politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A new way of showing how LAB and CON are viewed

Nigelb said:

Posted a link to this on a previous thread, but worth reposting - a comprehensive and impressive study:

Preliminary analysis of SARS-CoV-2 importation & establishment of UK transmission lineages
https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507
...Here we provide estimates of trends through time in the number and sources of SARS-CoV-2 introductions into the UK. We obtain these estimates by combining data on the numbers of inbound travellers to the UK, estimated numbers of infections worldwide, and large-scale virus genome sequencing undertaken by the COG-UK consortium. Our preliminary analysis provides a platform for evaluating future trends in virus introduction, however it does not attempt to measure the relative contributions to the UK epidemic of importation versus local transmission, nor model the possible impact of public health interventions on virus introduction.

The key conclusions of our analysis are as follows:

The UK epidemic comprises a very large number of importations due to inbound international travel. We detect 1356 independently-introduced transmission lineages, however, we expect this number to be an under-estimate.

The speed of detection of UK transmission lineages via genome sequencing has increased through time.

Many UK transmission lineages now appear to be very rare or extinct, as they have not been detected by genome sequencing for >4 weeks.

The rate and source of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 lineages into the UK changed substantially and rapidly through time. The rate peaked in mid-March and most introductions occurred during March 2020.

We estimate that ≈34% of detected UK transmission lineages arrived via inbound travel from Spain, ≈29% from France, ≈14% from Italy, and ≈23% from other countries. The relative contributions of these locations were highly dynamic.

The increasing rates and shifting source locations of SARS-CoV-2 importation were not fully captured by early contact tracing.

Our results are preliminary and further analyses of these data are ongoing.

The COG-UK consortium has to date generated >20,000 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences from infections in the UK. Phylogenetic analysis of these genomes, and those from other countries, can be used to identify individual UK transmission lineages....

Interesting work.

The Itch.io games bundle is up to over 1000 games now.

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

Yorkcity said:

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/06/gavin-barwell-we-underestimate-starmer-at-our-peril.html

In my opinion this article is correct.

One of the reasons that Blair so comprehensively outmaneuvered Michael Howard to win a comfortable majority on a sliver of the popular vote was precisely because he took him very seriously. The day before his uncontested succession, Blair called a crisis meeting of his cabinet, and commented to a friendly journalist (who quoted him as 'an informed source') 'Howard is good. We need to up our game here if we want to see him off.'

And it is fair to say that while Howard helpfully messed up over the Hutton report, Blair's very focussed attacks on him and detailed work on his policies, plus a decision to make peace with Gordon Brown on terms that were, to put it mildly, politically disadvantageous, were a key part in the 2005 election victory.

By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.

Who do I see in the current PM? The shrewd political operator who took a flawed but feisty and intelligent opponent seriously and won, or the hubristic ones who dismissed their opponents as useless lightweights, and lost?

Hmmm...tricky one.

Which is a long winded way of saying Barwell is right.

I believe most of the battle for any Labour leader of the opposition.Is that voters can see that they can be PM.
SKS fits that criteria as did Blair in 1994.
My father a life long Conservative said to me that Starmer is impressive.
I think the same, and was relieved that the Labour Party, and the country has a credible alternative .

When Corbyn led the opposition I was in blind panic about what he might do if he ever got into power. Even worse than I am about what Johnson is actually doing while in power.

Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.

I'll take that as a bloody good start.

rkrkrk said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

rkrkrk said:

Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?

They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.

Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.

You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.

I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.

Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.

Well fair play for putting money on it. I think the rules are 'cease to be leader of Conservative party' (there was a bit of a controversy with T May I think which I lost money on). I'm not sure even if Boris announced he was standing down today, whether that would happen by end of month in practice.

I have no desire to win on account of his health, but today he appeared worse than he has for some time (that is, when we have seen him, which we haven't recently). It may not be in his hands for much longer in which case I don't know whether that affects the timing, but certainly point taken on the process.

https://twitter.com/TheLawMap/status/1270691902954844160

TOPPING said:

dixiedean said:

TOPPING said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

rkrkrk said:

Trend looks good for Labour polling generally. Would be nice to see Labour in the lead. Will we see Tories start to panic if Starmer pulls ahead?

They shouldn't. But in their heart of hearts there must be more than a few Tory MPs who doubt whether Boris is up to the job.

Indeed so, but do those Tory MPs include Boris himself? If so, I can't see him staying in post for more than about another six months.

You're in luck. Betfair has him at 99/1 to leave this month and 15/1 and 14.5/1 to leave between July - Sept and Oct - Dec respectively. Personally I'd lay at those prices.

I just backed a bit more at 99s. I think BoJo will be like TMay. ie it's obvious they're not up to it and it's just a matter of time before they are found out. When will that be? Well with May it took two years and I have backed Boris to be out by Sep 2021. I really hope that he goes this month but can't quite see it.

Then again, he was struggling health-wise today at PMQs and, as I have said a zillion times on here, my view is that now is not the time to have a sub-par PM. But we shall see if he, his doctor, and his Party MPs agree.

He clearly isn't 100%.
Ironic really. He spent a lot of his pre-virus Premiership on holiday when he ought to have been working.

If the future of the country weren't at stake you'd have to feel sorry for him - worked so hard and for so long to become PM, gets it, begins to live the high life, and then gets struck down, literally, by the event that will likely dent significantly, if not ruin his premiership.

However, the future of the country is at stake, so, while wishing him a 100% recovery from the virus, fuck him. The sooner he leaves the better.

Well, he didn't really work hard for it, unless by working hard you mean lots of duplicituous double dealing, chicanery and backstabbing.

Mexicanpete said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1270719957379121153

Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.

British exceptionalism.

So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).

The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions.
I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

It is a shift, previously they were saying they want us to ask for an extension, now they are preparing to ask us for an extension. I'm not sure what practical difference that makes but it is a change.

Theuniondivvie said:

'How many anal glands are there in a chicken nugget?'
A question to stymie the Oracle of Delphi.

https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1270722969367543811?s=20

I think I'd draw the line at curry sauce with deep fried haggis.

"We'll get to the bottom of this."

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

NHS England data out - 88
Spanish style - 11

New low for a weekday in several ways.

Very low scores for a Wednesday.

It's fizzling out, isn't it?

I would say that, yes it is low number, for a Wednesday.

But, with this stuff, remember the 7 day average. We will really know about today, early next week.

And deaths are a lagging indicator.

The cases numbers, later, will be interesting.

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

tlg86 said:

Yorkcity said:

Mexicanpete said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1270719957379121153

Most deaths, longest lockdown, deepest recession and now excluded from our neighbours.

British exceptionalism.

So like English football clubs in the 1980s, league topping results but banned from travelling (after Heysel).

The terrible events in 1985, stopped a great Everton side, having a chance to become European champions.
I never understood at the time , why all English clubs were banned and not just Liverpool fc.

I guess it's because the English were viewed as trouble anyway. But yes, it was incredibly harsh on the likes of Oxford, Wimbledon, Coventry and Everton.

Not to mention Luton and Palace. So many clubs missing out on their only shot in Europe. Liverpool have a lot to answer for.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Yorkcity said:

ydoethur said:

Yorkcity said:

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/06/gavin-barwell-we-underestimate-starmer-at-our-peril.html

In my opinion this article is correct.

One of the reasons that Blair so comprehensively outmaneuvered Michael Howard to win a comfortable majority on a sliver of the popular vote was precisely because he took him very seriously. The day before his uncontested succession, Blair called a crisis meeting of his cabinet, and commented to a friendly journalist (who quoted him as 'an informed source') 'Howard is good. We need to up our game here if we want to see him off.'

And it is fair to say that while Howard helpfully messed up over the Hutton report, Blair's very focussed attacks on him and detailed work on his policies, plus a decision to make peace with Gordon Brown on terms that were, to put it mildly, politically disadvantageous, were a key part in the 2005 election victory.

By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.

Who do I see in the current PM? The shrewd political operator who took a flawed but feisty and intelligent opponent seriously and won, or the hubristic ones who dismissed their opponents as useless lightweights, and lost?

Hmmm...tricky one.

Which is a long winded way of saying Barwell is right.

I believe most of the battle for any Labour leader of the opposition.Is that voters can see that they can be PM.
SKS fits that criteria as did Blair in 1994.
My father a life long Conservative said to me that Starmer is impressive.
I think the same, and was relieved that the Labour Party, and the country has a credible alternative .

When Corbyn led the opposition I was in blind panic about what he might do if he ever got into power. Even worse than I am about what Johnson is actually doing while in power.

Even if I don't vote for Starmer, which I may or may not, if he becomes PM I will be happy that the country is in the hands of a man of obvious ability and (on first glance) personal integrity. That's entirely separate from what policies he may pursue. I don't suppose he and I would agree on all policy issues (in fact I know we don't) but I get no sense he's vicious or malicious.

I'll take that as a bloody good start.

Agreed.
I think Johnson utterly useless if judged on his response to the pandemic. Corbyn would probably have been worse.

Irrespective of the politics, I'd be happy if the country were in the hands of a leader displaying basic competence.

I believe it a given that Corbyn would have been a rabbit in the headlights, incapable of making a decision, but that sounds familiar for students of the present incumbent.

At least Corbyn might have had the decency to turn up to a Cobra meeting or two, although he might have slept through them.

eadric said:

He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.

That is the definition of Brexit.

Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

Nigelb said:

Posted a link to this on a previous thread, but worth reposting - a comprehensive and impressive study:

Preliminary analysis of SARS-CoV-2 importation & establishment of UK transmission lineages
https://virological.org/t/preliminary-analysis-of-sars-cov-2-importation-establishment-of-uk-transmission-lineages/507
...Here we provide estimates of trends through time in the number and sources of SARS-CoV-2 introductions into the UK. We obtain these estimates by combining data on the numbers of inbound travellers to the UK, estimated numbers of infections worldwide, and large-scale virus genome sequencing undertaken by the COG-UK consortium. Our preliminary analysis provides a platform for evaluating future trends in virus introduction, however it does not attempt to measure the relative contributions to the UK epidemic of importation versus local transmission, nor model the possible impact of public health interventions on virus introduction.

The key conclusions of our analysis are as follows:

The UK epidemic comprises a very large number of importations due to inbound international travel. We detect 1356 independently-introduced transmission lineages, however, we expect this number to be an under-estimate.

The speed of detection of UK transmission lineages via genome sequencing has increased through time.

Many UK transmission lineages now appear to be very rare or extinct, as they have not been detected by genome sequencing for >4 weeks.

The rate and source of introduction of SARS-CoV-2 lineages into the UK changed substantially and rapidly through time. The rate peaked in mid-March and most introductions occurred during March 2020.

We estimate that ≈34% of detected UK transmission lineages arrived via inbound travel from Spain, ≈29% from France, ≈14% from Italy, and ≈23% from other countries. The relative contributions of these locations were highly dynamic.

The increasing rates and shifting source locations of SARS-CoV-2 importation were not fully captured by early contact tracing.

Our results are preliminary and further analyses of these data are ongoing.

The COG-UK consortium has to date generated >20,000 SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences from infections in the UK. Phylogenetic analysis of these genomes, and those from other countries, can be used to identify individual UK transmission lineages....

Thanks.

Timeline of Guernsey mandatory quarantine for 14 days on arrival:

Feb 6: Mainland China
Feb 7: Added Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.
Feb 25. Added Iran & Italy (parts designated by Italian govt) to automatic mandatory, moved some and added others (Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, Northern Italy, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia) to 'quarantine if ANY symptoms'
March 19. Mandatory quarantine for ALL arrivals - still in place.

40 days without a case, UK equivalent of 13,000 deaths.

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

And its name was the General Lee

eadric said:

Scott_xP said:

eadric said:

He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.

That is the definition of Brexit.

Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.

You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.

I'll raise you BluestBlue.

eadric said:

Scott_xP said:

eadric said:

He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.

That is the definition of Brexit.

Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.

You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.

Being boringly unpredictable is hardly any better.

anotherex_tory said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

Spot on: they are positioning themselves for emergency negotiations in early 2021 and hint dropping at that time what it wouldn't be an emergency if the UK had taken the EU's suggestion now.

If there is any doubt that it will come to that then they should read this:

https://www.ft.com/content/7efb877a-8b58-4f7d-9a35-4d21de6638e4

The UK literally doesn't have the infrastructure in place to cope with inspections on EU trade so if the UK Government isn't bluffing then they are about to unleash a disaster on the UK Economy.

For the EU the outcome is the same: a UK-EU trade deal along the parameters they have set out. It is either agreed now or later.

You may just be in for a surprise and not the one you hope for

contrarian said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

And its name was the General Lee

All good comments.

eadric said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?

The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).

Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?

But more importantly no further payments at all, no interference with our covid economic plans including tax and state aid and that they will compromise on the CFP

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1270730467587825664

eadric said:

Scott_xP said:

eadric said:

He could have been a good Brexit premier, but this task requires patience, diligence, the tolerance of many boring little tasks, without much glory in the end for all your work.

That is the definition of Brexit.

Millions of changes in very specific minutiae for fuck all gain.

You are the most boringly predictable poster on PB. It's an achievement of sorts.

I didn't predict his passionate defence of deep-fried haggis and curry sauce above, and all the better for it.

IanB2 said:

eadric said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?

The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).

Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?

If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.

That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?

Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?

Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks?
Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?

An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.

From the COVID Importation report:

The volume of inbound travel (20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain in mid-March) shows that individual events, such as football matches, likely made a negligible contribution to the overall number of imports at that time. Large-scale and longer-term trends in prevalence and mobility are much more important.

MattW said:

contrarian said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

And its name was the General Lee

All good comments.

https://uproxx.com/hitfix/the-screenwriter-of-the-dukes-of-hazzard-movie-on-how-he-tackled-the-confederate-flag-problem/

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?

The government has said here won't be an extension under any circumstances. They've even written it into a brain-dead law. A world pandemic, and the fact that there is not a snowflake's chance in hell of businesses and governments being even remotely ready for whatever is eventually cobbled together (if anything) for Jan 1st, are not factors which are going to change this ideologically insane government's position on this.

Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1270731383066038272

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

And whose horn played “Dixie” don’t forget.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1270732251903508483

MaxPB said:

Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.

No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

Exactly. This way they can say that we insisted on putting ourselves over a barrel.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.

Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.

PB tories want to stoke outrage to distract from the ongoing unprecedented epic fuck-ups of Johnson's government. Simples.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1270732251903508483

Read the last paragraph

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.

No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.

It is an article of faith for a reason. Its remarkable that you still don't understand that.

https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1270733313272098816?s=20

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.

Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.

OK, temporarily removing Gone with the Wind from the Warner catalogue is a step too far though.

TOPPING said:

their talisman is currently fighting for breath and his own good health (no fault of his, of course).

Really?

CarlottaVance said:

From the COVID Importation report:

The volume of inbound travel (20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain in mid-March) shows that individual events, such as football matches, likely made a negligible contribution to the overall number of imports at that time. Large-scale and longer-term trends in prevalence and mobility are much more important.

That's what I was saying at the time.

If the UK wanted to stop people coming over from Spain they should have done that, not fret over football games.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1270732251903508483

Read the last paragraph

A man who has deprived himself of the right to criticise anyone else after flagrantly breaking lockdown.

It was more than just Georgia having absolutely horrific election day shit show yesterday. I mean today

https://twitter.com/Nikki_Levy/status/1270725086895460359

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

eadric said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?

The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).

Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?

If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.

That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?

Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?

Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks?
Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?

An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.

The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.

Quite. Putting it off and off makes the less stable amongst us on the topic get ever more agitated and fearful of the outcome. It really is best just to do it, emerge blinking into the sun, check all our appendages are still present, and get on with it.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

eadric said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1270715372400807936

Is that a shift in the EU position? I thought they had been pretty clear that one was needed all along? It is certainly the sensible position.

I think it's not a shift as such, but a rather stronger statement than previously.

It's academic anyway, Boris has stupidly locked himself into a straitjacket on this and thrown away the key. Presumably the EU are just positioning themselves to be able to say it wasn't their fault when the chaos starts.

It really depends, if the EU ask, could the UK not stipulate the circumstances under which an extension will be granted?

The only way we could accept an extension is if they say we will not be on the hook for any of the next EU budget (beyond regular contribs), or any eurozone bailouts, coronafunds, etc. And we won't accept any new EU laws in that time (like a sudden FTT).

Not sure if that is even legally feasible. Would it not require Treaty change?

If we want to take, we have to give. Something the Tories seem unable to appreciate.

That cuts both ways. If the EU want to take us into an extension, they need to give us very favourable terms to do so. Otherwise why should we go along with what they want?

Before we get an extension, the question must be asked and answered: Why? What is the extension for?

Is it because we're making good progress on negotiating a long term solution but need more time to iron out the kinks?
Or is it because we're no closer than when we started on even agreeing together where we even want to end up, so the extension is to avoid making tough decisions yet and just kicking the can down the road?

An extension for the former can be argued for, an extension for the latter is absurd. That seems to be what many want though.

The only reason for the extension is to play for time to keep Britain in the EU.

You do know that we have left, right?

You do know that many are trying to delay the actual day in a vain attempt that the longer the delay the more they hope we will end up remaining

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Again, if the UK were to lay down terms for an extension which includes no part of the new budget etc... I'm sure a majority can be cobbled together for it.

No chance. It's an article of religious faith, nothing to do with new budgets or anything rational.

It is an article of faith for a reason. Its remarkable that you still don't understand that.

Of course I understand it. I was a member of the party as it descended into this madness.

But, irrespective of the reasons for the madness, the fact still remains that business and governments are not going to be even remotely ready for Jan 1st. There is no getting round this: to be ready in time, they first of all need to know - in excruciating detail - what the new arrangement are, that is say such boring things as the information required for each and every one of the zillions of new paper or electronic forms which will have to be filled in. Then they need to train up lots of customs agents (50,000 according the UK government), plus hundreds of thousands of internal staff. They (businesses and government) need to implement major new computer systems, and test them with full-scale trials. They also need to figure out how on earth a roll-on, roll-off terminal at Dover, currently set up for a continuous stream of lorries, can physically handle the delays with drivers waiting while the paperwork is sorted out. No-one seems to have an answer to that.

Even without Covid-19, all that would now be impossible to get done on time. With Covid-19, it's even worse.

It takes years to build a reputation and a couple of tweets to destroy it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8405899/Museum-curator-tweets-advice-destroy-bronze-statues-chemicals-BLM-protests.html

Doesn't look like a career enhancing move.

ydoethur said:

By contrast Brown and May, who never took Cameron or Corbyn seriously, ended up being humiliated.

May being so humiliated that she remained PM for another two years?

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

MattW said:

I see that HBO removing Gone with the Wind has censored from the screen the first Oscar winning performance by a black woman.

If only life was as simplistic as they want it to be.

Although it is worth remembering the hotel had to change its rules in order for her to attend the ceremony, and she and the other non-white cast members had to sit on a segregated table as well as being excluded from post-ceremony festivities.

Nicely contextualised. Thanks.

Banning Gone with the Wind is step too far though.

Forces TV still showing the Dukes of Hazzard, the star of which was an orange '69 Dodge Charger with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof.

Its also not happened. Gone with the Wind has not been banned.

Its a shame people are reacting with horror to a temporary measure when the company has already that they will be bringing it back to the platform with a proper measure to accompany it - as other platforms have already done with eg classic Tom & Jerry or Dumbo.

I think that's fair enough.
The film that is truly jaw-dropping is Birth of a Nation.

Excess deaths update:

UK/Spain identical at 57%. As with the rest of Europe, both seem to be back to normal levels of deaths.

Peru by far the worst hit in the world (123%), but looks to have peaked as of jun/3.

They've added Brazil - it was at 28k deaths four weeks ago, twice the official count. 50% undercount has been seen in several other countries earlier in their epidemic, and would imply the current figure is around 75k.

Chile looking a bit worrying. It seems most of south America has a major problem now.