Do we know if temperature is even an accurate test to determine if somebody is infectious?
No, it isn't. Asymptomatic Covid infected can be significant spreaders. That's the one bit of border control the UK got right - not bothering with temperature testing. More or less everything else they got wrong (testing on arrival doesn't work either - you miss 100% of those infected in transit).
As observed above, to add to "Security Theatre" we now have "Pandemic Theatre".
"Is this an accurate test to determine if somebody is infectious" isn't the right way to evaluate this though, the right question is, "is this a cost-effective way to screen out *some* of the people who are infectious". I don't know whether it is or not, but it's definitely cheap, so it doesn't have to be *very* effective to be worth doing.
It's kind-of the opposite problem to airport security, because you get a lot of good results if you can reduce the *average* number of times the adversary gets through. In airport security a method with a high-ish false-negative rate doesn't do as much, because even if you confiscate the adversary's shampoo bomb today, they can just try again next week.
PS A lot of the false positives with a temperature reading will be people who are infectious with something else, so it's not a bad thing to send them home (or deter them from showing up in the first place).
Which airlines are going to accept potentially infected passengers? There may be some value in screening prior to departure - as much as a deterrent as anything else, but on arrival I suspect you'd have to quarantine them.
Which airlines are going to accept potentially infected passengers? There may be some value in screening prior to departure - as much as a deterrent as anything else, but on arrival I suspect you'd have to quarantine them.
Any airline that's accepting passengers is going to have to accept potentially infected passengers, because all the available methods of testing produce false negatives. What you do on arrival depends on the prevalence where they came from and where they're going.
Do we know if temperature is even an accurate test to determine if somebody is infectious?
No, it isn't. Asymptomatic Covid infected can be significant spreaders. That's the one bit of border control the UK got right - not bothering with temperature testing. More or less everything else they got wrong (testing on arrival doesn't work either - you miss 100% of those infected in transit).
As observed above, to add to "Security Theatre" we now have "Pandemic Theatre".
"Is this an accurate test to determine if somebody is infectious" isn't the right way to evaluate this though, the right question is, "is this a cost-effective way to screen out *some* of the people who are infectious". I don't know whether it is or not, but it's definitely cheap, so it doesn't have to be *very* effective to be worth doing.
It's kind-of the opposite problem to airport security, because you get a lot of good results if you can reduce the *average* number of times the adversary gets through. In airport security a method with a high-ish false-negative rate doesn't do as much, because even if you confiscate the adversary's shampoo bomb today, they can just try again next week.
PS A lot of the false positives with a temperature reading will be people who are infectious with something else, so it's not a bad thing to send them home (or deter them from showing up in the first place).
Which airlines are going to accept potentially infected passengers? There may be some value in screening prior to departure - as much as a deterrent as anything else, but on arrival I suspect you'd have to quarantine them.
Is it me or do a load of the arguments on schools being fine to reopen tend to merge "children" into one inchoate category?
There may be evidence that small children (under 10) may not spread the disease as much. Teenagers, however, seem just as able to spread it as others.
So children may not spread the disease as much, but children certainly do.
(using "children" to mean "under-10" the first time and to mean "school children up to 18" the second time).
Inchoate means "started but not finished", nothing to do with chaotic.
No, but it does mean basic, rudimentary or undeveloped - so not an entirely inaccurate label for a poorly differentiated assessment.
There are a lot of things going on which are poorly defined - we know, for instance, that the prevalence of cross reactive antibodies in uninfected individuals seems to be considerably higher in very young children (a third to a half, rather than 10-15% in the overall population), though it's not entirely clear to what extent this might give them immunity.
... Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief advisor famous for his championing of data-driven insights, is “obviously very interested in science - but I don’t think he knows much about how it actually works. It would be better for him and for us if he did.”
Good scientists aren’t arrogant, so that’s a wish unlikely to be granted.
How many scientists have you met? If the arrogant ones aren't good, there goes half the people with an FRS....
The behaviour of people after they get the title professor reminds me of Keegan's comment about generals. Some Pentagon desk jockey get one star - immediately he thinks "I am a general - an equal to Alexander the Great and Napoleon"....
I was going to comment that I've met plenty of arrogant good scientists, but then reflected that - if truly good - they're not actually arrogant, just correct about their abilities
So I think @Nigelb is probably right, but because when scientists become arrogant they cease to be good scientists - good scientists should question everything, including (and perhaps particularly), their own knowledge and abilities.
Just look at the story about the discovery of how many stomach ulcers are caused by infections..... All the arrogance and blind belief that "Me Big Scientist. Me Right." that you could ever need.
A chap I knew did 3 years of a PhD. At the very end, he disproved his idea. He could have hidden that, probably got his PhD. He was honest. So he got nothing.
Me personally, I would have given him a PhD on the spot. He did science. A carefully crafted, elegant proof, complete with a ton of evidence, of the negative is a valuable thing.
When the history of the COVID epidemic is written up, I am quite certain that there will a large amount of "Me Big Scientist. Me Right." in the story.
Seems odd - he should surely have been able to write up his thesis, and submit for viva? Its hard to publish things that don't work (one of science's biggest problems IMO) but PhD is about the process, and showing what work you have done.
And coming to a conclusion and explaining why.....
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
How long does a temperature check take? 10 seconds? If so a school with 1000 pupils would need 10,000 seconds (or about three hours) to check everyone. Obviously you would have multiple thermometers, but if you are checking them as they come in there is a limit to how many you can check at once as most schools have a limited number of entrances for security (we have three). Meanwhile you have several hundred pupils milling around waiting to be checked, mixing nicely.
If you were going to do it in school I would suggest form tutors or equivalent doing it at registration, which would require dozens of thermometers per school.
About 3 seconds and you'd have 10 or so teachers at the gates doing it so it's actually only a maximum queue of 5 mins.
Is it me or do a load of the arguments on schools being fine to reopen tend to merge "children" into one inchoate category?
There may be evidence that small children (under 10) may not spread the disease as much. Teenagers, however, seem just as able to spread it as others.
So children may not spread the disease as much, but children certainly do.
(using "children" to mean "under-10" the first time and to mean "school children up to 18" the second time).
Inchoate means "started but not finished", nothing to do with chaotic.
And can mean "formless" or "imperfectly formed"
"Perhaps because it looks a little like the word chaos (although the two aren't closely related), inchoate now not only implies the formlessness that often marks beginnings but also the confusion caused by chaos"
Cambridge English Dictionary: "only recently or partly formed, or not completely developed or clear":
Since HMG has spaffed £100 million on the wrong type of mask for the NHS, it can probably turn a profit by selling them to the public.
Or it could distribute them for free. Was it that they were surgical type masks with ear loops rather than ties ? In which case they are more than adequate for use outside of hospitals.
The almost useless face coverings are simple bandanas.
Imagine the headlines though. Their answer will be to leave them rotting in a warehouse until the vaccine is out, then bury them underground and hope everyone has forgotten.
Why ? If they are more than adequate for public use, they should be used.
Of course they "should" be, and yours is a very good suggestion. But I am pretty confident this govt wont let "should" override avoiding a week of bad media headlines as the press take the mickey for buying dud masks from one of their cronies who had no experience in PPE. (Or perhaps he is a fellow Oxford PPE grad and the govt buyer thought that sufficient relevant experience).
I do have a slight theory that some free trade nutters think wealth creation is being a more respectable Arthur Daley middleman rather than creating anything useful at either end of the exchange.
That said there are now new PPE factories coming on line with government support:
Factories in South Wales and Lancashire have started making "high quality" face coverings as part of a push to produce a million a week.
Some £14m is being invested by the UK government, with productions underway in Port Talbot and Blackburn.
The Cabinet Office said 10 production lines had been bought, including 34 tons of equipment and machinery, while a further 10 had been commissioned from Coventry-based automotive company Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd.
I know that social media is anecdotage. But I have a feeling that Layla Moran has the momentum in the LibDem leadership race. I expect that much of the older membership will vote for Ed Davey - will have to see how that balances off against younger tweetier members who really do seem to be breaking towards Layla.
Since HMG has spaffed £100 million on the wrong type of mask for the NHS, it can probably turn a profit by selling them to the public.
Or it could distribute them for free. Was it that they were surgical type masks with ear loops rather than ties ? In which case they are more than adequate for use outside of hospitals.
The almost useless face coverings are simple bandanas.
Imagine the headlines though. Their answer will be to leave them rotting in a warehouse until the vaccine is out, then bury them underground and hope everyone has forgotten.
Why ? If they are more than adequate for public use, they should be used.
Of course they "should" be, and yours is a very good suggestion. But I am pretty confident this govt wont let "should" override avoiding a week of bad media headlines as the press take the mickey for buying dud masks from one of their cronies who had no experience in PPE. (Or perhaps he is a fellow Oxford PPE grad and the govt buyer thought that sufficient relevant experience).
I do have a slight theory that some free trade nutters think wealth creation is being a more respectable Arthur Daley middleman rather than creating anything useful at either end of the exchange.
That said there are now new PPE factories coming on line with government support:
Factories in South Wales and Lancashire have started making "high quality" face coverings as part of a push to produce a million a week.
Some £14m is being invested by the UK government, with productions underway in Port Talbot and Blackburn.
The Cabinet Office said 10 production lines had been bought, including 34 tons of equipment and machinery, while a further 10 had been commissioned from Coventry-based automotive company Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd.
Notice how little was needed to create our own PPE production compared to what has been spent on PPE which has turned out to be substandard.
Taiwan did this pretty well as soon as the virus was discovered.
Yes, that's the failure on PPE, why didn't the government invest in these option in Jan/Feb when we realised it was disease X. There still would have been some shortfall but nowhere near what we actually had.
I know that social media is anecdotage. But I have a feeling that Layla Moran has the momentum in the LibDem leadership race. I expect that much of the older membership will vote for Ed Davey - will have to see how that balances off against younger tweetier members who really do seem to be breaking towards Layla.
What's the average age of a LD member?
My guess of Pb Lib Dems is that it’s 65-67 in the ‘real’ world lower but not by much
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
Far be it from the author to give his own hysterical overreactions like "For pro-EU activists to pose as caring, decent pro-migrant people is a sick joke."
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
Far be it from the author to give his own hysterical overreactions like "For pro-EU activists to pose as caring, decent pro-migrant people is a sick joke."
You missed out the bit above, where the authors points out
"The EU, lest we forget, has an explicitly racist immigration policy – granting freedom of movement for primarily white Europeans while violently denying it to non-white Africans – which has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean. It has also paid African mercenaries to police and in some cases punish aspiring migrants who wish to come to Europe."
People travelled on single tickets bus>metro>bus via interchange hubs - but the bus part was privatised, putting more buses on the road.
You can buy combination bus and Metro tickets. But only for certain bus companies. And only if you board the bus in Tyne and Wear. And only if you know about it.
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
Far be it from the author to give his own hysterical overreactions like "For pro-EU activists to pose as caring, decent pro-migrant people is a sick joke."
You missed out the bit above, where the authors points out
"The EU, lest we forget, has an explicitly racist immigration policy – granting freedom of movement for primarily white Europeans while violently denying it to non-white Africans – which has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean. It has also paid African mercenaries to police and in some cases punish aspiring migrants who wish to come to Europe."
my bold.
Assuming most people are caring and decent people is a good starting point in life. Judging them severely by policies outside of their control, which they may not even agree with is a hysterical overreaction.
The EU is far from perfect, no person is, let alone any institution. People are still mostly decent and caring.
These are dreadful ratings for a PM so early in the term
The general public that is less interested in politics is catching up with what anyone who has the slightest understanding of what makes a good leader have known for a long time: Boris Johnson is not PM material.
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
Far be it from the author to give his own hysterical overreactions like "For pro-EU activists to pose as caring, decent pro-migrant people is a sick joke."
You missed out the bit above, where the authors points out
"The EU, lest we forget, has an explicitly racist immigration policy – granting freedom of movement for primarily white Europeans while violently denying it to non-white Africans – which has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean. It has also paid African mercenaries to police and in some cases punish aspiring migrants who wish to come to Europe."
my bold.
Clearly a very balanced article. The author is not really a swivel-eyed EU hater at all!
Guernsey - also 102 days no COVID - expects there to be other cases in Guernsey too. It's not "if" but "when". The medical director yesterday said we could be living with COVID "for decades".
It's also why "Zero COVID" is a fool's errand.
Absolutely. It's laughable that Sturgeon and Drakeford are hell bent on pursuing a zero COVID policy when you have small, easily contained islands saying it's impossible.
While Starmer, on face value, looks like he is doing much better than Johnson, there are a large amount of DKs. The worry for Starmer is that it seems as people get to know him, they don't rate him.
Though 'economy' is intimately tied up with both COVID and Brexit, so it's really only confirming the obvious - that Brexit won't do as much damage as COVID.
Which will be a great slogan for the Tories in four years' time...
"Is the arrival of migrants on dinghies an ‘invasion’ of the UK? Or is it fine, nothing to worry about, just a handful of desperate people, calm down?
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
Far be it from the author to give his own hysterical overreactions like "For pro-EU activists to pose as caring, decent pro-migrant people is a sick joke."
You missed out the bit above, where the authors points out
"The EU, lest we forget, has an explicitly racist immigration policy – granting freedom of movement for primarily white Europeans while violently denying it to non-white Africans – which has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean. It has also paid African mercenaries to police and in some cases punish aspiring migrants who wish to come to Europe."
my bold.
Clearly a very balanced article. The author is not really a swivel-eyed EU hater at all!
Are you aware of the policy in question - and what happens when you buy "security" in many African countries?
I was going to comment that I've met plenty of arrogant good scientists, but then reflected that - if truly good - they're not actually arrogant, just correct about their abilities
So I think @Nigelb is probably right, but because when scientists become arrogant they cease to be good scientists - good scientists should question everything, including (and perhaps particularly), their own knowledge and abilities.
The truly great scientists aren't arrogant in my experience. When I was studying for my doctorate I met quite a few of the big names of theoretical particles physics of the time, including spending a couple of weeks working with one of the very greatest of all, Sheldon Glashow. It was really striking how open and approachable the top scientists were - self-confident, yes, and enthusiastic, but remarkably generous with their time and patience for a lowly post-grad. It tended to be the ones who were never going to be great achievers who were unhelpful and arrogant.
I think something similar may apply to most walks of life - including politicians. Probably that's because the top ones don't have anything to prove, and also they know how much luck there is in everything.
Contrary to popular belief, almost all top scientists are good communicators. There are of course a few who get to the top by being incredibly good and focussed, and simply rely on other scientists to publicise their work. But the typical top scientist has to be successful at writing interesting (for ther peers) scientific papers, being invited to conferences which means giving consistently interesting talks, being sucessful at writing grant applications to pay for the post docs who help you with your best research and to buy you out of teaching. Most will also be good at playing the internal uni politics game. Appearance on popular science programs like the Infinite Monkey Cage or articles in the New Scientist/newspapers are great for reputation and promotion. Oh and they also work incredibly long hours.
When you take all of this into consideration, it is not so surprising that most top scientists are pleasant and approachable, because it is an characteristic which has helped them get to the top.
Though 'economy' is intimately tied up with both COVID and Brexit, so it's really only confirming the obvious - that Brexit won't do as much damage as COVID.
Which will be a great slogan for the Tories in four years' time...
It does give them a plausible excuse that will be quite easy to sell to many. The problems were all due to covid not Brexit.
Guernsey - also 102 days no COVID - expects there to be other cases in Guernsey too. It's not "if" but "when". The medical director yesterday said we could be living with COVID "for decades".
It's also why "Zero COVID" is a fool's errand.
Absolutely. It's laughable that Sturgeon and Drakeford are hell bent on pursuing a zero COVID policy when you have small, easily contained islands saying it's impossible.
Supression to a de minimis level is possible though, it'll take a few hundred years for NZ to hit say the US's monthly case load...
... Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief advisor famous for his championing of data-driven insights, is “obviously very interested in science - but I don’t think he knows much about how it actually works. It would be better for him and for us if he did.”
Good scientists aren’t arrogant, so that’s a wish unlikely to be granted.
How many scientists have you met? If the arrogant ones aren't good, there goes half the people with an FRS....
The behaviour of people after they get the title professor reminds me of Keegan's comment about generals. Some Pentagon desk jockey get one star - immediately he thinks "I am a general - an equal to Alexander the Great and Napoleon"....
I was going to comment that I've met plenty of arrogant good scientists, but then reflected that - if truly good - they're not actually arrogant, just correct about their abilities
So I think @Nigelb is probably right, but because when scientists become arrogant they cease to be good scientists - good scientists should question everything, including (and perhaps particularly), their own knowledge and abilities.
Just look at the story about the discovery of how many stomach ulcers are caused by infections..... All the arrogance and blind belief that "Me Big Scientist. Me Right." that you could ever need.
A chap I knew did 3 years of a PhD. At the very end, he disproved his idea. He could have hidden that, probably got his PhD. He was honest. So he got nothing.
Me personally, I would have given him a PhD on the spot. He did science. A carefully crafted, elegant proof, complete with a ton of evidence, of the negative is a valuable thing.
When the history of the COVID epidemic is written up, I am quite certain that there will a large amount of "Me Big Scientist. Me Right." in the story.
Seems odd - he should surely have been able to write up his thesis, and submit for viva? Its hard to publish things that don't work (one of science's biggest problems IMO) but PhD is about the process, and showing what work you have done.
If the story is accurate I agree, that is a travesty. When good scientific methods lead to different conclusions than expected that is good science.
If the PhD Student was determined to continue a career in science he could have probably found a lecturer/prof, who knows the back-story, and who would have taken him on as a "post doc" and got the thesis passed somewhere/somehow. But this roundabout route is definitely harder these days, and the student will find many doors slam shut infront of him due to him failing the PhD submission.
Boris Johnson has blocked a radical proposal by Michael Gove, cabinet office minister, to shore up the union by inviting Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, to take a seat at the UK government’s cabinet table.
Mr Gove proposed the plan as a way of containing growing public support in Scotland for independence by giving Ms Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, a direct say in policy decisions taken at Westminster that affect the whole of the UK.
One person briefed on the discussions said: “Michael suggested it at cabinet as one of a number of ideas to address the Scottish question, but Boris didn’t like it. He doesn’t like the idea of [Ms] Sturgeon being seen as on the same political level as him.” https://www.ft.com/content/71da11d4-7f0a-4136-ad26-a0fe374a138a
Though 'economy' is intimately tied up with both COVID and Brexit, so it's really only confirming the obvious - that Brexit won't do as much damage as COVID.
Which will be a great slogan for the Tories in four years' time...
It does give them a plausible excuse that will be quite easy to sell to many. The problems were all due to covid not Brexit.
Yep, that is what they will sell to the gullible. Johnson and particularly Cummings already know that those that voted for Brexit in the first place are (as a collective) more gullible than the remainder. The slight problem they may have with that narrative is why we have the second highest death rate per 100k in the world on Johnson and Cummings' watch. Hopefully now we have a competent LoTO it will be a tougher sell for them.
Boris Johnson has blocked a radical proposal by Michael Gove, cabinet office minister, to shore up the union by inviting Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, to take a seat at the UK government’s cabinet table.
Mr Gove proposed the plan as a way of containing growing public support in Scotland for independence by giving Ms Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, a direct say in policy decisions taken at Westminster that affect the whole of the UK.
One person briefed on the discussions said: “Michael suggested it at cabinet as one of a number of ideas to address the Scottish question, but Boris didn’t like it. He doesn’t like the idea of [Ms] Sturgeon being seen as on the same political level as him.” https://www.ft.com/content/71da11d4-7f0a-4136-ad26-a0fe374a138a
I'm sorry but are these guys morons.
How is a token gesture like this going to help?
The arrogance is astonishing, it's not hard to see why Scots want Independence when they get treated like idiots. Johnson will be the PM to collapse the Union if he carries on.
This is where Labour really has a play, start arguing for federalism.
Though 'economy' is intimately tied up with both COVID and Brexit, so it's really only confirming the obvious - that Brexit won't do as much damage as COVID.
Which will be a great slogan for the Tories in four years' time...
It does give them a plausible excuse that will be quite easy to sell to many. The problems were all due to covid not Brexit.
Yep, that is what they will sell to the gullible. Johnson and particularly Cummings already know that those that voted for Brexit in the first place are (as a collective) more gullible than the remainder. The slight problem they may have with that narrative is why we have the second highest death rate per 100k in the world on Johnson and Cummings' watch. Hopefully now we have a competent LoTO it will be a tougher sell for them.
A responsible Government would now choose the least damaging Brexit, an EEA arrangement.
South Korea getting serious about biotech manufacturing.
Samsung Biologics to build 256,000-liter plant 4 https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/08/119_294217.html Samsung Biologics announced its plans to build a 256,000-liter plant in Incheon, which will be the world's largest single plant producing biologic drugs.
"With the new plant No.4, Samsung Biologics will shatter its own record of having the largest biologic plant in the world," Kim Tae-han, CEO of the contract drug manufacturer, said Tuesday during an online press conference.
"When plant No.4 is completed, our manufacturing complex will have a combined capacity of 650,000 liters, which accounts for 30 percent of the global contract manufacturing facilities. Furthermore, we also have a plan to secure 330,000 square meters of land in Incheon to build another biologics complex in the future."
Samsung Biologics currently has three plants, and the third one is the largest single drug manufacturing plant in the world with an 180,000-liter capacity.
For plant No. 4, Kim said the company will invest 1.74 trillion won ($1.47 billion), and its construction will begin as early as next month. He expected the new plant will begin commercial operation by the end of 2022....
More than one thing can be right. Of course they were illegal and they could still get asylum. The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
More than one thing can be right. Of course they were illegal and they could still get asylum. The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
Is it me or do a load of the arguments on schools being fine to reopen tend to merge "children" into one inchoate category?
There may be evidence that small children (under 10) may not spread the disease as much. Teenagers, however, seem just as able to spread it as others.
So children may not spread the disease as much, but children certainly do.
(using "children" to mean "under-10" the first time and to mean "school children up to 18" the second time).
Inchoate means "started but not finished", nothing to do with chaotic.
And can mean "formless" or "imperfectly formed"
"Perhaps because it looks a little like the word chaos (although the two aren't closely related), inchoate now not only implies the formlessness that often marks beginnings but also the confusion caused by chaos"
Cambridge English Dictionary: "only recently or partly formed, or not completely developed or clear":
It looks like a blend of "incoherent" and "chaos" so if you don't know the word - as most won't - you will probably conjure up that meaning. A real mess. Out of control. Impossible to understand.
Luckily it's not too far off, unlike what EYE thought it meant until now - which was "barely conscious".
Thankfully I've never used it in public and have therefore escaped what would have been dreadful embarrassment.
BEIJING (Reuters) - Authorities in China have found the novel coronavirus on the packaging of imported frozen seafood that arrived from the port city of Dalian, which recently battled a surge of cases, a local government said on Tuesday.
The virus was found on the outer packaging of frozen seafood bought by three companies in Yantai, a port city in eastern Shandong province.
The Yantai city government said in a statement the seafood was from an imported shipment that landed at Dalian but did not say where it originated.
I know that social media is anecdotage. But I have a feeling that Layla Moran has the momentum in the LibDem leadership race. I expect that much of the older membership will vote for Ed Davey - will have to see how that balances off against younger tweetier members who really do seem to be breaking towards Layla.
Miss Vance, I do wonder what the true impact of the pandemic on China is.
Mr. Malmesbury, win-win for Starmer then. The far left trots off and he immediately becomes more palatable to a centre disenchanted with the self-regarding incompetence of the PM.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Farage is probably thinking long and hard about making some kind of a return.
Yes. Nigel. For weeks he's been going out there rain or shine on his own little boat, filming these refugees, railing about it, telling anybody who would listen that it's a total scandal and is making a mockery of "take back control", and now it's getting traction. He'll be thinking "ahead of the game and finger on the pulse", just like always on anything to do with immigration, and politically speaking "I've still got it." He'll be buzzing.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
Do we know if temperature is even an accurate test to determine if somebody is infectious?
We know it isn’t great: throws up lots of false positives and false negatives as there are lot of things that can give you a temperature and not all C19 patients have a temperature (indeed there seems to be a suggestion that they are most infectious before any symptoms show).
Apparently the temperature check at airports thing hasn't caught cases - on a world wide basis.
Because if people feel sick, they don't travel. The movie thing of the guy dying of Ebola, who *has* to go out and infect everyone is just that.
The problem with COVID19 is the lengthy period of no symptoms *and* being infectious.
Not sure that shows that the temperature checks are ineffective. If people know they'll be turned away if they have a temperature, they will surely check their own temperature before setting out, and not bother to turn up at all. That seems a good result.
One of the government scientists was asked about the effectiveness of temperature checks in a briefing a few weeks ago, and said that they weren't very much use because they failed to detect about one-third of cases. I thought that was a very odd thing to say, because a test which is very cheap and non-intrusive to perform, and which does detect two-thirds of cases, strikes me a jolly good idea - you've immediately reduced your incoming cases by a factor of three.
My understanding - from South Korea etc - was that people who think they have a temperature during the COVID crisis are more focused on the "I've got the plague - must find a doctor before I die" thing, rather than travel.
Essentially, pretty much all of the people with temperatures cancelled their flights anyway. The problem was the ones who felt perfectly well...
That was certainly the case with Mrs PtP. She didn't want to go anywhere once the symptoms started. (It was partly because of that experience that I dismissed the heap of bullshit Cummings offered us when he claimed to have whisked his sick wife and their kid up to Durham for health reasons.)
BEIJING (Reuters) - Authorities in China have found the novel coronavirus on the packaging of imported frozen seafood that arrived from the port city of Dalian, which recently battled a surge of cases, a local government said on Tuesday.
The virus was found on the outer packaging of frozen seafood bought by three companies in Yantai, a port city in eastern Shandong province.
The Yantai city government said in a statement the seafood was from an imported shipment that landed at Dalian but did not say where it originated.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Yeah this is what confuses me, as a German or a French person I'd be mighty pissed off that the UK take bugger all refugees.
- I might be wrong but, if Warren is the VP pick, doesn't the current MA Governor who is a Republican get to pick her replacement (although there are questions about whether he will stay in the party)?
- The ally who advised Kamala Harris to not take the VP slot was Willie Brown, her old "mentor". That might carry a lot of weight with Harris. He suggested Harris could do far more as AG;
- the two frontrunners (Rice and Harris) each bring with them risks for Biden namely (1) controversies of their own (2) they risk accentuating controversies around Biden himself (Harris because of her record on crime which risks focusing attention on Biden's role in crime bills which may alienate black voters; Rice because it will look like an Obama 2.0 admin).
Perhaps most importantly, both are also natural picks for high profile posts that can be offered as compensation (Harris AG / Rice SoS). That also goes for Warren (Treasury Sec) and, arguably, Duckworth (Defence);
- looking at the NY Times article, which looks well informed, 8 candidates get mentioned as in contention - Harris, Rice, Warren, Whitmer, Duckworth, Demings, Bass and Lujan Grisham. If you want a value bet, you can get Lujan Grisham at 130 on Betfair now. That is not bad odds for what looks like a 1 in 8 chance *
* for disclosure, I recommended Lujan Grisham on here under MrEd. My bloody log in is not working so I have had to go back to my old nom de plume...
You're right that the GOP MA Governor would pick Warren's successor although the special (by) election must be within 160 days of the vacancy so they may be short-lived. Albeit always some risk with a special election that it'll be lost - Obama lost a Senate special election in MA in the first year of his Presidency.
I think Warren has simply dropped off the radar anyway - Biden has shown absolutely no indication that appeasing the left of the party is high on his list of priorities with the VP choice (he'll do it in policy terms).
I think it is hugely unlikely Biden will look beyond the five in OGH's chart in the article, and fairly unlikely he'll go beyond the big two. I see the case for Grisham but, unlike McCain in 2008, Biden isn't in a position where he needs to shake up the race massively. Palin did shake up the race but quickly came unstuck when subjected to scrutiny. A shaky VP pick is a particular problem for Biden too, as he's particularly old and the VP pick has a realistic chance of the Presidency.
Biden's team have made sure the big names being considered are out there for discussion precisely so big problems can be exposed - and Karen Bass came unstuck on that basis over Cuba. Other big contenders have some flaws (e.g. Harris attacked Biden on the campaign trail, Rice has comments over Benghazi) but these don't feel disqualifying - everyone with a weighty CV has such points.
On Rice or Harris not wanting it, no doubt if they aren't picked their proxies will let it be known they had doubts about it all along. But the VP will really be in pole position for the Presidency whereas the AG or SoS won't, so it'd be crazy not to go for it if they have those ambitions - which we know Harris has, and Rice probably has.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
It's convenient for us that there are other countries between us and the source of most refugees from war zones. But Amnesty is correct that it's unfair to lean back and say "Ah, fine, let those countries take the refugees then". It's frankly surprising there is not more populist outrage about it in Italy and Greece - even the most refugee-friendly and hospitable Greek will struggle to see why he should take the full burden while the UK triers to take none.
Yeah this is what confuses me, as a German or a French person I'd be mighty pissed off that the UK take bugger all refugees.
The proposal by Cameron to setup refugee camps in the various regions, take vetted & verified refugees from there directly & crack down on the people smugglers was, in my view -
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
By Philip's logic the UK can't take in any refugees ever because they pass through somewhere else first. The Government seems to disagree, owing to the high number of successful claims here.
The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
That's not true.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
Amnesty are twisting things there to suit their agenda.
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
Please cite your evidence that Amnesty is wrong.
Please cite evidence there's a law that says you can leave France - not Syria.
It was provided above to you. If fleeing say Syria, you do not need to register in France. You can register in the UK.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
They've already fled Syria. They're not in Syria they are in France.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
Completely wrong. No citation as expected.
The quote is right there in the convention.
It does not disprove what Amnesty said. Please link to the full law where it says these people cannot clam asylum here.
Comments
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/61-new-covid-19-cases-in-singapore-including-2-in-the-community-and-3-imported
Red tape is good
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53730847
The Downfall mashups of this will be hilarious...
There are a lot of things going on which are poorly defined - we know, for instance, that the prevalence of cross reactive antibodies in uninfected individuals seems to be considerably higher in very young children (a third to a half, rather than 10-15% in the overall population), though it's not entirely clear to what extent this might give them immunity.
It’s neither.
The right-wing depiction of the dinghy arrivals as a militaristic-style assault on Britain’s beaches and borders is a hysterical overreaction. But the liberal elite’s insistence that ‘There’s nothing to see here’ is bad, too. In some ways it’s even worse. It speaks to the extent to which the chattering classes now view borders as undesirable, as things only a neo-fascist would want to police or protect."
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/11/why-the-migrant-crisis-matters/
"Perhaps because it looks a little like the word chaos (although the two aren't closely related), inchoate now not only implies the formlessness that often marks beginnings but also the confusion caused by chaos"
Cambridge English Dictionary: "only recently or partly formed, or not completely developed or clear":
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/well/live/coronavirus-covid-symptoms.html
Down it goes
Keir as likeable as BoJo
https://twitter.com/My_Metro/status/1293042060073799682?s=20
People travelled on single tickets bus>metro>bus via interchange hubs - but the bus part was privatised, putting more buses on the road.
"The EU, lest we forget, has an explicitly racist immigration policy – granting freedom of movement for primarily white Europeans while violently denying it to non-white Africans – which has led to the deaths of thousands of people in the Mediterranean. It has also paid African mercenaries to police and in some cases punish aspiring migrants who wish to come to Europe."
my bold.
But only for certain bus companies.
And only if you board the bus in Tyne and Wear.
And only if you know about it.
The EU is far from perfect, no person is, let alone any institution. People are still mostly decent and caring.
https://twitter.com/mwclemence/status/1293091454076821505?s=20
Which will be a great slogan for the Tories in four years' time...
Johnson is ranked above Cameron, Thatcher, May and Brown at the same point in their premiership.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/rishi-sunak-remains-popular-his-handling-coronavirus (the charts are in the link at the bottom).
Lincoln Project expands GOP target list, winning Trump ire
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/511401-lincoln-project-expands-gop-target-list-winning-trump-ire
When you take all of this into consideration, it is not so surprising that most top scientists are pleasant and approachable, because it is an characteristic which has helped them get to the top.
Keir goes for the jugular
If the PhD Student was determined to continue a career in science he could have probably found a lecturer/prof, who knows the back-story, and who would have taken him on as a "post doc" and got the thesis passed somewhere/somehow. But this roundabout route is definitely harder these days, and the student will find many doors slam shut infront of him due to him failing the PhD submission.
ROFL
Boris Johnson has blocked a radical proposal by Michael Gove, cabinet office minister, to shore up the union by inviting Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, to take a seat at the UK government’s cabinet table.
Mr Gove proposed the plan as a way of containing growing public support in Scotland for independence by giving Ms Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, a direct say in policy decisions taken at Westminster that affect the whole of the UK.
One person briefed on the discussions said: “Michael suggested it at cabinet as one of a number of ideas to address the Scottish question, but Boris didn’t like it. He doesn’t like the idea of [Ms] Sturgeon being seen as on the same political level as him.”
https://www.ft.com/content/71da11d4-7f0a-4136-ad26-a0fe374a138a
How is a token gesture like this going to help?
The arrogance is astonishing, it's not hard to see why Scots want Independence when they get treated like idiots. Johnson will be the PM to collapse the Union if he carries on.
This is where Labour really has a play, start arguing for federalism.
Ah, now it makes sense
I'm pro-FOM myself but I can see the public are not, of course it does limit trading arrangements.
Maybe better to wait for the shit to hit the fan first
Samsung Biologics to build 256,000-liter plant 4
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/08/119_294217.html
Samsung Biologics announced its plans to build a 256,000-liter plant in Incheon, which will be the world's largest single plant producing biologic drugs.
"With the new plant No.4, Samsung Biologics will shatter its own record of having the largest biologic plant in the world," Kim Tae-han, CEO of the contract drug manufacturer, said Tuesday during an online press conference.
"When plant No.4 is completed, our manufacturing complex will have a combined capacity of 650,000 liters, which accounts for 30 percent of the global contract manufacturing facilities. Furthermore, we also have a plan to secure 330,000 square meters of land in Incheon to build another biologics complex in the future."
Samsung Biologics currently has three plants, and the third one is the largest single drug manufacturing plant in the world with an 180,000-liter capacity.
For plant No. 4, Kim said the company will invest 1.74 trillion won ($1.47 billion), and its construction will begin as early as next month. He expected the new plant will begin commercial operation by the end of 2022....
More than one thing can be right. Of course they were illegal and they could still get asylum. The law is you claim in the first safe country you get to, unless France isn't a safe country why is anyone crossing from Calais?
Totally open borders, abolish immigration service etc is a core thing with those gentry.
A managed migration policy would be simply adopting the governments policy, but with (presumably) different rules.
Luckily it's not too far off, unlike what EYE thought it meant until now - which was "barely conscious".
Thankfully I've never used it in public and have therefore escaped what would have been dreadful embarrassment.
Realistically, the only way Starmer loses the leadership is the PLP, who are behind him.
So it's most likely Momentum just leave the party. Which will be a good thing for all of us.
Which leads us to the conclusion that France is systematically abusing human rights of refugees.
Sanctions on Macron now!
The virus was found on the outer packaging of frozen seafood bought by three companies in Yantai, a port city in eastern Shandong province.
The Yantai city government said in a statement the seafood was from an imported shipment that landed at Dalian but did not say where it originated.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-yantai/coronavirus-found-on-frozen-seafood-in-china-idUSKCN257191
Mr. Malmesbury, win-win for Starmer then. The far left trots off and he immediately becomes more palatable to a centre disenchanted with the self-regarding incompetence of the PM.
There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country
Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another.
There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.
The EU does run a system – called the Dublin Regulations – which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for an asylum claim where certain conditions apply.
The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another. But it doesn’t work.
It is clear the system greatly benefits countries like the UK and is very unfair to countries like Greece and Italy. That’s part of the reason Germany has just suspended the Dublin Regulations when dealing with people fleeing from Syria.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
The law gives you a right to escape a country if you need to do so. So leaving Syria is legal if you are a refugee from Syria. But what law lets them escape France and enter the UK?
I see nothing wrong with full bodied negotiations.
Why should them going down to the wire make you blue?
Tempered by the notion that food processing seems to be a main source of outbreaks worldwide.
Please cite the contrary evidence. You claimed Amnesty is twisting, please prove it.
I think Warren has simply dropped off the radar anyway - Biden has shown absolutely no indication that appeasing the left of the party is high on his list of priorities with the VP choice (he'll do it in policy terms).
I think it is hugely unlikely Biden will look beyond the five in OGH's chart in the article, and fairly unlikely he'll go beyond the big two. I see the case for Grisham but, unlike McCain in 2008, Biden isn't in a position where he needs to shake up the race massively. Palin did shake up the race but quickly came unstuck when subjected to scrutiny. A shaky VP pick is a particular problem for Biden too, as he's particularly old and the VP pick has a realistic chance of the Presidency.
Biden's team have made sure the big names being considered are out there for discussion precisely so big problems can be exposed - and Karen Bass came unstuck on that basis over Cuba. Other big contenders have some flaws (e.g. Harris attacked Biden on the campaign trail, Rice has comments over Benghazi) but these don't feel disqualifying - everyone with a weighty CV has such points.
On Rice or Harris not wanting it, no doubt if they aren't picked their proxies will let it be known they had doubts about it all along. But the VP will really be in pole position for the Presidency whereas the AG or SoS won't, so it'd be crazy not to go for it if they have those ambitions - which we know Harris has, and Rice probably has.
Not even brie-fly.
The law that was ratified says that anyone "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is a refugee. People crossing from France are not coming directly from Syria and it is a dangerous crossing that should not be encouraged.
We should be doing more to support genuine refugees especially women and young children, not healthy men who have escaped the horrors of ... France.
- logical
- humane
- practical