Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.
Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.
Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.
Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.
Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.
I saw an interview (somewhere) with a very senior State official from Colorado, where, AIUI, they post the ballot papers out, but have designated collection points to which to return them. From there they are collected by State officials and counted.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.
We can assess that after the election if it happens.
That does not change Trump's record in his first term though
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.
We can assess that after the election if it happens.
That does not change Trump's record in his first term though
Apart from not invading any countries that I'm aware of, he's been crap.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.
We can assess that after the election if it happens.
That does not change Trump's record in his first term though
Surely suppression HAS happened. And it's only due to Iran finding proxies and otherwise hanging back that the USA hasn't got itself in a war
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.
Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.
Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.
Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.
Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.
Bezos isn't a fan of Trump. I wonder if his vast delivery network could be mobilised to help out.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
Metimes HYUFD the Right aren't always right. Voter suppression by peaceful or violent means is certainly not right in a bone fide democracy.
We can assess that after the election if it happens.
That does not change Trump's record in his first term though
What good does assessing voter suppression after the election do? The result won’t be changed and if trump wins then they will just continue to extend it.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Operation Inherent Resolve has bombed Iraq and Syria over 10,000 times on Trump's watch. And yet they are still not peaceful or prosperous! What the fuck?
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
In March it was but then most countries were only just introducing suppression measures, what are the figures for the last six weeks?
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
What a bizarre and frankly antidemocratic comment. So many people rely on postal voting. You nay as well say the same about polling stations.
Polling stations are the other prong of the attack.
Reduce polling station frequency in Dem wards, and restricting postal voting that could offset the first issue is heading down the Belarusian road.
Ignore counting votes cast in Dem areas and we have a full house.
Of course, plenty of people prefer postal voting (I do) but will vote in person if necessary. Something we don't know is whether Democrats will be so motivated that they'll either return their postal ballot almost instantly when they get them (as most postal voters in Britain do anyway) or vote in person no matter where the polling station is and how long the lines are. But the PA report that the post office isn't sure they can deliver even instantly-cast postal votes in time is pretty serious.
It's not just about motivation - if you reduce the number of polling places enough then there will be hard physical limits on the number of ballots that can be cast in a day. And while someone like you and I have the financial means and job security to take a day off work to vote - if that's what it takes - for many US voters in particular a long queue to vote leaves them with the choice of voting or losing their job. That doesn't really come down to a matter of motivation - that's such a condescending way to frame it.
And then, as I've warned in the past, a long queue of people waiting to vote is an obvious physical target for the heavily-armed extremists that Trump is busy convincing they have to defend the election from being stolen. The sorts of people who have already gone out to shoot at, or drive vehicles into, Black Matters Lives protests.
I think there's a lot of denial about how bad the situation already is, and how much worse it is going to become. And the worse thing is that I can see lots of comfortable people explaining it away after the event by talking about motivation, etc, so that they wouldn't have to face the terrifying reality - that Trump stole the election of the Presidency in the great democracy of the United States, and that all our democratic comforts are at risk.
Yes, reproof accepted. I was trying to be hard-nosed about calculating the actual extent of the impact (my guess: enough to swing a tight election), but I agree that even contemplating these issues is already a disaster in democracy.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
Putin has been trying to get a military base in Belarus since 2015 and has been turning the economic screws on "Sasha 3%" ever since.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
In terms of actual outcome I’m not clear how Trump has actually been any worse than any US administration of the last 20 years on global warming. They’ve all been a joke. It’s not politicians that are going to fix it but scientists and industrialists and when it really comes to it, the government has a limited role in facilitating or hindering that progress.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
The historical borders in that part of Europe have been incredibly fluid, with very significant amounts of migration between what we now regard as 'states'. Estonia and Latvia are probably the only countries with a significant proportion of people who regard themselves as 'ethnically' Estonian or Letts. Even Poland's borders have shifted enormously over time.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
Solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels without having to be subsided in many parts of the world and the article I linked to above suggests that it’s going to get substantially (about a third) better In the next few years. Wind generated power is on a similar track. This means that coal is rapidly turning into an expensive as well as dirty option which is the point where all the money grubbing capitalists abandon it without having to be told to.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.
Trump: "I am destroying the USPS so my opponents cannot vote by mail" Centrist Dad Take: "It is an over reaction to suggest Trump is sabotaging the USPS to disrupt the election"
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
The historical borders in that part of Europe have been incredibly fluid, with very significant amounts of migration between what we now regard as 'states'. Estonia and Latvia are probably the only countries with a significant proportion of people who regard themselves as 'ethnically' Estonian or Letts. Even Poland's borders have shifted enormously over time.
Lithuania apparently has the smallest population of ethnic Russians/Russian speakers, it had a largely agrarian economy and fewer people were moved in from the rest of the Soviet Union. But Putin does have a disturbingly irredentist policy, viewing Russian-speakers living over the border as part of the Russian narod, to be gathered up under one ruler.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
The historical borders in that part of Europe have been incredibly fluid, with very significant amounts of migration between what we now regard as 'states'. Estonia and Latvia are probably the only countries with a significant proportion of people who regard themselves as 'ethnically' Estonian or Letts. Even Poland's borders have shifted enormously over time.
Lithuania apparently has the smallest population of ethnic Russians/Russian speakers, it had a largely agrarian economy and fewer people were moved in from the rest of the Soviet Union. But Putin does have a disturbingly irredentist policy, viewing Russian-speakers living over the border as part of the Russian narod, to be gathered up under one ruler.
Agree about Putin's policy. Apparently it's quite a serious problem in Estonia, where there are divisions between ethnic Estonians and the descendants of those moved in under Soviet rule.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
Interesting. Apparently Dejoy is apparently the first person from outside the USPS to be appointed its head for 200 years.
Something seems to remind me of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings ; lip service and partial efforts at the appearance of due process, combined with obviousness and proudly shameless hints, and winks, at supporters.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
And the quarantine/no non-essential travel rules are against countries with significantly higher and/or rapidly increasing prevalence of the disease
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
And the quarantine/no non-essential travel rules are against countries with significantly higher and/or rapidly increasing prevalence of the disease
Yes - except they should be more focused. France arrivals from a high infection area are not the same as arrivals from, say, Corsica.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
My understanding was a lot of it came in from France, Spain, Italy in mid-late Feb to mid-March. I also understand we were expecting it from further afield. This all explains why it popped up almost everywhere in the UK in mid/late-March.
Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
What is the rate of imported COVID cases from returning travelers from different countries, are the proportional to the reported rates in the country from which they came? Is there a difference between quarantine countries and none? Are the figures even collected? If not what’s the evidence to quarantine people based on?
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
Yes, what a pile of dogshit we're having to wade through these days, but at least as regards the US I feel bullish. It's going to be messy but Donald Trump WILL be losing this election - by a lot - and because it's America it will resonate far and wide. Just as his victory in 2016 caused every reactionary bigot on the planet to puff out their chest, raise their voice, feel empowered and validated, so his defeat in 2020 will at least commence the process of putting them back in their box.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
Interesting History What If - The UK government completely stops all immigration in February. It doesn't take the Force to imagine how that one would play out....
Replying to yesterday's questions on why the UK economy should grow faster than Europe and make up more GDP -
1. The economy is less dependent on external factors, so we don't need the whole EU economy to pick up in the same way as Germany or the Netherlands, for example. 2. The UK economy is generally a bit more dynamic and reactive because of the labour market, efficient allocation of resources means that the UK generally picks up steam and gets into a virtuous growth/jobs cycle more easily than in Europe. This is one area that is being hurt by furlough schemes being extended, why will companies bother with new business models when the government is happy subsidising the old one that no longer works. 3. We are far, far less dependent on tourism income than France, Spain and Italy. 4. Because of point 4, British people are sitting on a wall of cash which will get spent at some point that would otherwise have been spent in Spain, Greece, Turkey, France etc... 5. Smart schemes like the eat out to help out will give the nation confidence to go out and spend money. 6. Being an island nation we have a lower chance of seeing a huge second wave than the mainland. What we lose in travel and tourism with quarantine is made up 100x by not having a second wave which would destroy confidence for good.
There are a few more reasons but this covers mostly why the UK is better placed to recover than most of our European allies.
Good post.
I used to be believe (6) but the events of the last five months during the first wave have given me reason to doubt that.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Domestically apart from being more protectionist than free trade he has not done much different from the average Republican President and the US still has gay marriage and legal abortion.
Trump may be a caricature in rhetoric but in policy terms it is more his cultural anti immigration and anti PC language that annoys the left and liberals
If Democrats wanted to learn from Hillary Clinton's defeat and Trump's victory then they'd note to tone down the culture wars, and take working class American concerns about income, health and immigration seriously - and not patronise them.
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
They'd be rolling the dice if Lukashenko does fall. There is a substantial pro-Russian opposition (the urge to split off was nowhere like as strong as in the Baltic States or western Ukraine, so joining up again is attractive to some), as well as a strong pro-Western one which just wants to be a normal European country.
Maybe Uncle Vova thinks Lukashenka's position is becoming untenable and that he would be able to control an inexperienced new government, plus some brownie points from those who aren't against him. Don't forget Ukraine needed two revolutions before they kicked out the Kremlin apologists. They might do it "better" this time round. And there is definitely a more even split between pro-Russians and pro-Europeans in Belarus, maybe the thought is that can be exploited to Russia's advantage. Belarus also has even less historical experience of statehood than Ukraine.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
Solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels without having to be subsided in many parts of the world and the article I linked to above suggests that it’s going to get substantially (about a third) better In the next few years. Wind generated power is on a similar track. This means that coal is rapidly turning into an expensive as well as dirty option which is the point where all the money grubbing capitalists abandon it without having to be told to.
Yes - Texas is now either the world leader in installing wind power capacity or not far off it.
Renewables are already cheaper than coal. We are not far off the point where renewables+storage are cheaper.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
And it doesn't matter how. He has now got to the point where assassination would be morally and politically justified.
A disturbing post.
Despite the morals of that (there aren't any) such a move would inflame divisions and tensions in the USA to the nth degree.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
OK I'll bite. The case for Trump: 1) no more Neocon wars 2) he failed to repeal Obamacare 3) lower taxes for rich people 4) anti-China; not anti-Russia
The case against Biden: 1) he's past it 2) Dems want to sieze the people's guns and shoot babies
Despite all the rhetoric Trump has been the least warlike and hawkish US President since Carter, there have been no new US invasions of other nations under Trump and not even any major air strikes.
Operation Inherent Resolve has bombed Iraq and Syria over 10,000 times on Trump's watch. And yet they are still not peaceful or prosperous! What the fuck?
It was George W Bush who invaded Iraq and Obama who started bombing Libya and Syria, Trump has invaded or bombed no new nations and in Iraq and Syria US forces are still less involved than they were 5 or 15 years ago
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
And it doesn't matter how. He has now got to the point where assassination would be morally and politically justified.
A disturbing post.
Despite the morals of that (there aren't any) such a move would inflame divisions and tensions in the USA to the nth degree.
The country would never heal.
The truth is that the USA is becoming as politically corrupt as any third world dictatorship. It has not reached Zimbabwean levels yet, but perhaps 4 more years of The Donald would do it.
They must be rubbing their hands with glee in Beijing...
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
If I were a really sneaky Russian leader I might make it look like I was reluctant to support him so that when I finally did “on humanitarian grounds to prevent further bloodshed” he would owe everything to me.
Belarus is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian federation
I suspect Putin is angered at his unsubtly in, for example, beating up young protestors and then parading them on TV.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
These are often not the same as economic elites though, which is a crucial modern Trumpian and populist-conserative elision.
The Kochs, probably the most politically influential members of the elite in America, are socially conservative, for instance.
He is a scourge and undermining not only US democracy but the cause of democracy worldwide.
+2
2 to include your other post about the culture war.
Trump's defeat WILL be a massive shot against the other side in the CW but the election needs to - and can only be - won not on that basis but on the more positive agenda of a return to some semblance of decency in government and public life.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
Are they though, the infections from countries with lower rates than the UK, does it not depend on where you went in that country, how you behaved while there and the local infection rate from your home area? Tourist behavior I think will prove to be a bigger driver than national infection rates for imported infections.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.
This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
Up to a point Lord Copper. The very act of travelling - trains, airports, planes, buses, coaches aligned with a range of typical holiday activiites in bars, restaurants , beaches you can go on adinfinitum creates a much bigger range of infection possibilities than staying home. Variation in infection rates can be a help but not if you catch it on the bus to the airport, spread it in your hotel and on the plane for the return journey and then on to family and friends. Holidays at all and especially abroad should really have been a no no this year.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Perhaps with some there is a feeling that a disease caught in foreign parts and imported here is just that little bit worse than something homegrown.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.
This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.
They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.
Shy Trumpsters?
That Unreported World really is an essential programme to watch, on the themes of polarisation and the absence of cultural centre ground. These women appeared to believe every aspect of their right to live as traditional women was being taken away and mocked, even as many minorities in the US instinctively feel this is a life-or-death election for them and their democracy.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
My understanding was a lot of it came in from France, Spain, Italy in mid-late Feb to mid-March. I also understand we were expecting it from further afield. This all explains why it popped up almost everywhere in the UK in mid/late-March.
Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this
I'm shocked, shocked that infections from France explode in size from the 8th of March - the day of the Scotland France Six Nations match.
Mrs C, someone here deliberately did that to point out that the site was insecure and sought to contact the chaps behind the scenes to remedy the situation.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Perhaps with some there is a feeling that a disease caught in foreign parts and imported here is just that little bit worse than something homegrown.
British bugs for British people.
Exactly! That is exactly what I`m detecting. An utterly illogical prejudice that is coming out of Johnson`s poxy focus groups who`s primary characteristic is xenophobia.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
My understanding was a lot of it came in from France, Spain, Italy in mid-late Feb to mid-March. I also understand we were expecting it from further afield. This all explains why it popped up almost everywhere in the UK in mid/late-March.
Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this
I'm shocked, shocked that infections from France explode in size from the 8th of March - the day of the Scotland France Six Nations match.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.
Shy Trumpsters?
That Unreported World really is an essential programme to watch, on the themes of polarisation and the absence of cultural centre ground. These women appeared to believe every aspect of their right to live as traditional women was being taken away, even as many minorities in the US instinctively feel this is a life-or-death election for them and their democracy.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.
This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.
They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt
We tried this. The Lib Dems asked for a by-election, the Independents put out a leaflet highlighting the costs of the election and won handsomely.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
I would seriously question the idea that Trump's foreign policy has been "quite benign". So definitely not "unquestionably". Even without global overheating there is a lot to criticise in foreign policy terms.
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
Solar power is already competitive with fossil fuels without having to be subsided in many parts of the world and the article I linked to above suggests that it’s going to get substantially (about a third) better In the next few years. Wind generated power is on a similar track. This means that coal is rapidly turning into an expensive as well as dirty option which is the point where all the money grubbing capitalists abandon it without having to be told to.
Not all of them - those that own coal plants and mines will be lobbying hard for taxes and regulation on renewables so that they can slow down the transition as much as possible, and make as much money as possible in the interim.
This process has already been seen in the US and Australia, with attempts to charge people with solar panels a tax to "support the electricity grid" - aka subsidise coal.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
I guess the Home Office has decided not, in general, to try to separate countries up when designing the restrictions (although the Azores and Madeira are being treated differently to mainland Portugal, unlike the Canaries and Spain, although the rate is much higher in Spain). In some cases this obviously makes sense - Belgium is so small that restricting travel from Antwerp province, or the Flemish region, but not Wallonia - makes no sense. If you use Corsica as an example, all it takes is a few plaguey French holidaymakers to travel there from Paris and suddently Ajaccio is a hotspot. Of course people can cross borders, but I imagine most people stay in one country. On the other hand I saw a story about some whinging Brit staying in Tignes and wondered why she didn't finish her holiday in Italy, granted it might cost her some money but surely better than paying ripoff prices to come home early, and she wouldn't have to cut her holiday short.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.
This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.
They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt
We tried this. The Lib Dems asked for a by-election, the Independents put out a leaflet highlighting the costs of the election and won handsomely.
We now have a situation where the main parties no longer put up candidates and at the last election there were only 11 candidates for 12 seats.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Perhaps with some there is a feeling that a disease caught in foreign parts and imported here is just that little bit worse than something homegrown.
British bugs for British people.
Exactly! That is exactly what I`m detecting. An utterly illogical prejudice that is coming out of Johnson`s poxy focus groups who`s primary characteristic is xenophobia.
It's far from a perfect overlap but I'm sure you'll find a correlation between people who are firmly in the anti-immigration, anti-globalization camp and those who are gung ho for very tough international travel restrictions and quarantines.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
Up to a point Lord Copper. The very act of travelling - trains, airports, planes, buses, coaches aligned with a range of typical holiday activiites in bars, restaurants , beaches you can go on adinfinitum creates a much bigger range of infection possibilities than staying home. Variation in infection rates can be a help but not if you catch it on the bus to the airport, spread it in your hotel and on the plane for the return journey and then on to family and friends. Holidays at all and especially abroad should really have been a no no this year.
We`re going to have to disagree on this one Felix.
Airports are disinfected to heck and mask wearing is 100%. Very minimal risk. Much safer than visiting a UK supermarket, for instance.
As for travel abroad being a no no - I`d argue it the opposite way. Travelling to a lower risk country than the one you live in helps the tourism industry keep afloat and the businesses in the country you are visiting function, not to mention helping the mental health aspects.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
I think it will be as close as 2000 and again all come down to Florida as Biden will pick up Michigan and Pennsylvania and hold all the Hillary states and Trump will hold all his other 2016 states
Trump is approaching democracy in the same way he approached business. How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for what he is up to is beyond me. I am looking at you Charles. Trump is beneath whatever foul bile lurks beneath contempt. He needs to be defeated. Trump's brand of skulduggery will take all the energy and ingenuity that the Dems and decent people possess. I give them at best a 50:50 chance.
Meanwhile our government, which has its own taste for skulduggery, is moving through the gears from shambolic to a down right bone fide basket case. How anyone can support it is quite beyond me at the moment. Again, Labour has a ton of work to do to pull itself out of the abyss it dug itself into and being in a position to win.
Bad times.
"How anyone here remotely defends or provides cover for [Trump]?" Hmm. It`s a head-scratcher that one - the loathsome manchild-toad that he is.
Can anyone shed any light? The only thing I can think of is that would dissuade me from voting for Biden with relish is the "taking the knee" stuff and a general concern about a wokey direction - but I`m less concerned about that than I would be if it wasn`t Biden.
Trump has to go. It`s crucial.
It is unthinkable that Trump should win in November
Unreported World on Channel 4 was good last night. It focused on white suburban and rural, also professional women, even particularly in California, who saw themselves, by backing Trump, as part of a backlash against feminism and their right to be traditional homemakers and more feminine women.
I suspect it's the patronising aspect of the elites that presumes to tell all women how they should feel and act that grates - rather than leaving it as their choice.
Frank Lutz says it is women with children of school age who will be the decider in this election.
Shy Trumpsters?
That Unreported World really is an essential programme to watch, on the themes of polarisation and the absence of cultural centre ground. These women appeared to believe every aspect of their right to live as traditional women was being taken away, even as many minorities in the US instinctively feel this is a life-or-death election for them and their democracy.
Mrs America.
Yes indeed, Mrs America is a fine series. It provides a salutary lesson that the "culture war" has been raging for over 50 years, not just around feminism, but also race and sexuality. Things haven't changed as much as many reckon in the toxic battles over these issues. It's just amplified these days by Twitter, and the fact that the opponents of social progress have political power in several regimes, most obviously the USA, Brazil, parts of Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent actually, the UK.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Perhaps with some there is a feeling that a disease caught in foreign parts and imported here is just that little bit worse than something homegrown.
British bugs for British people.
Exactly! That is exactly what I`m detecting. An utterly illogical prejudice that is coming out of Johnson`s poxy focus groups who`s primary characteristic is xenophobia.
It's far from a perfect overlap but I'm sure you'll find a correlation between people who are firmly in the anti-immigration, anti-globalization camp and those who are gung ho for very tough international travel restrictions and quarantines.
Indeed. May be envy in the mix along with xenophobia, I suspect.
Voting by mail is not done inalienable democratic right. The Dems are pushing it for partisan reasons (and the GOP are resisting it for the same reason)
Limitations on the number of polling stations is far more serious from a democratic perspective. There is no reasonable argument that can be made as to why that might be acceptable.
I remember a local council election where the (LibDem) town council decided to move some of the polling stations AND "save money" by not sending out polling cards or informing residents of where they'd moved the stations to. People were supposed to read the announcement in modest print affixed to a notice outside the town hall, or read the leaflets put out by parties. On the day, we had to put tellers at the "wrong" stations to redirect voters. It was a safe LD seat and they felt that other parties contesting it was an offensive waste of time and money.
Because it was a town council election and a safe seat, opponents were only midly outraged, and even amused at the effrontery. We teased the LDs about it for years, though. That sort of thing at the level of the US Presidency is less entertaining.
This is not unusual. My town council is run by a group of independents. Despite the council being very wealthy they have decreed that by elections are too expensive and fill any vacancies by co-option.
They can’t do that by choice they can only do it if nobody asks for an election which requires ten signatures. If no candidates are nominated then again they can co-opt
We tried this. The Lib Dems asked for a by-election, the Independents put out a leaflet highlighting the costs of the election and won handsomely.
That’s a failure of the local Lib Dems I’m afraid, if they have a record of year round campaigning and run a good election they should win. Most independents are con dependents and should be exposed as such. It does depend on your precept though, if it’s 5000/pa then spending 2000 on an election is excessive. We always used to budget for at least one by election each year so the cost was covered.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
I think it will be as close as 2000 and again all come down to Florida as Biden will pick up Michigan and Pennsylvania and Trump will hold all his other 2016 states
Thanks. I`ve printed that off and it`s going on my noticeboard.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
Weren't there indicators posted here that had reliably predicted previous elections and they were all wrong in 2019 and the polls were more or less spot on.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
I think it will be as close as 2000 and again all come down to Florida as Biden will pick up Michigan and Pennsylvania and Trump will hold all his other 2016 states
Thanks. I`ve printed that off and it`s going on my noticeboard.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
My understanding was a lot of it came in from France, Spain, Italy in mid-late Feb to mid-March. I also understand we were expecting it from further afield. This all explains why it popped up almost everywhere in the UK in mid/late-March.
Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this
I'm shocked, shocked that infections from France explode in size from the 8th of March - the day of the Scotland France Six Nations match.
FFS.
I don't think it shows that at all. Don't forget that that shows individual importations, not numbers of people infected. The number from France is fairly constant from about the 8 March for 3-4 weeks, supplanting Spain as our main source of infection, which itself supplanted Italy. It shows that people coming back from France were fairly continually bringing distinct strains of the virus from about that period onwards, not that they were all imported on one occasion. The French quite simply got the virus from Italy and Spain.
Is there any data on imported Covid cases and fro which countries, would be good to have this published to support the quarantine requirements.
It'll be insignificant I imagine. The only data I recall is from March, when it accounted for 0.5% of cases. And that was when entry was unrestricted.
No it wasn't, it was a huge source of ongoing infection. The academics were wrong about quarantine and Priti Patel was right, overruling her is going to look very bad during the investigation.
Evidence?
You may be disgreeing about different things.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
I don't think we are, because MaxPB said it was a huge "ongoing" source of infections.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Still the odds of getting infected are low especially if you follow the rules. I’d like to know how many have imported the virus in the last few weeks?
What do you mean? If a person was abroad in the last few weeks in a country with a lower new infection rate than the UK then the "imported" infection will be lower, on average, than if that same person had stayed in the UK.
I have been told that the emphasis on travel *now* is because when you get to a certain level of community infection, re-introduction from abroad goes from being noise in the data, to a major factor.
Who told you that? That makes no sense. It doesn`t matter whether a new infection is foreign or home-grown. Infection in a particular community will be affected by a newly infected person in that community - whether the the new infection came from within that community, from another part of the UK or from Timbuktu.
Infection from holidaymakers will hit all parts of the UK simultaneously, presumably broadly proportionate to population. Homegrown infection will start to grow exponentially in particular areas, so more amenable to local testing, track & trace, and lockdown measures.
Yes, I get all that. The point is that new infections that holidaymakers bring in will be less in number than the new infections that would happen if they have stayed at home! - IF the infection rate where they visited is lower than in their own community at home.
Up to a point Lord Copper. The very act of travelling - trains, airports, planes, buses, coaches aligned with a range of typical holiday activiites in bars, restaurants , beaches you can go on adinfinitum creates a much bigger range of infection possibilities than staying home. Variation in infection rates can be a help but not if you catch it on the bus to the airport, spread it in your hotel and on the plane for the return journey and then on to family and friends. Holidays at all and especially abroad should really have been a no no this year.
We`re going to have to disagree on this one Felix.
Airports are disinfected to heck and mask wearing is 100%. Very minimal risk. Much safer than visiting a UK supermarket, for instance.
As for travel abroad being a no no - I`d argue it the opposite way. Travelling to a lower risk country than the one you live in helps the tourism industry keep afloat and the businesses in the country you are visiting function, not to mention helping the mental health aspects.
My local tourist town had 4 infections before the tourists came - 2 discos later and it is running a currently known 100+. Each day the council puts out pictures showing the disinfections of the streets - a total waste of time and money. I've also seen many posts of airport and plane squabbles over people refusing to wear masks. Unless there are no bars/food shops/restaurants open in airports I do not see how they can be safe.
Has anyone mentioned his diplomatic triumph of the Israel-UAE deal ?
I'm curious as to whether any PBers are big enough to admit Trump has done well in this case.
I did raise this in the context of what is generally a relatively favourable (and unquestionably quite benign) foreign policy record. To liberally paraphrase, the Brain Trust here conclude that only the “gullible” see this deal as good news and it’s actually all about setting up an anti Shia alliance to start world war 3 in Trump’s second term. Or something.
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
The PB Brain Trust and, for example, the New York Times:
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
Weren't there indicators posted here that had reliably predicted previous elections and they were all wrong in 2019 and the polls were more or less spot on.
Remind me of what you were posting and forecasting in the run up,to the 2019 generaL election ?
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
Only election Norputh has got wrong using his model since 1996 was 2000 and his model would also have got 1960 wrong, in both elections there was less than 1% between Kennedy and Nixon and Bush and Gore in the popular vote
So, is Trump going to win HYUFD? What do you think is his percentage chance?
I think it will be as close as 2000 and again all come down to Florida as Biden will pick up Michigan and Pennsylvania and Trump will hold all his other 2016 states
Thanks. I`ve printed that off and it`s going on my noticeboard.
Here is another one for your noticeboard - Trump will win all the states he won in 2016 plus Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and possibly Virginia.
Comments
Surely there is no way Russia wish to see the opposition in power?
That does not change Trump's record in his first term though
I hope Trump loses because I don’t like his undermining of democratic principles and personal conduct, which sets an appalling example to kids worldwide. But I don’t live in the US so am overall fairly ambivalent to the result if he delivers a second term roughly in keeping with his first with respect to China policy and the economy.
The very best thing about Trump losing now is it reduces the chances of an AOC presidency down the line.
Originally the virus came to us 100% from abroad via travellers. That much is obvious - it didn`t blow over here. But once it multiplied significantly here the vast majority of further infections came by transmission within the country not from abroad.
Hence, the argument for grounding planes was valid right at the start, but quickly became less valid.
But if we are, then I agree. Quarantine may have stopped the virus in January/February, though it wasn't politically feasible then. Also, as we don't really bother to enforce it here, even that's questionable.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/15/uk-firms-solar-power-breakthrough-could-make-worlds-most-efficient-panels-by-2021
When you take his pro catastrophic global overheating policies into account, his foreign policy is unquestionably by far the worst of any US president ever. There isn't going to be any kind of peaceful world if we carry on burning fossil fuels like Trump wants.
Putin has been trying to get a military base in Belarus since 2015 and has been turning the economic screws on "Sasha 3%" ever since.
Have we been hacked again?
By the time we locked down, it was too late. It would have been effective to close the borders before February half term (any later would have just stranded hundreds of thousand of Brits abroad). I suspect this is driving current policy. Spain had over 7,000 new cases yesterday, and France about 3,000.
Wind generated power is on a similar track.
This means that coal is rapidly turning into an expensive as well as dirty option which is the point where all the money grubbing capitalists abandon it without having to be told to.
Centrist Dad Take: "It is an over reaction to suggest Trump is sabotaging the USPS to disrupt the election"
Something seems to remind me of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings ; lip service and partial efforts at the appearance of due process, combined with obviousness and proudly shameless hints, and winks, at supporters.
https://twitter.com/IcemanCT/status/1294376560087138309/photo/1
Indeed, there's a link elsewhere in the thread that supports this
I used to be believe (6) but the events of the last five months during the first wave have given me reason to doubt that.
He is a scourge and undermining not only US democracy but the cause of democracy worldwide.
Renewables are already cheaper than coal. We are not far off the point where renewables+storage are cheaper.
Despite the morals of that (there aren't any) such a move would inflame divisions and tensions in the USA to the nth degree.
The country would never heal.
They must be rubbing their hands with glee in Beijing...
I suspect Putin is angered at his unsubtly in, for example, beating up young protestors and then parading them on TV.
The Kochs, probably the most politically influential members of the elite in America, are socially conservative, for instance.
2 to include your other post about the culture war.
Trump's defeat WILL be a massive shot against the other side in the CW but the election needs to - and can only be - won not on that basis but on the more positive agenda of a return to some semblance of decency in government and public life.
"There is one exception to that consensus [that Trump is losing]. The stock market. The record shows that if the bull market stays as strong as it has been, Trump will pull off an unexpected victory."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/15/everyone-thinks-trump-will-lose-except-stock-market/
Shy Trumpsters?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/donald-trump-chance-of-winning-election-2020-joe-biden-poll-model-a9609236.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/nividia-buy-chipmaker-arm-a4524761.html
British bugs for British people.
FFS.
This process has already been seen in the US and Australia, with attempts to charge people with solar panels a tax to "support the electricity grid" - aka subsidise coal.
Airports are disinfected to heck and mask wearing is 100%. Very minimal risk. Much safer than visiting a UK supermarket, for instance.
As for travel abroad being a no no - I`d argue it the opposite way. Travelling to a lower risk country than the one you live in helps the tourism industry keep afloat and the businesses in the country you are visiting function, not to mention helping the mental health aspects.
Edit: full story from 2018:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/politics/trump-jr-saudi-uae-nader-prince-zamel.html
I got 2017 right, did you?