politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time to ban Americans

MattW said:

nichomar said:

The Valencian Community establishes as of this Saturday the mandatory use of masks, regardless of whether the interpersonal safety distance of one and a half meters is kept, "at all times on public roads", in outdoor spaces, closed spaces for public use or open to the public. "It is not that there is an alternative, mask or distance, it is that there will have to be distancing and masks," said the Minister of Health, Ana Barceló. She has also stressed that its use "is also recommended" in private spaces, open or closed, "when there is a conflict with non-cohabitants or interpersonal distance cannot be guaranteed." The obligation, he has detailed, will not affect beaches, swimming pools or nature spaces, as it will also require people with diseases or respiratory problems that may be aggravated by the use of masks, as well as in other cases of dependency or disability.

Out of interest, is this "masks" or "face-coverings" in Valencia?

Here we have all our media morons rabbiting on about "compulsory masks" when the govt are actually talking about face-coverings - which is met by my snoods.

Just as the media morons have spent months gibbering confusingly about "The Rules", when such an entity does not even exist - we have The Regulations (Laws) and The Guidance (ie advice).

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

Foxy said:

SandyRentool said:

I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.

Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Can the PB hunters confirm if there is in fact a semi involved in this activity?

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1284424505541169153?s=20

The only surprising thing about this is that the fat fuck is capable of getting on and staying on a luckless horse.

William the Conqueror was described by one chronicler as a man of great athleticism despite his bulk, capable of leaping on a horse in full armour.

Satirist John Farnham, on being told this, replied drily ‘I notice his poor horse doesn’t get a mention.’

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Provocative headline!

BA has just cancelled my wife and daughters return flight for the 3rd time...

When did they head out to the States ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Ardern's policy may have worked for now but it has also hammered the New Zealand tourist industry and the full effect of that may not be felt for months, an outright ban on tourists from America or elsewhere coming here rather than just quarantine for those with the highest cases would likely have the same effect

My nephew has returned home to Scotland permanently having lost his job as a sky diving professional in NZ for many years

tlg86 said:

JohnLilburne said:

Alistair said:

The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.

Patrick Vallance was on Civil Service Live this week. he reckoned, with the benefit of hindsight, that completely closing the borders would have been effective, if done in *early February*. In fact he sort of indicated that SAGE had given that advice. However he also asked if it would have been seen as being in any way reasonable at the time.

What do you mean by effective? I can believe that to stop an outbreak of any sort in the UK would have needed a very early intervention, but I struggle to believe that a ban on foreign travel at the end of February wouldn't have at least made some difference to the overall numbers.

MattW said:

ydoethur said:

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Can the PB hunters confirm if there is in fact a semi involved in this activity?

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1284424505541169153?s=20

The only surprising thing about this is that the fat fuck is capable of getting on and staying on a luckless horse.

William the Conqueror was described by one chronicler as a man of great athleticism despite his bulk, capable of leaping on a horse in full armour.

Satirist John Farnham, on being told this, replied drily ‘I notice his poor horse doesn’t get a mention.’

Perhaps it was a short horse.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

My sense is Central London is in real trouble. I think further out, it's more ok.

Foxy said:

SandyRentool said:

I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.

Looking at the upticks in France and Dpain, certainly we should discourage all non essential foreign travel. It would be a useful boost to the domestic tourist industry too.

bigjohnowls said:

Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain

Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality

TOPPING said:

Dura_Ace said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Can the PB hunters confirm if there is in fact a semi involved in this activity?

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1284424505541169153?s=20

The only surprising thing about this is that the fat fuck is capable of getting on and staying on a luckless horse.

I think there is photographic evidence proving that he can't, really.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

MattW said:

This is fun:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-53452080/why-i-fell-in-love-with-irish-dancing

Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.

Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.

Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.

And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.

I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.

As she says in the video, demonstrating a wisdom beyond her years, there is a difference between appreciation and appropriation. That difference is being respectful and interested.

Appropriation is more a matter of mocking or parodying the culture.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

MattW said:

This is fun:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-53452080/why-i-fell-in-love-with-irish-dancing

Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.

Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.

Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.

And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.

I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.

Well, if it means that non-Italians stop buggering about with our coffee, maybe it isn’t so bad .......

SandyRentool said:

There was a chap on the news earlier saying that he wasn't renewing the lease on his company's office and they would be going to a home working model. This was an outfit in the City of London.

bigjohnowls said:

Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain

Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.

Sandpit said:

Just a reminder of what’s actually happening in the world as a whole:

It’s not too late to insist on forcing people to quarantine on your terms.

Some countries have a system whereby you go from the airport to a government quarantine centre (hotel) at your own expense, and can buy yourself out with a negative test. Other countries have a system whereby you have to get tested two days before you travel, and can’t get on the plane (at the origin) without the negative result.

Failure to impose either option now, makes a second wave pretty much inevitable in the U.K.

Cyclefree said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

MattW said:

This is fun:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-53452080/why-i-fell-in-love-with-irish-dancing

Completely bonkers, but entirely consistent with the arguments of those who go around accusing other people of cultural appropriation.

Good for her for finding joy in an element of another culture and going for it. Can you imagine if people followed appopriation arguments through to their conclusion, everyone stuck only enjoying or seeking to emulate things of their own upbringing? Ghastly. You'd have people thinking they have to like irish dancing if they were irish, for example. It's a truly weird concept. She at least seems to make a reasonable distinction about appreciatiating the heritage of something versus borrowing elements with acknowledgement.

Taken to its logical extreme, this idea of cultural appropriation would mean nobody could eat Chinese food unless they have Chinese ancestry. Which would be OK for me (Chinese grandmother) but would be an embuggerance for many on this board.

And it would also mean I couldn’t have an Indian, which would be rather a shame as I am rather partial to a good Indian. Admittedly, I like it with chips as well as rice which I know is heresy.

I am starting to think that the world has gone completely mad.

Well, if it means that non-Italians stop buggering about with our coffee, maybe it isn’t so bad .......

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.

We have the capacity. There are oodles of empty hotels. We housed the homeless virtually overnight after all. It only took the fear of them infecting us.
What we don't have is the will to stop the wealthy and influential being inconvenienced slightly in their desire to gallivant about the world.

Pagan2 said:

On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.

Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.

What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff

Charles said:

JohnLilburne said:

Alistair said:

The failure to close our air borders will go down as a huge negative against both the scientific advice and the politicians who credulously accepted it.

Patrick Vallance was on Civil Service Live this week. he reckoned, with the benefit of hindsight, that completely closing the borders would have been effective, if done in *early February*. In fact he sort of indicated that SAGE had given that advice. However he also asked if it would have been seen as being in any way reasonable at the time.

How “sort of” is “sort of”

If it was that clear in the minutes surely someone would be beating the government with a stinky stick about it?

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

To resume the discussion of last night.

Brexit was a reaction to the previous decade not the 1980s.

It was the broken promises about immigration contrasted with the voices at the supermarket.

It was the bailout of the London bankers contrasted with the factories and steel works closing.

It was the throwing money at foreigners contrasted with the cuts in local areas.

I think it was more about identity than economics. But you are more likely to fret about identity when you're poor. Can we attribute the relative poverty of these places to the 1980s and Thatcher? No, not entirely. Other and more recent issues - including some of those you mention - are relevant too. Seeds sown in the 80s though.

Charles said:

bigjohnowls said:

Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain

Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality

You should go to the naval museum there - they have the only Elizabethan wreck in the U.K. and a Viking sunstone

(I’ve been watching discovery channel again 😆)

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.

It’s really easy to do it. At the airport or port of entry, people join one of three queues.

Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.

Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.

Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.

The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.

bigjohnowls said:

Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain

Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

That makes sense but I don't think we have the motivation or capacity to pull off the necessary logistics.

It’s really easy to do it. At the airport or port of entry, people join one of three queues.

Queue 1 is for people who have been tested within the last two days, they show their certificate (from an approved testing station) and can continue into the country.

Queue 2 is for people who want an on-the-spot test. They are tested there and then, and are free to leave the airport once the result comes back. We can charge £100 for the tests, and have them back within a few hours. At major ports like Heathrow and Dover, can have the lab on site.

Queue 3 is for those who wish to quarantine. They can choose either an hotel at their own expense, or a barracks at the government’s expense. Those under quarantine can buy a test at any time if they need to leave, otherwise they spend 14 days in the facility.

The important thing is to stop non-essential travel, and make sure that everyone arriving gets either tested or quarantined. We can draft in the military to help, if we don’t have enough people.

Logical but that does not sound easy to me.

MattW said:

SandyRentool said:

I agree with Mr Herdson, with the qualification that I would go full-fat New Zealand and aim for eradication.

I think our position as an international junction box, both for travel and movement-of-population, compared to New Zealand's middle-of-the-back-of-beyond, makes that difficult.

But I think David is talking sense on the general principle.

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.

Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.

What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff

The issue as I see it is rather different.

For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal

For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.

And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.

I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.

Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.

Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.

Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?

I thought that aircraft had efficient airflows from above to below through Hepa filters.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f1163430bba94512a583eb6d6b24aa56/cabin-air-quality.pdf

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.

Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?

I thought that aircraft had efficient airflows from above to below through Hepa filters.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f1163430bba94512a583eb6d6b24aa56/cabin-air-quality.pdf

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.

Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.

What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff

The issue as I see it is rather different.

For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal

For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.

And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.

I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.

Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.

Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

tlg86 said:

Dura_Ace said:

bigjohnowls said:

Just booked a break on Anglesey 1.9.20 to 4.9.20 - £108 bargain

Hope their not banning those from Nations with high Covid 19 Mortality

I spent nearly 4 years at RAF Valley and loved it. I wrote off 2 Golf GTIs and an RAF Mini van in that time.

I'm sure the locals were delighted when you relocated!

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.

It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.

another_richard said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Dem veep slot -- Kamala Harris drifting again; Rice in a bit.

That discussion seems to have been going on longer than the primaries did.

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Malmesbury said:

JohnLilburne said:

Mexicanpete said:

Andy_JS said:

"Public Health England's exaggerated death statistics are a scandal that has fed fear

Woefully misleading figures have only made it harder to tackle the pandemic and to get the country moving again
Matthew Lesh"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/17/public-health-englands-exaggerated-death-statistics-scandal/

I had vowed to keep off here after inadvertently pissing Charles off earlier, but this under reporting notion really is a crock!

The only figures worth looking at in terms of deaths from Covid are excess mortality rates against the 5 year average, and that goes for anywhere in
the world. Even then, this doesn't tell the whole story but it tells a better one than anything else.

It's a basic error in one of the figures being used to track progress - all-settings deaths with COVID. At the beginning of the pandemic it would have made very little difference. However now there are many people who tested positive up to 4 months ago, and will be unnecessarily included in the figures. When the daily death rate is under a hundred, and individual days often well below this, this could be having a significant impact on the numbers and making the "tail" of the data look a lot longer than it really is. While hospital deaths have fallen off dramatically (I think England hospital deaths was 16 yesterday but that's from memory) all-settings UK deaths was 114. The error may or may not be significant at these levels of daily deaths, which probably depends on the demographics of people who have been tested.

The England hospital deaths was, indeed, 16 yesterday.

The following is the data for yesterday for England deaths in all settings. The orange shows when the reported 114 deaths actually occured.

I really can't see what excuse there is to have deaths with Covid going back a month just coming to light. Give it a seven day cut-off.

It's the date of death on the x-axis. So there was just a delay in them being reported.

But why is there month delay in reporting? Get them in within the week if they are to be included in the Covid stats. Government is having to take action based on getting confidence back. It has had to take an unprecedented number of 51:49 decisions. Having people think we've still got triple figure daily deaths will hammer that confidence.

eek said:

MarqueeMark said:

TimT said:

Barnesian said:

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

geoffw said:

There is a slight problem in the logic of only allowing travellers (incl returnees) from countries with fewer cases per 100,000 than us. If all countries take that line we have an impasse.

Would it not create a hierarchy whereby NZs can go anywhere and Brazilians nowhere with the likes of us somewhere in between?

What passport someone holds is irrelevant. What’s important is have they been tested? We need to either test or quarantine everyone entering the country.

But the principal theatre of transmission is likely the flight, and a test won’t show positive for days afterwards.

Is there evidence that flights are a major source of transmission or is this an urban myth?

I thought that aircraft had efficient airflows from above to below through Hepa filters.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/f1163430bba94512a583eb6d6b24aa56/cabin-air-quality.pdf

I have seen no data of any case of transmission on a flight. The same was true for Ebola.

I think two things might be at play in this - the number of air changes per hour through HEPA filters, and the dryness of the air.

I thought I had read of a flight out of Dubai to the Far East that resulted in 8 Covid cases?

I suspect all 8 cases could have been caught queuing to get on to the plane just as much as while being on the plane..

Foxy said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

On the whole working from home issue we have heard a lot about what the government wants and what companies want and lots of anecdotes about colleagues both champing to get back and never wanting to go back to the office again.

Another slant to consider is one I and some colleagues were chatting about the other day. None of us wish to go back to the office. If the company wishes us to most seem of the opinion they will begrudgingly go back but will also start looking for another job that allows full time home working. They have had a taste and they like it.

What governments want and what companies want may be irrelevant if enough workers are thinking that way and home working might end up being a must offer thing to recruit good staff

The issue as I see it is rather different.

For a lot of people home working works fine - you save the commute time and costs and things continue as normal

For a lot of others it just isn't working because either their home location isn't suitable, they have children to look after or need training or (as is often the case) the communication links don't work correctly. In those cases working from home is a problem.

And I suspect most people aged 40+ are in the former camp and a lot of the latter group are younger.

I didn't claim everyone wanted to work from home in what I wrote. I was merely pointing out though that a lot do and if it's a sizeable percentage then companies that don't offer it are going to find that people who want to wfh full time will leave for companies that do allow them to.

Personally I haven't seen this after hours drink culture in any company I have worked with since the early 90's. Most firms have also discouraged a pint at lunch time even. I also don't know many that socialise with other members of staff out of office hours. The exception to these last two being middle managers and up.

Most of us peasant workers leave at 5.30 and go straight home because even then we wont be home till 7pm. I would expect the split to be about 65:35 in favour of home working purely because I suspect the big split will be not between young and old but between worker/manager

The increasing commute times have cut into the after work drinks culture.

Which is why many younger people paid through the nose (for a shoebox) to be be at least on the Night Bus routes in London. When you are 20 something, its out of work and straight out on town....

Lunchtime drinking has been a near sackable offence for years, in most places.

In most places I have worked there is a on going social culture, at least within teams.

When you were 20 it might have been straight out of work and out on the town. Attitudes in the young have shifted significantly about pubbing it. My son mid 20's hardly ever goes to the pub nor do most of the people he knows. Now they go play badminton/gym/martial arts etc. Same as university was in my day looked at as a 4 year party by most whereas now not so much.

As to the london shoe box I suspect that is more down to they had to goto London for a job and it was actually cheaper to share rent on a london shoe box that live somewhere with affordable rent and fork out the eye watering cost of commuting.

Now only 30% of the population goes to pubs, I supect it the 90's it was more like 60 to 70%

Fox jr goes out for post work drinks perhaps once per fortnight, similar to myself. It is not just moving with the times, it is the changing nature of the workforce. Asian colleagues, including Hindus and Sikhs rarely want to come, though there are exceptions. The feminisation of the medical workforce makes a difference too. The blokish pub crowd is diminishing, and can be quite exclusionary. We tend to favour more inclusive social events as a result, such as meals out, and in hours coffee and cakes etc.