better results that may annoy the Guardian but I don't think it will bother red wall voters.
On that I can agree with you in principle. They won't return to Labour because they are worried about the NHS. They will however, return because they realise Starmer is not Corbyn, and they will realise what they knew all along and that is that Boris Johnson is not only not one of them, he is a complete incompetent twat.
Yes indeedy. If Boris Johnson is revealed in the eyes of swing voters to be an incompetent twat he will take a pounding at the polls. And given these red wall types are (I hear) real shrewdies, that 'if' is surely more of a 'when'.
Why isnt there a secretary of state for test track and trace? One should have been appointed in April, it is that important.
Why is that? It's like manifestoes being stuffed with new departments and bodies on the assumption that creating a new role will improve matters by itself. And as important as that task is, why would elevation to a Cabinet level position for it specifically make a difference to, say, a minister of state level?
1. Hancock is overloaded with work and responsibility. Him being responsible makes no sense. The same is true of Health civil servants and junior ministers. 2. Whilst its an NHS app, the skills required probably dont sit particularly within the health department. 3. Getting the app out 2 weeks earlier and it being 30% more effective could save tens of billions of pounds and thousands of lives, so time and quality is unusually important. 4. Cross department co-ordination is important for test track and trace, it should be co-ordinated with schools, businesses, transport systems etc
Gove would have been an obvious choice to take responsibility for it, giving it to Hancock seems like a clear managerial mistake, given his existing responsibilities.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
Pass the parcel. All it takes is a couple of care workers in their twenties not to realise they have it or brush it off as a sniffle and a month down the line, it's out of control.
We are more concerned with what we can't see and can't control. You can see the stairs you are walking down, you can see the lightning in the sky, you can't see a virus. It makes it a turkey shoot rather than an avoidable risk.
Interesting exchange between Hancock and Ashworth in the HOC
Ashworth made a snide comment about a private sector company to which Hancock retorted we would have had no testing without them
And Hancock's response was to chide Ashworth that he thought labour had moved on from that a month ago and to be fair Ashworth laughed at the comment.
However, on the wider issue of the NHS and social care the idea 'public sector good, private sector bad' is over.
The only future for the NHS and social care is a public - private sector model where both are respected for their contributions to the future health of the nation
This is one of many changes that will come about due to covid
It is a point well made, though I would argue that the NHS has always, in reality, been a public-private partnership. Not only is there much usage of private facilities, the NHS would not be able to function at all without the services and products sold by private companies. Personally I believe that the NHS should simply be a public body that enables patients to be treated freely at the point of need. How it delivers that best, whether from private or public should not matter. Public sector trade unions and the BMA will not agree though. In reality they prioritise the wellbeing of their members well above the wellbeing of patients.
Thank you, and your last sentence demonstrates why it has to change
Problem is once you convert the NHS from an institution with a physical presence to merely an entitlement, it will be easy to chip away at that entitlement until it disappears. The Tories aren't stupid enough to do that in one go. They'd grandfather it so their elderly vote banks would keep turning out. It would start with incentives for the young, healthy and wealthy to opt out. Then it would atrophy until what was left was a crappy service for the poor plus some basic provision for the elderly. As long as the NHS is provision and not just entitlement, it's a lot harder to dismantle. Personally, if I trusted the Tories not to try to dismantle it I would be happy to experiment with a lot more mixed provision, there are probably efficiency and quality gains to be made, although not as many as a lot of people think.
I absolutely do not want a wholesale move to the private sector
It needs to become a shining example of a public - private partnership
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
Why isnt there a secretary of state for test track and trace? One should have been appointed in April, it is that important.
Why is that? It's like manifestoes being stuffed with new departments and bodies on the assumption that creating a new role will improve matters by itself. And as important as that task is, why would elevation to a Cabinet level position for it specifically make a difference to, say, a minister of state level?
1. Hancock is overloaded with work and responsibility. Him being responsible makes no sense. The same is true of Health civil servants and junior ministers. 2. Whilst its an NHS app, the skills required probably dont sit particularly within the health department. 3. Getting the app out 2 weeks earlier and it being 30% more effective could save tens of billions of pounds and thousands of lives, so time and quality is unusually important. 4. Cross department co-ordination is important for test track and trace, it should be co-ordinated with schools, businesses, transport systems etc
Gove would have been an obvious choice to take responsibility for it, giving it to Hancock seems like a clear managerial mistake, given his existing responsibilities.
None of the above, ahem, explains why the position requires secretary of state level status, just why someone should take responsibility for planning, implementation and coordination of that particular task separate to the day job of the health secretary, which is a separate point.
Moderna’s closely watched early-stage human trial for a coronavirus vaccine produced Covid-19 antibodies in all 45 participants. Each participant received a 25 microgram, 100 mcg or 250 mcg dose, with 15 people in each dose group. At day 43, or two weeks following the second dose, levels of binding antibodies in the 25 mcg group were at the levels generally seen in blood samples from people who recovered from the disease
Travel company shares are now soaring in London, on hopes that a vaccine breakthrough [Moderna] could, perhaps, help the global economy to emerge from the Covid-19 lockdown sooner than previously feared.
A bit premature, methinks!
All reports say that even if this is a home run, it will only be available for limited emergency use this year.
A limited emergency use would be better than nothing.
I would guess limited emergency use IN THE US. Unless they are willing to share early and have other people start the mass production of it.
Edit:
Moderna aims for a billion COVID-19 shots a year with Lonza manufacturing tie-up
• Technology transfer expected to begin in June 2020
• First batches of mRNA-1273 expected to be manufactured at Lonza U.S. in July 2020
If the Moderna vaccine is truly effective, that is excellent news, as it is probably the most easily scalable technology for mass production.
Interestingly it showed a dose dependent response (they tried both 25 and 100 mcg doses). Finers crossed for this one, too.
I don’t know anything at all about vaccine production, but instinctively I find it hard to countenance the idea that if a vaccine is found we won’t ramp up global production to such an intense degree we’d have it available well ahead of normal production timetables. Money is no object.
We are 'ramping things up' globally - but 'normal production timetables' for new vaccines are inordinately long. And scaling up biological manufacturing is not simple at all*.
The good things about the Moderna vaccine are that it requires a much smaller amount for each individual dose, and also that it can be produced in a 'cell free' process, so the steps required to produced the purified vaccine from what comes out of the bioreactor are much simpler. So it's a lot easier to make lots of it quickly.
It's a completely new technology, and there were fears that it wouldn't make as effective a vaccine. For now, there seems to be some ground to think that it might be effective.
*If you are going to dose billions of people, you can't just turn out any old crap; new production lines have to be fully regulated, and that takes time.
Where would you pitch the market, Nigel, as a spread (in months) for the time between today and a vaccine being generally available to the public?
As market-maker I would put up 15/18.
In what quantity ? If you mean for >everyone< , then I'd probably agree.
Yes, I meant for the creation of mass immunity.
My sense (and hope) is 12 months from now is not wildly optimistic. But no way less than 9 and a real risk of MUCH longer than 18. Could still be years or not at all.
Hence (risk adjusted) I offer 15/18 to my theoretical customers.
If there is never a vaccine, when do buyers get paid? Each month as we go along, or err never? (i.e have to wait for the vaccine before its settled)
Makes a huge difference to the price!!
You'd be able to close out at any point since I would keep the market live and tradeable.
Hence in 2 years (no vax), I'd be quoting say 42/47 and if you'd bought at 18 you could cash out for 24 x unit stake profit.
Sky has just faded out from Patel live in the HOC and it was a great relief to switch her off
Raab really is terrible at these press conferences, so dull and hard to listen to. And then I remember he is significantly better than several of his colleagues!
Reshuffle and promote some with more capability as soon we can please.
Why isnt there a secretary of state for test track and trace? One should have been appointed in April, it is that important.
Why is that? It's like manifestoes being stuffed with new departments and bodies on the assumption that creating a new role will improve matters by itself. And as important as that task is, why would elevation to a Cabinet level position for it specifically make a difference to, say, a minister of state level?
1. Hancock is overloaded with work and responsibility. Him being responsible makes no sense. The same is true of Health civil servants and junior ministers. 2. Whilst its an NHS app, the skills required probably dont sit particularly within the health department. 3. Getting the app out 2 weeks earlier and it being 30% more effective could save tens of billions of pounds and thousands of lives, so time and quality is unusually important. 4. Cross department co-ordination is important for test track and trace, it should be co-ordinated with schools, businesses, transport systems etc
Gove would have been an obvious choice to take responsibility for it, giving it to Hancock seems like a clear managerial mistake, given his existing responsibilities.
None of the above, ahem, explains why the position requires secretary of state level status, just why someone should take responsibility for planning, implementation and coordination of that particular task separate to the day job of the health secretary, which is a separate point.
Ok, its possible to a decentralised team with lots of junior people having significant responsibility which is recognised outside their department.
This government is not that. Very few people have influence outside of No 10. Without being a cabinet minister or on Cummings inner circle it is very doubtful any junior minister is given any real authority or input.
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
What are you talking about? This is what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time - wealthy nations are going to be on the hook for their poorer counterparts. If we were still in the EU we would now be liable for even more fiscal transfers than we already were liable for.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Sky has just faded out from Patel live in the HOC and it was a great relief to switch her off
Raab really is terrible at these press conferences, so dull and hard to listen to. And then I remember he is significantly better than several of his colleagues!
Reshuffle and promote some with more capability as soon we can please.
I know Scottish subs subsamples are as popular on PB as pineapple pizza, but the Redfield and Wilton one is interesting.
SNP 41 SLAB 32 SCON 17
Could make next years Holyrood elections interesting...
Just shows the state I'm in - when somebody posts "subsamples" on here I now immediately think it's about Covid infections. Took me a while here to realize you are talking about voting (!) for political parties.
I don't believe those figures (who does?) but they do make you wonder if there could be room in Scotland for a moderate left-of-centre party interested more in services than the constitution, post-Covid.
I think there may be a gap in the market developing, particularly given SCON no longer have Ruth Davidson who was able to appeal to that segment, a bit.
However, the big problem facing SLAB remains their leader. Truly awful.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
What we need to do is settle this argument using Archimedes principle. We immerse Boris completely, to calculate his volume, and from this can calculate his relative density and percentage of body fat.
What would be the optimum length of time for full immersion ?
Sky has just faded out from Patel live in the HOC and it was a great relief to switch her off
Raab really is terrible at these press conferences, so dull and hard to listen to. And then I remember he is significantly better than several of his colleagues!
Reshuffle and promote some with more capability as soon we can please.
I agree
OK. Who?
Hunt for one
They're not even glancing around, let alone hunting...
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
Hear hear.
My daughter, who is in management in the DWP, has never been so busy dealing with all facets of ensuring benefits are paid
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Well phrased.
That's why my opinion is if you want life to return to normal then halting deaths in volume is the only way to do so.
We are nearly there with deaths down over 80%, finishing the job will see people get back to work faster than any cajoling.
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Indeed. Although it ain't quite that snappy a slogan. You forgot the bit where if you work in a certain kind of enterprise you are utterly forbidden from going to work as it is far, far too dangerous.
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
What are you talking about? This is what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time - wealthy nations are going to be on the hook for their poorer counterparts. If we were still in the EU we would now be liable for even more fiscal transfers than we already were liable for.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Funny, the poster to whom I was referring assured me that there would be no coordinated EU rescue plan and the whole shebang would descend into plague, revolution and hair pulling. Maybe they aren't a proper 'Brexiteer'.
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates down. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
What are you talking about? This is what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time - wealthy nations are going to be on the hook for their poorer counterparts. If we were still in the EU we would now be liable for even more fiscal transfers than we already were liable for.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Funny, the poster to whom I was referring assured me that there would be no coordinated EU rescue plan and the whole shebang would descend into plague, revolution and hair pulling. Maybe they aren't a proper 'Brexiteer'.
I don't know to whom you refer and speak for myself not others. I'm not going to pull a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
As we were a creditor nation to the EU finances do you think we'd be better off being on the hook for sorting out not just our own country but Italy, Spain etc too?
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
Some years ago Jeremy Corbyn's brother had his offices in the same building as my company, in fact right in the next door rooms. He was a nutjob even then, selling weather long-term 'forecasts', arrived at using some method known only to him, to gullible companies such as retailers. I got to know him reasonably well, and, shall we say, was not impressed. He seems to have got a lot nuttier still since.
Who was the guy in long range weather forecasting, who was a bit odd, but actually delivered? Beat some of the big players? Trying to remember the name...
Whoever it was could they conjure up something better than we're getting at the moment? It's been gloomy, misty and (soon) rainy with temps barely scraping 13 degrees C. Apparently down south it's ten degrees higher and sunny.
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
I agree with the broad thrust of the header, but I think this might be more of an opportunity for Johnson than a threat.
If he can take the initial failings on the chin, he can still bounce back by fixing the problem of public confidence. I think this might be the making of him as PM.
The messaging isn't a problem here, because it doesn't have to be complex: we want to show the virus who is boss, and take back control of the situation. This requires decisive action, not laissez-faire neglect or capitulation to some kind of "managed infection" strategy. No, we're going to need to roll out the big guns: those empty NHS field hospitals are going to become quarantine centres. If the public is afraid of encountering infectious people on the streets, then let's take the infectious people off the streets. Far better to quarantine the sick than to quarantine everyone else, after all!
This puts "the economy" and "public health" on the same side, against the common enemy: the virus. And, slightly regrettably, its unfortunate hosts, who will have to make the heroic sacrifice of staying in a hotel or conference centre for a couple of weeks each. Again, though, cheaper to (over-)compensate them for their lost time and income than to keep everyone on furlough for another couple of months, and easier to deal with their mental health issues and childcare challenges than those of millions under lockdown.
The danger is that the test, trace and isolate programme simply fails and too many sick people slip through the net. Random testing will be required at major public gathering points, including transport hubs, office buildings, schools. It's a genuine test of Britain's capacity to get its act together in the face of a crisis. Cabinet ministers will need to take accountability, and may need to be sacked promptly if they can't get the job done.
Johnson will have to do something genuinely Churchillian: demand sacrifice, at least from those who will be quarantined. But he's in a good place to do it, because their sacrifice is likely to be less than that which he's already endured himself. And, if he can coordinate a successful national response to the coronavirus, he might win a lot more faith in his ability to navigate that other national crisis heading down the tracks...
Do we have any idea who these people are? When I look at their twitter account they have 17 followers and looks like only set up in April. Are they a rebrand on an existing polling company?
To be honest I see no reason to doubt the figures
The government and Boris are not going to find 'getting back to normal' easy
There are just too many comfortable with lockdown, shielded by furlough, and just plain scared to mix and go back to work
It could be a shock for some people if later this year a vaccine becomes available, and the coronavirus epidemic suddenly ends. There would no longer be any health requirement for working from home. Employers would ask people to return to the office. Many will still be scared, but with COVID at an end they would try to find some other justification for not going to the office. I do not think that working from home will survive for most people in a post-COVID world in the long run.
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
What are you talking about? This is what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time - wealthy nations are going to be on the hook for their poorer counterparts. If we were still in the EU we would now be liable for even more fiscal transfers than we already were liable for.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Funny, the poster to whom I was referring assured me that there would be no coordinated EU rescue plan and the whole shebang would descend into plague, revolution and hair pulling. Maybe they aren't a proper 'Brexiteer'.
I don't know to whom you refer and speak for myself not others. I'm not going to pull a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
As we were a creditor nation to the EU finances do you think we'd be better off being on the hook for sorting out not just our own country but Italy, Spain etc too?
You were the one that lumbered in with 'what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time' which sounds suspiciously like not speaking for yourself. Ok, let's not mess about, absolutely nothing like speaking for yourself.
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
Hear hear.
All I can say is that, if there really are vast numbers of people twiddling their thumbs -
a) They are twiddling their thumbs because bits of the economy and society they normally deal with are shut down. I 'm pretty sure people who inspect restaurant premises are having a quiet time.
or
b) Shortly they will get a shock, when thing return to some kind of normality and discover that their organisations have worked out they are superfluous.
My guess is far more (a) than (b). Hopefully the managers will be able to detect the differences between (a) and (b).
Sky has just faded out from Patel live in the HOC and it was a great relief to switch her off
Raab really is terrible at these press conferences, so dull and hard to listen to. And then I remember he is significantly better than several of his colleagues!
Reshuffle and promote some with more capability as soon we can please.
I agree
OK. Who?
Hunt for one
Hunt, Ellwood, Greg Clark would be a big improvement, and there must be plenty of the new intake the public arent aware of yet with more about than this lot.
Do we have any idea who these people are? When I look at their twitter account they have 17 followers and looks like only set up in April. Are they a rebrand on an existing polling company?
To be honest I see no reason to doubt the figures
The government and Boris are not going to find 'getting back to normal' easy
There are just too many comfortable with lockdown, shielded by furlough, and just plain scared to mix and go back to work
It could be a shock for some people if later this year a vaccine becomes available, and the coronavirus epidemic suddenly ends. There would no longer be any health requirement for working from home. Employers would ask people to return to the office. Many will still be scared, but with COVID at an end they would try to find some other justification for not going to the office. I do not think that working from home will survive for most people in a post-COVID world in the long run.
All four of my adult family in the UK are WFH and it looks as if it is going to continue into the future as far as they are concerned. 2 are in the public sector and two in the private sector
After repeated predictions of Eurodoom from a certain poster who is always right about everything, is it time for another face saving Dr Who style regeneration?
What are you talking about? This is what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time - wealthy nations are going to be on the hook for their poorer counterparts. If we were still in the EU we would now be liable for even more fiscal transfers than we already were liable for.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Funny, the poster to whom I was referring assured me that there would be no coordinated EU rescue plan and the whole shebang would descend into plague, revolution and hair pulling. Maybe they aren't a proper 'Brexiteer'.
I don't know to whom you refer and speak for myself not others. I'm not going to pull a "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
As we were a creditor nation to the EU finances do you think we'd be better off being on the hook for sorting out not just our own country but Italy, Spain etc too?
You were the one that lumbered in with 'what Brexiteers have been warning about for a long time' which sounds suspiciously like not speaking for yourself. Ok, let's not mess about, absolutely nothing like speaking for yourself.
I never said "all" did I? Obviously there will be exceptions but the UK being on the hook for other nations expenditure has been a major issue for nearly 40 years.
Again isn't it a good thing we aren't on the hook now for more Spanish, Italian etc expenditure than we always would have been previously?
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
The Tory lead is still a little bigger than it was on election day, after a fortnight of media hammering and everything going pear-shaped (including, apparently, Boris himself!).
Now just imagine that we emerge gradually from lockdown, the world doesn't end, and all that testing and contact tracing comes fully online ... will the lead expand, or contract?
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Neither. He strikes me as a chubby middle aged man and I well believe he's seventeen stone.
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
Hear hear.
All I can say is that, if there really are vast numbers of people twiddling their thumbs -
a) They are twiddling their thumbs because bits of the economy and society they normally deal with are shut down. I 'm pretty sure people who inspect restaurant premises are having a quiet time.
or
b) Shortly they will get a shock, when thing return to some kind of normality and discover that their organisations have worked out they are superfluous.
My guess is far more (a) than (b). Hopefully the managers will be able to detect the differences between (a) and (b).
Well, that sort of sums it up, if the best you can come up with is "people who inpect restaurant premises" (who I imagine will be incredibly busy when we do reopen). The vast majority of public sector workers (local authority, civil service, teaching, NHS being the largest employers) are still working, and many are working as hard, if not harder, as ever. They deserve recognition, along with, of course, private sector workers such as those in supermarkets who are keeping the wheels running.
The Tory lead is still a little bigger than it was on election day, after a fortnight of media hammering and everything going pear-shaped (including, apparently, Boris himself!).
Now just imagine that we emerge gradually from lockdown, the world doesn't end, and all that testing and contact tracing comes fully online ... will the lead expand, or contract?
No Brexit deal and the economy in the gutter.
And its still tears for Keirs.
Labour a minor interest regional party - like the 1990s Lib Dems.
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Arguably the most effective message would actually be "Sorry, we would really like to wait for a vaccine, but we're broke and we can't afford for half of you to sit on your arses for years. So bye bye furlough, hello back-to-work." Which is what the Italian Prime Minister stood up and said, in so many words, the other day.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Pshaw. If Mr. Craig works really, really hard in the gym, he may one day aspire to approach the raw muscularity of Boris' Atlantean physique.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
What we need to do is settle this argument using Archimedes principle. We immerse Boris completely, to calculate his volume, and from this can calculate his relative density and percentage of body fat.
How long for (to be sure of accurate measurement)? And is that poor taste?
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
I spent my whole career in a supposedly super-tough (and certainly well remunerated) part of the private sector and I witnessed a great deal of skiving, ineffectual faffing about, and some quite astonishing inefficiencies. Indeed I was responsible for much of it.
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
Hear hear.
All I can say is that, if there really are vast numbers of people twiddling their thumbs -
a) They are twiddling their thumbs because bits of the economy and society they normally deal with are shut down. I 'm pretty sure people who inspect restaurant premises are having a quiet time.
or
b) Shortly they will get a shock, when thing return to some kind of normality and discover that their organisations have worked out they are superfluous.
My guess is far more (a) than (b). Hopefully the managers will be able to detect the differences between (a) and (b).
Well, that sort of sums it up, if the best you can come up with is "people who inpect restaurant premises" (who I imagine will be incredibly busy when we do reopen). The vast majority of public sector workers (local authority, civil service, teaching, NHS being the largest employers) are still working, and many are working as hard, if not harder, as ever. They deserve recognition, along with, of course, private sector workers such as those in supermarkets who are keeping the wheels running.
I am actually (or was trying to) pour scorn on the suggestion that large numbers of people are swing the lead.
The restaurant inspectors are low on work because the restaurants are shut by government fiat. Not because they fancy a blanket month or 2.
In fact this nonsense seems to have started when I pointed out that 68% of the workforce are at work (See YouGov). To which some suggested that some of those are not-WFH.
As predicted here on PB a week or two ago by several of us.
"Assuming the alternative app is the one commissioned for £3.8m from Zulke based on the Apple-Google decentralised approach, this consequence was foreseeable."
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
Hear hear.
All I can say is that, if there really are vast numbers of people twiddling their thumbs -
a) They are twiddling their thumbs because bits of the economy and society they normally deal with are shut down. I 'm pretty sure people who inspect restaurant premises are having a quiet time.
or
b) Shortly they will get a shock, when thing return to some kind of normality and discover that their organisations have worked out they are superfluous.
My guess is far more (a) than (b). Hopefully the managers will be able to detect the differences between (a) and (b).
Well, that sort of sums it up, if the best you can come up with is "people who inpect restaurant premises" (who I imagine will be incredibly busy when we do reopen). The vast majority of public sector workers (local authority, civil service, teaching, NHS being the largest employers) are still working, and many are working as hard, if not harder, as ever. They deserve recognition, along with, of course, private sector workers such as those in supermarkets who are keeping the wheels running.
I am actually (or was trying to) pour scorn on the suggestion that large numbers of people are swing the lead.
The restaurant inspectors are low on work because the restaurants are shut by government fiat. Not because they fancy a blanket month or 2.
In fact this nonsense seems to have started when I pointed out that 68% of the workforce are at work (See YouGov). To which some suggested that some of those are not-WFH.
Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment; it was rather ambiguous.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Pshaw. If Mr. Craig works really, really hard in the gym, he may one day aspire to approach the raw muscularity of Boris' Atlantean physique.
Yes yes - very amusing - but you're derailing what was a serious effort of inquiry.
And I see Philip has chosen to deflect and obscure rather than participate too.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Some years ago Jeremy Corbyn's brother had his offices in the same building as my company, in fact right in the next door rooms. He was a nutjob even then, selling weather long-term 'forecasts', arrived at using some method known only to him, to gullible companies such as retailers. I got to know him reasonably well, and, shall we say, was not impressed. He seems to have got a lot nuttier still since.
Who was the guy in long range weather forecasting, who was a bit odd, but actually delivered? Beat some of the big players? Trying to remember the name...
Whoever it was could they conjure up something better than we're getting at the moment? It's been gloomy, misty and (soon) rainy with temps barely scraping 13 degrees C. Apparently down south it's ten degrees higher and sunny.
Yes, it’s absolutely glorious here. Often is when it’s grim up north!
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Arguably the most effective message would actually be "Sorry, we would really like to wait for a vaccine, but we're broke and we can't afford for half of you to sit on your arses for years. So bye bye furlough, hello back-to-work." Which is what the Italian Prime Minister stood up and said, in so many words, the other day.
Sunak has closed that route off until the Autumn.
I would suggest that beginning the return to work with the furlough (and other) scheme running is a good choice.
It means that employers are not scrabbling to restart NOW, to avoid their businesses going under, right now. Though, of course, the existing financial help hasn't completely frozen things.
So they can, possibly, take a more measured approach and phase people back in.
So, hopefully, loads on various parts of the social and economic system will increase gradually, rather than lurch up to X% overnight. And, again hopefully, getting the social distancing and employee protection right.
The incentive to get employees back, is of course, is doing more than just barely surviving as a business.
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
Are we at 3.25 yet?
There's one word to describe your response: completely unnecessary.
Footballers have not had a good crisis. They seem to be very concerned about the risks of going back to work on their six figure weekly wages, but have no problem with the risks of meeting non household members. Exhibit 570: Callum Hudson-Odoi
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
Are we at 3.25 yet?
There's one word to describe your response: completely unnecessary.
Ha! Government gaming their own alert statuses isn't a good look.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
BBC showing patients being told to expect at least 5 days for covid test results.
That makes testing pointless, if someone is contagious for a week and takes a couple of days to arrange a test they find out just after they stop being contagious?
Interesting to see Van Tam on the briefing confirm that the reasons for different lockdown regimes in Scotland and Wales is politics not guiding science.
Its a no win situation, howver I would say that people are getting very used to Furlough or getting 100% pay "working from home" for a Local Authority and have no desire to return to work, especially as the weather is nice.
I often agree with you but putting WFH in inverted commas is a bit silly, to be honest. I think companies have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that WFH is a good model that, erm, works.
There are lots of people working from home and it works great and I am sure that is the future for many people, but in the currently working stats there will be many getting 100% pay who are either not working or only working in a limited way. As an example I am friends with an electrical engineer for a Local Authority. He is working from home, but is only allowed to log in to their server once a week and currently has nothing to do.
My neighbour works for the council and has been working from home. On full salary of course. She reckons she does two hours per week and thinks it`s a hoot.
My daughter and I both work for (different) companies that supply news, data and information the financial markets
Neither of us has ever been busier.
Private sector v public sector?
Go on then, I’ll bite.
I work for a local authority, involved with senior staff and councillors.
We’ve all been working from home and been very busy. Online meetings have proved very successful. A lot of admin staff have been very busy in ensuring the upper reaches of the authority have continued to function. Some folk are putting in very long hours. There’s been a lot of work to do to keep essential services running, shutting down and now re-opening others. It has been an exhilarating few months.
Of course there are staff lower down the food chain - traffic wardens, dinner ladies, etc - that can’t do their normal jobs. Many of these have been volunteering to do food deliveries for vulnerable people, and other stuff.
I’m trying to make the point that many staff can do their work perfectly well from home. Not all can, I admit. But it is a bit unfair to paint all public sector staff as bone idle layabouts on the basis of anecdotes. The work to keep everything running in the face of all the disruption has been impressive. Can we keep ideology out of this?
Spot on. I find it depressing on here how many sneer at local authority/council workers, and the public sector in general. Most are working hard, either at home or in manual work. As well as those mentioned above, either directly, or indirectly if subcontracted, council staff and other public sector workers are emptying the bins, dealing with housing issues, sweeping the streets, tending to the parks, running the local crematorium, dealing with universal credit applications and so on.
I spent my whole career in a supposedly super-tough (and certainly well remunerated) part of the private sector and I witnessed a great deal of skiving, ineffectual faffing about, and some quite astonishing inefficiencies. Indeed I was responsible for much of it.
A good header from Alastair. Although I would disagree with him on his final point. I don't think even the PM can persuade people to go back to work under the current circumstances and certainly not with the current message.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Arguably the most effective message would actually be "Sorry, we would really like to wait for a vaccine, but we're broke and we can't afford for half of you to sit on your arses for years. So bye bye furlough, hello back-to-work." Which is what the Italian Prime Minister stood up and said, in so many words, the other day.
Sunak has closed that route off until the Autumn.
This would be very unpopular, if the polling is anything to go by. I'm just baffled by the defeatism of it, though. We seem to be caught between two defeatist factions: "the virus is so hard to contain that we're just going to have to tough it out, and if some people die then so be it" and "the virus is so hard to contain that nobody can be allowed out until there's a vaccine" (and we can expect to hear a lot more about the dangers of unproven vaccines, when the time comes).
The winning move has to be to take it on and win. Money is no object, because the cost of doing nothing is astronomical. Previously unthinkable policies - quarantines, travel restrictions - are now well within the Overton window. The entire story of the Johnson-Cummings project is that Britain and its government can be world-beaters if we just put our minds to it. This is the perfect opportunity to show it.
Northern Ireland coming out of lockdown more than the rest of the UK with gathering of six people, angling, drive through church services and cinemas, recycling and garden centres, golf and tennis to restart
Northern Ireland coming out of lockdown more than the rest of the UK with gathering of six people, angling, drive through church services and cinemas, recycling and garden centres, golf and tennis to restart
What we need to do is settle this argument using Archimedes principle. We immerse Boris completely, to calculate his volume, and from this can calculate his relative density and percentage of body fat.
Northern Ireland coming out of lockdown more than the rest of the UK with gathering of six people, angling, drive through church services and cinemas, recycling and garden centres, golf and tennis to restart
Fantastic,
If different parts parts of the Uk try different things then we are more likely to find out what works and then have the confidence to impliment it everywhere.
My prediction, no measurable increase in hospitalisation, ICU or death, as the people most lickly to go to cinema and so on will be a self-selection of the most healthy young, and some who have recovered from the virus.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
Is this EuroZone or EU wide, With the UK out it may sound like semantics. But I suspect that Sweden may not be keen to pay for a Lock-down that they did not get involved with.
Question for those who understand these things: How would you mutualize a Euro-bond obligation across countries that don't share the Euro? It would seem a huge currency exposure risk for those with a national currency. Or am I on the wrong track?
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Pshaw. If Mr. Craig works really, really hard in the gym, he may one day aspire to approach the raw muscularity of Boris' Atlantean physique.
Yes yes - very amusing - but you're derailing what was a serious effort of inquiry.
And I see Philip has chosen to deflect and obscure rather than participate too.
A shame.
If you really want me to participate then I would say Daniel Craig.
Daniel Craig is actually human while Mr Creosote is a cartoonish absurd character. But its only because you've made that forced choice - I'd also estimate Mr Creosote as over 30 stone not 17.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Neither. He strikes me as a chubby middle aged man and I well believe he's seventeen stone.
He's (or was) seventeen stone plus, definitely. I know, I was there a couple of years ago. I'm the same age, the same height, I don't have unruly blonde hair and I didn't go to Eton.
In any case, I managed to lose four stone in less than a year but a couple of injuries curtailed exercise and, without changing diet, went back up over two stone. Now starting to take that off again but it'll take a while.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the vitamin D question? It's been rumbling away, mostly in the background it seems, for quite a long time - it was one of the motivating factors when I decided to buy multivitamins for our household weeks ago - but the whole topic of the potential role of vitamin D deficiency in Covid-19 mortality has never come front and centre, which surprises me.
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
These are the Government Risk levels for Covid-19. "Stay Alert" is an appropriate message for Risk level 2. It's not an appropriate message for Level 4, where we are now, or Level 3 where we are getting to, where the protection needs to be more explicit.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Neither. He strikes me as a chubby middle aged man and I well believe he's seventeen stone.
He's (or was) seventeen stone plus, definitely. I know, I was there a couple of years ago. I'm the same age, the same height, I don't have unruly blonde hair and I didn't go to Eton.
In any case, I managed to lose four stone in less than a year but a couple of injuries curtailed exercise and, without changing diet, went back up over two stone. Now starting to take that off again but it'll take a while.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the vitamin D question? It's been rumbling away, mostly in the background it seems, for quite a long time - it was one of the motivating factors when I decided to buy multivitamins for our household weeks ago - but the whole topic of the potential role of vitamin D deficiency in Covid-19 mortality has never come front and centre, which surprises me.
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
Or, and I don't know whether this is factually correct, that, amongst those charged with the COVID patient care tasks that put healthcare workers most at risk, BAME groups constitute a higher percentage than their representation in the NHS as a whole
* not all patient care roles are equal in COVID-exposure risks
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
Also means the Treasury is on the hook.
We're not in the EU.
There aren't budget contributions during the transition?
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
Also means the Treasury is on the hook.
Why? Aren't our transition payments already agreed for this year and we'll be out of transition by next year.
Of course if we were foolhardy enough to extend then we'd be liable.
I wonder what the results would be if you inform people how much money has already been spent on the project and which would be wasted in the event of cancellation.
Sunk cost fallacy. Is the extra cash we'll need to spend on it NOW worth the pay off ?
I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the vitamin D question? It's been rumbling away, mostly in the background it seems, for quite a long time - it was one of the motivating factors when I decided to buy multivitamins for our household weeks ago - but the whole topic of the potential role of vitamin D deficiency in Covid-19 mortality has never come front and centre, which surprises me.
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
There is a long and distinguished history of bollocks being promulgated about vitamins. Up to and including people like Linus Pauling. So I would need scientific evidence before taking it seriously.
I'm just wondering if anyone has any opinions on the vitamin D question? It's been rumbling away, mostly in the background it seems, for quite a long time - it was one of the motivating factors when I decided to buy multivitamins for our household weeks ago - but the whole topic of the potential role of vitamin D deficiency in Covid-19 mortality has never come front and centre, which surprises me.
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
No views on the question - evidence needed - but along with lots of people I have little doubt that Vitamin D is a valuable supplement if living in Northern England/Scotland during the winter as part of maintaining overall physical and mental health.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
Also means the Treasury is on the hook.
Why? Aren't our transition payments already agreed for this year and we'll be out of transition by next year.
Of course if we were foolhardy enough to extend then we'd be liable.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
"Eurozone"-bonds have been proposed by the French and Germans on a number of occasions, but have always been vetoed by either Finland or the Netherlands.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
This is different. It's not an intergovernmental Eurozone instrument, but at the EU level.
AS I understand it the credit underlying this debt is the 27 including those not in the euro and EU budget contributions.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
Investors will gobble it up if it materialises because at the root of it all will be Germany.
The number in the last week is staggering. How are they still getting new cases? You thought these places would be locked down tighter than fort knox by now.
How many visitors daily from staff members, nurses, NHS staff etc do you think they're getting?
An asymptomatic NHS district nurse could unfortunately seed an outbreak in multiple homes, it only takes one carrier to get in to start it off.
Yes indeed - yet they stop me - clean as a whistle from seven weeks in isolation - from seeing my own dear mother.
Because your visit isn't necessary but the nurses is. Tragically.
And it goes the other way. If you asymptomatically bring it in you risk infecting not just your own mother but everyone else's relatives in the home, and the staff, and a nurse who can then take it to another home.
This is why the only way to stop the care home outbreaks is to stop all community transmission. Completely.
Otherwise just write off the care homes as a price worth paying for lifting lockdown prematurely. I'm not prepared to do that when it looks like we have a viable safer alternative.
What if the residents of the care home would rather die than live their current existence. No visitors, only seeing staff bring meals wearing masks, as my mother currently experiences. We are farming old folk, completely prioritisng quantity of life over quality.
My mother is appalled that other residents are being denied seeing their own loved ones to protect herself (my mother). She`s never asked for this protection, has never sought it and disagrees with it.
And does she speak for every resident? And all their children? And all grandchildren?
I don't think we can or should lockdown for long but I think we have already squished this over 80% and just a couple more weeks would make containment a viable strategy. At which point you should be able to see your mother.
I think you`ve got to the nub of it. I don`t think that containment is possible because it`s endemic. You think it is. If you are wrong, lockdown will have cost this country so much in terms of the economy and particularly in terms of liberty. And the longer it goes on the more damage it will do - and the more difficult it will be to get out of. I`m surprised that you, a libertarian, aren`t standing up for liberty like you usually do.
Indeed there was a very good libertarian reason to do what Sweden did. But we are where we are.
I think lifting prematurely while people don't want it lifting only to see people stay at home will do far more damage to the economy. Businesses that open up will see costs go up and if there's no customers to pay those bills they will go bust.
I think eradicating this (at least to containable levels) will do less damage not more, from where we are. We've done most of the work.
If you make some good quality outdoor woodwork you don't go to all the effort of building it only to not bother to put the varnish on. For me a little bit now is the varnish, it will keep what's been done and ensure we can get back to a real normal sooner. Which is what we need, we need a real return to normal not a fake one.
Let`s hope that the government effectively communicates the good work to date.
The reduction in daily deaths as reported by NHS England from 890 peak to under 200 now (a 80% reduction in 5 weeks!) is a great news story that isn`t known to many people. My ultra-cautious family members don`t believe me when I tell them that deaths have fallen dramatically.
It doesn't help that people want to make the situation appear as bad as humanly possible to either sell a story or make the government appear bad. Nothing will say how much deaths have come down quite like being able to say "no deaths" which we are surprisingly fast approaching in some regions now.
Usual caveats about lag in data on weekend etc but today's data from Scotland was 2 deaths. Not 2 dozen, but 2.
I feel like we are about 21 miles into a marathon. We are at "the wall" stage of the marathon, should we give up now or get to the finishing line?
And at the same time putting the final touches to some high end woodwork?
Talk about (!) your British exceptionalism.
You mean you don't do carpentry while running? 🏃
- no I don't.
I think the only person remotely capable of that would be our man Boris "Muscles" Johnson.
You still saying that despite me showing I never said what you thought I'd said?
All joggers and cyclists have more muscles than someone who never leaves their couch. Doesn't mean they can't also be fat and it doesn't mean they're fit.
A fat active cyclist of a certain height and volume will ceteris paribus weigh more than a fat couch potato of the same height and volume. Do you disagree?
Given the @Foxy "immersion" suggestion is practically difficult for us to do, I suggest we proceed as follows -
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig. (ii) Mr Creosote.
Pshaw. If Mr. Craig works really, really hard in the gym, he may one day aspire to approach the raw muscularity of Boris' Atlantean physique.
Yes yes - very amusing - but you're derailing what was a serious effort of inquiry.
And I see Philip has chosen to deflect and obscure rather than participate too.
A shame.
If you really want me to participate then I would say Daniel Craig.
Daniel Craig is actually human while Mr Creosote is a cartoonish absurd character. But its only because you've made that forced choice - I'd also estimate Mr Creosote as over 30 stone not 17.
OK excellent. So in this context - and only this context - he looks a little bit like Daniel Craig to you.
Comments
2. Whilst its an NHS app, the skills required probably dont sit particularly within the health department.
3. Getting the app out 2 weeks earlier and it being 30% more effective could save tens of billions of pounds and thousands of lives, so time and quality is unusually important.
4. Cross department co-ordination is important for test track and trace, it should be co-ordinated with schools, businesses, transport systems etc
Gove would have been an obvious choice to take responsibility for it, giving it to Hancock seems like a clear managerial mistake, given his existing responsibilities.
We are more concerned with what we can't see and can't control. You can see the stairs you are walking down, you can see the lightning in the sky, you can't see a virus. It makes it a turkey shoot rather than an avoidable risk.
It needs to become a shining example of a public - private partnership
Hence in 2 years (no vax), I'd be quoting say 42/47 and if you'd bought at 18 you could cash out for 24 x unit stake profit.
This government is not that. Very few people have influence outside of No 10. Without being a cabinet minister or on Cummings inner circle it is very doubtful any junior minister is given any real authority or input.
As I said to William: "Thank f**k we're out"
This announcement is bad news driven from desperation. It's not good news.
Oh.
That current message is, as far as I can tell;
This virus is still very dangerous and can still kill you or your loved ones if you pass it along to them. Therefore the best thing to do would be to stay at home in Lockdown. If you are fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then do so. That is the safest place to be. If you are not fortunate enough to have a job that lets you do this then... well tough. You will have to take your chances. And if too many of you catch it and die then we will accept this was a dumb idea and go back to lockdown.
Please step forward guinea pigs.
I am not convinced that even dear old Boris with his wining smile and Churchillian determination can sell that message.
Staying the same as summer kicks in or are certain sections being hit to a higher % ?
That's why my opinion is if you want life to return to normal then halting deaths in volume is the only way to do so.
We are nearly there with deaths down over 80%, finishing the job will see people get back to work faster than any cajoling.
Bottom line, governments need to get the infection and death rates down. They have made progress, but the rates are I think about 8 times higher than Germany and about 4 times higher than Italy or France. They also need to get contact tracing and quarantine in place. There's a way to go yet
As we were a creditor nation to the EU finances do you think we'd be better off being on the hook for sorting out not just our own country but Italy, Spain etc too?
If he can take the initial failings on the chin, he can still bounce back by fixing the problem of public confidence. I think this might be the making of him as PM.
The messaging isn't a problem here, because it doesn't have to be complex: we want to show the virus who is boss, and take back control of the situation. This requires decisive action, not laissez-faire neglect or capitulation to some kind of "managed infection" strategy. No, we're going to need to roll out the big guns: those empty NHS field hospitals are going to become quarantine centres. If the public is afraid of encountering infectious people on the streets, then let's take the infectious people off the streets. Far better to quarantine the sick than to quarantine everyone else, after all!
This puts "the economy" and "public health" on the same side, against the common enemy: the virus. And, slightly regrettably, its unfortunate hosts, who will have to make the heroic sacrifice of staying in a hotel or conference centre for a couple of weeks each. Again, though, cheaper to (over-)compensate them for their lost time and income than to keep everyone on furlough for another couple of months, and easier to deal with their mental health issues and childcare challenges than those of millions under lockdown.
The danger is that the test, trace and isolate programme simply fails and too many sick people slip through the net. Random testing will be required at major public gathering points, including transport hubs, office buildings, schools. It's a genuine test of Britain's capacity to get its act together in the face of a crisis. Cabinet ministers will need to take accountability, and may need to be sacked promptly if they can't get the job done.
Johnson will have to do something genuinely Churchillian: demand sacrifice, at least from those who will be quarantined. But he's in a good place to do it, because their sacrifice is likely to be less than that which he's already endured himself. And, if he can coordinate a successful national response to the coronavirus, he might win a lot more faith in his ability to navigate that other national crisis heading down the tracks...
a) They are twiddling their thumbs because bits of the economy and society they normally deal with are shut down. I 'm pretty sure people who inspect restaurant premises are having a quiet time.
or
b) Shortly they will get a shock, when thing return to some kind of normality and discover that their organisations have worked out they are superfluous.
My guess is far more (a) than (b). Hopefully the managers will be able to detect the differences between (a) and (b).
Again isn't it a good thing we aren't on the hook now for more Spanish, Italian etc expenditure than we always would have been previously?
To tease out your genuine opinion of the Johnson physique (as opposed to me joshing you about it) we need to home in from 2 obviously incorrect extremes. It's a great technique that I use a lot. Set up the 2 extremes (e.g. Daniel Craig and Mr Creosote), then you say which one of these BoJo is closest to.
We then retain that extreme (say it's Creosote) and bring in a new but less extreme extreme to replace Craig, e.g. Richard Burgon. And we now ask you which of these 2 - Creosote or Burgon - BoJo is closest to.
Etc Etc until we get a precise match for him.
OK? Ready? So here we go. First question for you - and it's mandatory. You just need to answer it plainly and simply. No tricks here on either side.
Who IYO does Boris Johnson most resemble in physique -
(i) Daniel Craig.
(ii) Mr Creosote.
Now just imagine that we emerge gradually from lockdown, the world doesn't end, and all that testing and contact tracing comes fully online ... will the lead expand, or contract?
And its still tears for Keirs.
Labour a minor interest regional party - like the 1990s Lib Dems.
Sunak has closed that route off until the Autumn.
The restaurant inspectors are low on work because the restaurants are shut by government fiat. Not because they fancy a blanket month or 2.
In fact this nonsense seems to have started when I pointed out that 68% of the workforce are at work (See YouGov). To which some suggested that some of those are not-WFH.
"Assuming the alternative app is the one commissioned for £3.8m from Zulke based on the Apple-Google decentralised approach, this consequence was foreseeable."
https://lockdownsceptics.org
Anybody other than me not heard of them?
And I see Philip has chosen to deflect and obscure rather than participate too.
A shame.
At the last Eurozone meeting, it was the Dutch who stood up and said "Nein". (Or whatever the Dutch for "no" is.)
It's possible that the Dutch (and Finns, who seemed rather relieved last time around that the Dutch got all the flack) have changed their mind. But it is far from certain.
It means that employers are not scrabbling to restart NOW, to avoid their businesses going under, right now. Though, of course, the existing financial help hasn't completely frozen things.
So they can, possibly, take a more measured approach and phase people back in.
So, hopefully, loads on various parts of the social and economic system will increase gradually, rather than lurch up to X% overnight. And, again hopefully, getting the social distancing and employee protection right.
The incentive to get employees back, is of course, is doing more than just barely surviving as a business.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52704448
That makes testing pointless, if someone is contagious for a week and takes a couple of days to arrange a test they find out just after they stop being contagious?
How can this count as a successful test?
The winning move has to be to take it on and win. Money is no object, because the cost of doing nothing is astronomical. Previously unthinkable policies - quarantines, travel restrictions - are now well within the Overton window. The entire story of the Johnson-Cummings project is that Britain and its government can be world-beaters if we just put our minds to it. This is the perfect opportunity to show it.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1262377996784205824?s=20
Good work.
https://youtu.be/uk2YZfnsOPg
If different parts parts of the Uk try different things then we are more likely to find out what works and then have the confidence to impliment it everywhere.
My prediction, no measurable increase in hospitalisation, ICU or death, as the people most lickly to go to cinema and so on will be a self-selection of the most healthy young, and some who have recovered from the virus.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1262282377872752640?s=19
https://twitter.com/henrikenderlein/status/1262425872419741701
Daniel Craig is actually human while Mr Creosote is a cartoonish absurd character. But its only because you've made that forced choice - I'd also estimate Mr Creosote as over 30 stone not 17.
In any case, I managed to lose four stone in less than a year but a couple of injuries curtailed exercise and, without changing diet, went back up over two stone. Now starting to take that off again but it'll take a while.
The big 'tell' to me is shirts and suit jackets.
No True Tankie.....
We have clear evidence that the disease carries off most BAME groups at a higher rate than white people. Those same stats also show, IIRC, that those of black heritage are even more vulnerable than people of South Asian descent - broadly speaking, the darker the skin, the greater the likelihood of death. We also know that this effect is so marked that, whilst socio-economic factors may or may not be part of the explanation, they can't be the whole story.
Thus, we're left with a series of other possible explanations for these disparities: for example, that the NHS is institutionally racist, that Caucasians are genetically predisposed to be better at fending off this disease, that ethnic minority groups are particularly prone to obesity, or that BAME people are more likely to be immunocompromised due to low levels of vitamin D. Is it just possible that the last explanation is the big one and it's been staring us in the face from the outset?
And that's to say nothing of the possible role of vitamin D deficiency in groups that may not be getting out and getting enough sunshine: some older and disabled people, especially in care settings, and those who have been told to shield...
* not all patient care roles are equal in COVID-exposure risks
Of course if we were foolhardy enough to extend then we'd be liable.
A lot of fine print to be written and poured over by investors there, I think.
I will revert with the next step in due course.
Groups of dickheads on two wheels a particular problem.