So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
"Apparently, staging a hasty photo op outside a church he doesn’t attend, holding up a Bible that isn’t his, while his administration throws tear gas at protesters he doesn’t like, doesn’t endear Trump to evangelicals like he thought it would." "In March, nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing, PRRI found. But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord, Mr. Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals had fallen 15 percentage points to 62 percent, according to a PRRI poll released Thursday. That is consistent with declines that other surveys have picked up recently. Among white Catholics, the same poll also found that his approval has fallen by 27 points since March." https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/06/05/donald-trump-is-finally-losing-support-among-white-evangelicals-and-catholics/
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
A quarantine policy at this point, especially one with one real enforcement plan is bizarre. It runs completely counter to the rest of the "get back to normal for the summer" plan.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Don't be a twit, surely even you realise that people don't put statues up to celebrate people's role in the slave trade. You may have a case to make, but you aren't going to make it by sounding like a not very bright fifth former.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Off topic, but what exactly is the point of registering as an independent?
In some states I believe party affiliation is part of voter registration (scary thought to me) in order to manage primaries - so you essentially have to register as a Democrat, Republican, independent or a fringe party.
P-Squared is obviously laying the framework of an "At Least I Did Something" defence for the inevitable inquiries (there is definitely going to be more than one).
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
Was the science split on travel quarantine at that point? My general take was that the boffins had pretty much caught up with what was going on in the world by late March, and any subsequent terribleness required proactive uselessness at ministerial level.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
Was the science split on travel quarantine at that point? My general take was that the boffins had pretty much caught up with what was going on in the world by late March, and any subsequent terribleness required proactive uselessness at ministerial level.
Yes. The scientific guidance that has been released still shows they thought quarantine was pointless.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Lot of bollox in there, you seem to just make things suit your own thinking rather than reality. Guy you like slaver but good, guy you don't like , slaver and bad bad man
Not sure this is wise. Guernsey has been very clear that there are no KNOWN cases - not that there are “none”. Reasons twofold - won’t inhibit symptomatic people from coming forward and won’t spark panic / over reaction when (almost inevitably) new cases emerge.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
I think it depends on the questions asked.
If government asked scientists should we recommend mask use they might get a different answer ("possibly, evidence is weak but likely no harm and psssible benefits") compared to is there evidence for masks being effective ("no, not really" - at least early on in this pandemic). Scientists tend to be quite precise in questions and may assume people asking are also quite precise.
As for frequentist and bayesian approaches, I'm a frequentist (mostly) epidemiologist. The evidence on masks is still conflicting, but given the clear logical underpinning of how masks could protect others I'd have advocated using them on public transport, in shops etc due to limited harms. I'm not sure there are good epidemiological studies on parachute use either, controllingffor things like age and terrain and certainly a lack of rcts, but I'd recommend putting one on before jumping out of a plane.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
Was the science split on travel quarantine at that point? My general take was that the boffins had pretty much caught up with what was going on in the world by late March, and any subsequent terribleness required proactive uselessness at ministerial level.
I haven’t seen any evidence that SAGE has moved on from “quarantine not worth the effort”.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Afterwards if we get our incidences down to zero then anywhere in the world that doesn't implement quarantines arguably.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
I absolutely object to the smashing up of Marx's grave.
What about the Saddam and Lenin statues?
I wasn't in favour of toppling Saddam at all, so by extension I must be against toppling his statue.
I am not aware of what happened to Lenin's statue.
Lots of them went down in Ukraine a few years ago.
Given the change in circumstances in Ukraine (pro-Russian leader ousted), I highly doubt smashing Lenin statues was illegal, or at least considered illegal. I have no sympathy for Lenin as a political figure (or a human being for that matter), but I don't condone vandalism.
Whether you agree with the quarantine today or not, Kay Burley on Sky actively suggesting people should lie on the forms and ignore them. It is only a £100 fine
Is this where journalism has finally lost all responsibility
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Afterwards if we get our incidences down to zero then anywhere in the world that doesn't implement quarantines arguably.
Yes - the stories at the weekend that government intends quickly to exempt travel to the rest of the EU suggests that we are really trying to control people coming from the Americas without upsetting them (i.e. Trump) directly by giving them a mention.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
Whether you agree with the quarantine today or not, Kay Burley on Sky actively suggesting people should lie on the forms and ignore them. It is only a £100 fine
Is this where journalism has finally lost all responsibility
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Lot of bollox in there, you seem to just make things suit your own thinking rather than reality. Guy you like slaver but good, guy you don't like , slaver and bad bad man
The point isn't whether I like someone or not. FWIW I don't particularly "like" Churchill or Washington. But I don't think they should have their statues taken down. A statue is never just honouring a person, it is honouring their deeds or ideas or what they represent. What does Colston's statue honour? His role in the slave trade and the money he made from it. Nothing else. If he hadn't been a wealthy slaver, there would be no statue. What does Churchill's statue honour? His role as war leader, and indirectly all those who sacrificed and fought in WW2. His unpleasant opinions on many things (including working class people in this country) are incidental to the existence of the statue. I don't think we can retrospectively apply our own moral code to people in the past. But I equally think that statues that honour something as morally repugnant as slavery simply have no place and should be removed. To keep it up is an insult to the descendants of slaves who had to walk past it every day, including the Mayor of Bristol who said as much on R4 this morning.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
Win-win.
Absolutely
I know that politics works like that, but not sure that the justice system can deal like that.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Both of which have banned arrivals from Britain for some time.
So what’s the justification for quarantine for arrivals from New Zealand?
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
Win-win.
Absolutely
I know that politics works like that, but not sure that the justice system can deal like that.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Both of which have banned arrivals from Britain for some time.
So what’s the justification for quarantine for arrivals from New Zealand?
Because its what New Zealand themselves are doing and its working.
Afterwards we can maybe look at exempting New Zealand but first priority should be copying what they're doing.
Whether you agree with the quarantine today or not, Kay Burley on Sky actively suggesting people should lie on the forms and ignore them. It is only a £100 fine
£10,000 in Guernsey. Man in court last week fined £6,000.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Both of which have banned arrivals from Britain for some time.
So what’s the justification for quarantine for arrivals from New Zealand?
Canada requires all passengers on all flights to quarantine for 14 days including from NZ. The ban has been extended until the 21st June
On topic, the claim this all rests on is that the polling is a mess. Otherwise the things Mr Ed mentions should be showing up already.
But national polling in the US is pretty good, and it was good in 2016 too. State polling is always a mess, don't pay too much attention to it, just assume the bigger your lead, the higher the probability that you'll win the electoral college, and if you're ahead by like 4% nationally, you're going to win the electoral college unless something exceedingly weird happens.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
You can copy and prepare for paste “Minister really struggling“. That’ll be in frequent use until 2024.
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
If there were, they would have been sacked by now for daring to overshadow Dominic Cummings.
Heck, they even sacked Javid on that basis and while he wasn't a total disaster like Mogg he wasn't exactly a Denis Healey either.
Would Javid have done as good a job as Sunak has during this crisis?
I have no idea, is the truthful answer. Quite possibly not. But the point is, whether he would have done or not, that's not why he was sacked. It's because Cummings couldn't deal with the fact that Javid was more intelligent than him and dared to question his authority.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
Labour are shit.
Not sure what your point is. I most certainly don't support Labour.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
And yet we still have Hancock insisting pathetically - even with the benefit of hindsight, and with some of the members of SAGE now saying 'I wish we'd acted earlier' - that "we made all the right decisions at the right time".
If politicians can't even acknowledge their mistakes, there is no hope for them. And no forgiveness.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Even if there were direct flights (and I know it's an insane example as we are talking New Zealand) but are transfer passengers subjected to quarantine before catching their next flight..
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Even if there were direct flights (and I know it's an insane example as we are talking New Zealand) but are transfer passengers subjected to quarantine before catching their next flight..
I think it probably depends on where they transfer.
But whether they are or not, that's a further possible point of infection.
They should be told to piss off, when they start handing over US criminals for trial we can do the same. One way traffic with these arses, they protect their crooks and refuse to have any justice whatsoever, time UK got a backbone and told them to jog on.
I still think the solution is we hand over Prince Andrew and they return that woman who killed Harry Dunn.
Win-win.
Absolutely
I know that politics works like that, but not sure that the justice system can deal like that.
It can't.
When you start doing that you undermine the system.
The same principle as paying ransoms to kidnappers.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
You can copy and prepare for paste “Minister really struggling“. That’ll be in frequent use until 2024.
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
Sunak appears to display a modicum of competence. That is going to get more difficult for his as time goes on, but at least he acted promptly and (temporarily or not) effectively.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
And yet we still have Hancock insisting pathetically - even with the benefit of hindsight, and with some of the members of SAGE now saying 'I wish we'd acted earlier' - that "we made all the right decisions at the right time".
If politicians can't even acknowledge their mistakes, there is no hope for them. And no forgiveness.
Except Hancock isn't saying that.
Hancock is saying that they've followed the science. He's acknowledged mistakes have been made, but said that his priority is what to do now to tackle the problem not to review the past.
If you're going to attack someone for what they've said, at least get it right.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
TBF I think that's a bit too late to have guided the British response, since you need at least a week to see a result of any give intervention.
On that basis U.K. could have introduced travel quarantine late March, rather than early June.
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
There are two peaks of medical effectiveness for quarantine and we're reaching the second peak of it.
Which countries with higher COVID-19 incidence will this protect the U.K. from?
Off the top of my head immediately probably: USA, Brazil etc
Both of which have banned arrivals from Britain for some time.
So what’s the justification for quarantine for arrivals from New Zealand?
Because its what New Zealand themselves are doing and its working..
New Zealand’s border is still closed to almost all arrivals - we’re not remotely doing what New Zealand are doing and we’re only doing in June half of what New Zealand did in March when they initially had quarantine. In March New Zealand quarantine was mandatory in a government managed hotel. Then they stopped all non resident arrivals and quarantine still applied to the few remaining arrivals.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
So the Guardian are equally going to go after Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner for breaking lockdown rules as well
Kinnock didn't break lockdown rules. HDC thought he might have done, but that was on incomplete knowledge. Just as on one of the three occasions he was accused of breaking lockdown, Jenrick wasn't.
Duffield and Gardiner should both be coughing up.
However, again a reminder that Cummings broke quarantine, not just lockdown.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
Labour are shit.
Not sure what your point is. I most certainly don't support Labour.
Merely pointing out that when places are said to be suffering 'tyranny' or 'oppression' they also seem to have been under the political control of left wing parties for decades.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
You can copy and prepare for paste “Minister really struggling“. That’ll be in frequent use until 2024.
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
....he wasn't exactly a Denis Healey either.
What's that rhyming slang for ? I don't recognise it.
I was thinking of Denis Healey as one of the most powerful, capable and significant Chancellors of the last fifty years. The other options I considered were Lawson, Brown and Clarke but I decided Healey was probably ahead of them.
And no, that's not to say everything on his record was rosy. But that's true of every Chancellor since 1970 except Iain Macleod, who died after just a month in office so it would be rather difficult to draw conclusions.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
So the Guardian are equally going to go after Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner for breaking lockdown rules as well
Kinnock didn't break lockdown rules. HDC thought he might have done, but that was on incomplete knowledge. Just as on one of the three occasions he was accused of breaking lockdown, Jenrick wasn't.
Duffield and Gardiner should both be coughing up.
However, again a reminder that Cummings broke quarantine, not just lockdown.
And, as I've posted before, Duffield at least put her hand up. Don't know about Gardiner.
Cummings, with Johnson's encouragement simp[y put two fingers up. And not in the Churchillian form, either.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
Listening to the Mayor of Bristol interview with Sky was interesting - he's just a middle aged student politician.
All the soundbites .... "inequality is increasing" (no it isn't), "they don't feel represented" (we have 10% of BAME MPs in Parliament, compare with EU Parliament), "deaths in custody are increasing" (no they aren't) and so on.
'Do you support enforcing the law'?, circumlocution, circumlocution, circumlocution...
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
I am not sure what any of that means but I can make a guess.
When it comes to the next round of local government elections and mayoral elections the key measurement won't be, how well did the council cope during the riots? but were my bins emptied on time?
The Westminster government will be measured by how well the country coped during the protests, along with their Covid response, their economic management, law and order, the NHs, education, and so on.
So:
Local government/ mayor= bins Westminster government= everything else
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
You can copy and prepare for paste “Minister really struggling“. That’ll be in frequent use until 2024.
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
Sunak appears to display a modicum of competence. That is going to get more difficult for his as time goes on, but at least he acted promptly and (temporarily or not) effectively.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
So the Guardian are equally going to go after Duffield, Kinnock and Gardiner for breaking lockdown rules as well
Kinnock didn't break lockdown rules. HDC thought he might have done, but that was on incomplete knowledge. Just as on one of the three occasions he was accused of breaking lockdown, Jenrick wasn't.
Duffield and Gardiner should both be coughing up.
However, again a reminder that Cummings broke quarantine, not just lockdown.
And, as I've posted before, Duffield at least put her hand up. Don't know about Gardiner.
Cummings, with Johnson's encouragement simp[y put two fingers up. And not in the Churchillian form, either.
I am not excusing Cummings or Boris who has lost my support over his refusal to sack him
But Duffield and Gardiner were equally against the regulations and should be treated as such
However, it is becoming very tedious.
We have many more issues than carrying on vendettas
Listening to the Mayor of Bristol interview with Sky was interesting - he's just a middle aged student politician.
All the soundbites .... "inequality is increasing" (no it isn't), "they don't feel represented" (we have 10% of BAME MPs in Parliament, compare with EU Parliament), "deaths in custody are increasing" (no they aren't) and so on.
'Do you support enforcing the law'?, circumlocution, circumlocution, circumlocution...
I wonder if BAME people in Bristol feel more or less represented this morning having watched a mostly white mob tearing down a statue they had previously said should be kept to remind people of Bristol's slaving origins, claiming it was done in their name.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Still missing the point that the mob selecting an ok target this time doesnt make endorsing mob responses ok.
So far the only excuse given for the action is that they were finding it frustrating to do it legally and officially.
Well so bloody what? It wasnt easy so give up and commit crimes? That might work on some issues but not when the issue was the placement of a statue.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
I don't think isolating the people in the transition airport is the issue, it's the fact they start in country a, fly to b and then spend x hours flying from b to c (London say). And it's the x hours spent next to other people while flying that is the issue here.
"They were taught and brought up there, The laws to abide. And that the country they lived in Had God on its side. "
"He's taught in his school From the start by the rule That the laws are with him To protect his white skin To keep up his hate So he never thinks straight 'Bout the shape that he's in But it ain't him to blame He's only a pawn in their game"
If the FCO does not change it advice warning against “non essential” travel the vast majority of travel insurance policies won’t be valid - so people taking summer holidays will be travelling without insurance.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
I am not sure what any of that means but I can make a guess.
When it comes to the next round of local government elections and mayoral elections the key measurement won't be, how well did the council cope during the riots? but were my bins emptied on time?
The Westminster government will be measured by how well the country coped during the protests, along with their Covid response, their economic management, law and order, the NHs, education, and so on.
So:
Local government/ mayor= bins Westminster government= everything else
As people in local government will tell you they get a lot of blowback based on assessment of Westminster. It wont be purely about whether bins are emptied on times. It's why PCCs were a dumb idea since they wont be judged entirely on their own actions but national party position.
Listening to the Mayor of Bristol interview with Sky was interesting - he's just a middle aged student politician.
All the soundbites .... "inequality is increasing" (no it isn't), "they don't feel represented" (we have 10% of BAME MPs in Parliament, compare with EU Parliament), "deaths in custody are increasing" (no they aren't) and so on.
'Do you support enforcing the law'?, circumlocution, circumlocution, circumlocution...
In today's media world, perception of issues is probably more important than reality - and if the police and home office isn't spending time changing that perception it's going to be a hard battle to win.
As for Bristol itself the mayor has the interesting issue of how do you complain about criminal damage when the removal of the statue was probably a blessing. And it's a shame as the expression and face of the statue is actually very good
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
You can copy and prepare for paste “Minister really struggling“. That’ll be in frequent use until 2024.
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
....he wasn't exactly a Denis Healey either.
What's that rhyming slang for ? I don't recognise it.
I was thinking of Denis Healey as one of the most powerful, capable and significant Chancellors of the last fifty years. The other options I considered were Lawson, Brown and Clarke but I decided Healey was probably ahead of them.
And no, that's not to say everything on his record was rosy. But that's true of every Chancellor since 1970 except Iain Macleod, who died after just a month in office so it would be rather difficult to draw conclusions.
I'd agree with that (though I'd be tempted to put Clarke at the top).
But we need more rhyming slang, nonetheless. Hurd and Hunt just aren't sufficient.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
I am not sure what any of that means but I can make a guess.
When it comes to the next round of local government elections and mayoral elections the key measurement won't be, how well did the council cope during the riots? but were my bins emptied on time?
The Westminster government will be measured by how well the country coped during the protests, along with their Covid response, their economic management, law and order, the NHs, education, and so on.
So:
Local government/ mayor= bins Westminster government= everything else
As people in local government will tell you they get a lot of blowback based on assessment of Westminster. It wont be purely about whether bins are emptied on times. It's why PCCs were a dumb idea since they wont be judged entirely on their own actions but national party position.
The problem with PCCs is that most parties saw them as a political job rather than a policing job.
Durham has a good policy force because it's PCC was a former police officer. Labour will win the next PCC election here because their candidate knows (and works) for the police force, the Tories will pick a dodgy candidate who doesn't understand how the police work).
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
I am not sure what any of that means but I can make a guess.
When it comes to the next round of local government elections and mayoral elections the key measurement won't be, how well did the council cope during the riots? but were my bins emptied on time?
The Westminster government will be measured by how well the country coped during the protests, along with their Covid response, their economic management, law and order, the NHs, education, and so on.
So:
Local government/ mayor= bins Westminster government= everything else
As people in local government will tell you they get a lot of blowback based on assessment of Westminster. It wont be purely about whether bins are emptied on times. It's why PCCs were a dumb idea since they wont be judged entirely on their own actions but national party position.
That is true, but I am assuming the earlier comment was hinting that the Colston statue issue would reflect on local government rather than national government.
If the FCO does not change it advice warning against “non essential” travel the vast majority of travel insurance policies won’t be valid - so people taking summer holidays will be travelling without insurance.
That's their choice they make if they decide to go against advice.
OTOH if the FCO does not change its advice warning against "non essential" travel then those who have purchased summer holidays in advance will be able to cancel them under their insurance because of that advice.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
It's largely quarantine theatre, anyway. There seems to be no system at all for checking whether it's complied with.
I was unimpressed that border force employees are still being instructed NOT to wear masks, a week before they will be instructed to wear them. A small matter, perhaps, but another indication of the lack of though behind government policy.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
I don't think isolating the people in the transition airport is the issue, it's the fact they start in country a, fly to b and then spend x hours flying from b to c (London say). And it's the x hours spent next to other people while flying that is the issue here.
If they’re all flying from a country with no known COVID cases and don’t meet anyone enroute what’s the problem?
In any case with the UK’s COVID rate no one with a low rate is going to be opening their border to us.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Not at all. Sad losers who *have a vote* think this is the important story now are pathetic.
FTFY, as they say.
The number of people who will vote based on Cummings differently in 2024 than they did in 2019 will be approximately zero.
Those still harping on about him are those who already hated him. The rest have moved on already.
FANTASTIC!!! Someone who knows how each and every individual in the UK will vote!
Please can you make sure that in future elections your predictions spreadsheet is available and up to date.
TIA.
I don't know how everyone will vote, but it was an educated prediction (which is what this site is about) and furthermore I used the word approximately - I take it you know what the word approximately means?
A deadly pandemic, a collapsing economy, failing Brexit trade talks, a severe drought, an escalating culture war ... what a time to have a bone idle, lying, charlatan, his psychopathic, unaccountable “adviser” and a cabinet of third-rate incompetents in charge of things.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
I don't think isolating the people in the transition airport is the issue, it's the fact they start in country a, fly to b and then spend x hours flying from b to c (London say). And it's the x hours spent next to other people while flying that is the issue here.
If they’re all flying from a country with no known COVID cases and don’t meet anyone enroute what’s the problem?
In any case with the UK’s COVID rate no one with a low rate is going to be opening their border to us.
The problem is we're trying to prevent the virus getting back into the country after we eliminate it.
Minister really struggling on R4 to explain why we are quarantining people coming from New Zealand...
Have NZ lifted their travel restrictions
Even if they hadn't, surely there are no direct flights from the UK to New Zealand so the point is moot?
Depends. Some transit airports (eg Changi) are isolating transit passengers so they can neither infect nor get infected. Others, like Doha are not, which is why Greece banned inbound flights from Doha last week after several passengers tested positive.
It's largely quarantine theatre, anyway. There seems to be no system at all for checking whether it's complied with.
I was unimpressed that border force employees are still being instructed NOT to wear masks, a week before they will be instructed to wear them. A small matter, perhaps, but another indication of the lack of though behind government policy.
Agree - it’s theatre, late and ineffective, very little to do with science and a lot to do with appearance.
It is a magisterial piece and seems to me the answer to Mr Ed's delightfully provocative thread header. The attraction of Trump in 2016 was that he was the most anti-establishment candidate I can recall being elected, completely outside the Washington consensus and attractive to a country frankly disgusted with its political class.
The reality has been different. The corruption of principles, ethical standards, institutions and common decency combined with rank incompetence has been remarkable. There was an opportunity for Washington to show that it was not as bad as the voters of 2016 thought. Instead we have riots, lawlessness and chaos. The failure of the Democrats to find anyone who could properly articulate fundamental values is deeply depressing. I fear for the US, I really do.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Not at all. Sad losers who *have a vote* think this is the important story now are pathetic.
FTFY, as they say.
The number of people who will vote based on Cummings differently in 2024 than they did in 2019 will be approximately zero.
Those still harping on about him are those who already hated him. The rest have moved on already.
FANTASTIC!!! Someone who knows how each and every individual in the UK will vote!
Please can you make sure that in future elections your predictions spreadsheet is available and up to date.
TIA.
Your sarcasm ignores the fact that its most likely correct that voters will forget. Not all.. the visceral.left will remember but who gives a toss about them.
This will be a disappointment for those Cummings apologists who claim we have "moved on" from the story of his outrageous hypocrisy and Johnson's weak acquiescence .
Not at all. Sad losers who *have a vote* think this is the important story now are pathetic.
FTFY, as they say.
The number of people who will vote based on Cummings differently in 2024 than they did in 2019 will be approximately zero.
Those still harping on about him are those who already hated him. The rest have moved on already.
FANTASTIC!!! Someone who knows how each and every individual in the UK will vote!
Please can you make sure that in future elections your predictions spreadsheet is available and up to date.
TIA.
I don't know how everyone will vote, but it was an educated prediction (which is what this site is about) and furthermore I used the word approximately - I take it you know what the word approximately means?
So give it a half a dozen either way. That is (66,650,000 - 6) still a fantastic level of accuracy. Can't wait for that spreadsheet.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
If a minority thinks they have no power and are ignored by the majority then no, there is no difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Bristol Council = Labour Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
Labour are shit.
Not sure what your point is. I most certainly don't support Labour.
Merely pointing out that when places are said to be suffering 'tyranny' or 'oppression' they also seem to have been under the political control of left wing parties for decades.
Not a coincidence. The left wing parties aren't liberal.
Comments
"In March, nearly 80 percent of white evangelicals said they approved of the job Mr. Trump was doing, PRRI found. But by the end of May, with the country convulsed by racial discord, Mr. Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals had fallen 15 percentage points to 62 percent, according to a PRRI poll released Thursday. That is consistent with declines that other surveys have picked up recently. Among white Catholics, the same poll also found that his approval has fallen by 27 points since March."
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/06/05/donald-trump-is-finally-losing-support-among-white-evangelicals-and-catholics/
I suspect what happened was the science was split (or stuck in their Flu pandemic mindset) and Patel was overruled in Cabinet by Shapps led opposition.
So we now have the worst of all possible worlds - introducing quarantine after its passed its peak of medical effectiveness as it reaches maximum potential for economic damage.
Priti gone rogue again, I think.
Love that "arguably."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/07/immunological-dark-matter-does-it-exist-coronavirus-population-immunity
the US Department of Justice has dramatically upped the stakes.
It has by-passed Buckingham Palace - instead filing a “mutual legal assistance” (MLA) request to the Home Office.
MLA requests are only used in criminal cases under a legal treaty with the UK.
It means Andrew, who “categorically denies” any wrongdoing, could now be forced to appear in a UK court as a witness within months.
The move also piles pressure on the Duke to give evidence - and on the UK Government to assist.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11805488/prince-andrew-quizzed-over-jeffrey-epstein-links/amp/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-zealand-coronavirus-free-jacinda-ardern-a4462176.html
If government asked scientists should we recommend mask use they might get a different answer ("possibly, evidence is weak but likely no harm and psssible benefits") compared to is there evidence for masks being effective ("no, not really" - at least early on in this pandemic). Scientists tend to be quite precise in questions and may assume people asking are also quite precise.
As for frequentist and bayesian approaches, I'm a frequentist (mostly) epidemiologist. The evidence on masks is still conflicting, but given the clear logical underpinning of how masks could protect others I'd have advocated using them on public transport, in shops etc due to limited harms. I'm not sure there are good epidemiological studies on parachute use either, controllingffor things like age and terrain and certainly a lack of rcts, but I'd recommend putting one on before jumping out of a plane.
Standing up to "tyranny of the majority" is a key element of civil disorder through the ages in democratic states.
Afterwards if we get our incidences down to zero then anywhere in the world that doesn't implement quarantines arguably.
Is this where journalism has finally lost all responsibility
Win-win.
A statue is never just honouring a person, it is honouring their deeds or ideas or what they represent. What does Colston's statue honour? His role in the slave trade and the money he made from it. Nothing else. If he hadn't been a wealthy slaver, there would be no statue.
What does Churchill's statue honour? His role as war leader, and indirectly all those who sacrificed and fought in WW2. His unpleasant opinions on many things (including working class people in this country) are incidental to the existence of the statue.
I don't think we can retrospectively apply our own moral code to people in the past. But I equally think that statues that honour something as morally repugnant as slavery simply have no place and should be removed. To keep it up is an insult to the descendants of slaves who had to walk past it every day, including the Mayor of Bristol who said as much on R4 this morning.
So what’s the justification for quarantine for arrivals from New Zealand?
Are there *any* competent ministers in the Johnson government? I’ve not spotted any yet.
Afterwards we can maybe look at exempting New Zealand but first priority should be copying what they're doing.
Heck, they even sacked Javid on that basis and while he wasn't a total disaster like Mogg he wasn't exactly a Denis Healey either.
Like a toddler old saying "Why" for the seventh time in a row past the point of asking the question.
But national polling in the US is pretty good, and it was good in 2016 too. State polling is always a mess, don't pay too much attention to it, just assume the bigger your lead, the higher the probability that you'll win the electoral college, and if you're ahead by like 4% nationally, you're going to win the electoral college unless something exceedingly weird happens.
Bristol Mayor = Labour
Bit like Minneapolis.
Not sure what your point is. I most certainly don't support Labour.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/dominic-cummings-could-face-private-prosecution-for-breaking-lockdown-rules/ar-BB15atuA?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds
If politicians can't even acknowledge their mistakes, there is no hope for them. And no forgiveness.
But whether they are or not, that's a further possible point of infection.
I have travelled both through Hong Kong and Singapore to NZ as well as LA and San Francisco.
Kiwis coming here will probably have flown through US so could not get here anyway
When you start doing that you undermine the system.
The same principle as paying ransoms to kidnappers.
That is going to get more difficult for his as time goes on, but at least he acted promptly and (temporarily or not) effectively.
Hancock is saying that they've followed the science. He's acknowledged mistakes have been made, but said that his priority is what to do now to tackle the problem not to review the past.
If you're going to attack someone for what they've said, at least get it right.
I don't recognise it.
Duffield and Gardiner should both be coughing up.
However, again a reminder that Cummings broke quarantine, not just lockdown.
And no, that's not to say everything on his record was rosy. But that's true of every Chancellor since 1970 except Iain Macleod, who died after just a month in office so it would be rather difficult to draw conclusions.
Germany, Norway and Iceland are the only exceptions from 15th June
Cummings, with Johnson's encouragement simp[y put two fingers up. And not in the Churchillian form, either.
All the soundbites .... "inequality is increasing" (no it isn't), "they don't feel represented" (we have 10% of BAME MPs in Parliament, compare with EU Parliament), "deaths in custody are increasing" (no they aren't) and so on.
'Do you support enforcing the law'?, circumlocution, circumlocution, circumlocution...
When it comes to the next round of local government elections and mayoral elections the key measurement won't be, how well did the council cope during the riots? but were my bins emptied on time?
The Westminster government will be measured by how well the country coped during the protests, along with their Covid response, their economic management, law and order, the NHs, education, and so on.
So:
Local government/ mayor= bins
Westminster government= everything else
But Duffield and Gardiner were equally against the regulations and should be treated as such
However, it is becoming very tedious.
We have many more issues than carrying on vendettas
Just a thought.
Anyway, I have teaching to do. Later.
So far the only excuse given for the action is that they were finding it frustrating to do it legally and officially.
Well so bloody what? It wasnt easy so give up and commit crimes? That might work on some issues but not when the issue was the placement of a statue.
As for Bristol itself the mayor has the interesting issue of how do you complain about criminal damage when the removal of the statue was probably a blessing. And it's a shame as the expression and face of the statue is actually very good
Those still harping on about him are those who already hated him. The rest have moved on already.
But we need more rhyming slang, nonetheless. Hurd and Hunt just aren't sufficient.
Durham has a good policy force because it's PCC was a former police officer. Labour will win the next PCC election here because their candidate knows (and works) for the police force, the Tories will pick a dodgy candidate who doesn't understand how the police work).
Please can you make sure that in future elections your predictions spreadsheet is available and up to date.
TIA.
OTOH if the FCO does not change its advice warning against "non essential" travel then those who have purchased summer holidays in advance will be able to cancel them under their insurance because of that advice.
It's largely quarantine theatre, anyway. There seems to be no system at all for checking whether it's complied with.
I was unimpressed that border force employees are still being instructed NOT to wear masks, a week before they will be instructed to wear them. A small matter, perhaps, but another indication of the lack of though behind government policy.
In any case with the UK’s COVID rate no one with a low rate is going to be opening their border to us.
What's the problem with that?
It is a magisterial piece and seems to me the answer to Mr Ed's delightfully provocative thread header. The attraction of Trump in 2016 was that he was the most anti-establishment candidate I can recall being elected, completely outside the Washington consensus and attractive to a country frankly disgusted with its political class.
The reality has been different. The corruption of principles, ethical standards, institutions and common decency combined with rank incompetence has been remarkable. There was an opportunity for Washington to show that it was not as bad as the voters of 2016 thought. Instead we have riots, lawlessness and chaos. The failure of the Democrats to find anyone who could properly articulate fundamental values is deeply depressing. I fear for the US, I really do.
How Kamala Harris seized the moment on race and police reform
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/kamala-harris-biden-criminal-justice-reform-304534
It's interesting how she has earned the genuine endorsement of a number of progressives.