Totally off topic, but for those who love in depth sports coverage and analysis, The Athletic have an offer of a £1 a month for next 12 months. Total bargain.
Thanks, not the first time I have heard it recommended so went to have a look but see £1 for 6 months, where is the 12 month deal? Also it has a shocking rating on trustpilot - has anyone successfully unsubscribed?
As I mentioned yesterday, I don't think the government will benefit from a pereceived fight with "elite remainers" within or without parliament in the way it did last year. Starmer is doing a good job to keep out for now, but when the showdown finally comes, a very large number of voters are going to be surprised that Brexit is still an issue.
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
Sorry, but this is utter tosh. The bits of the agreement which Boris is wanting to renege on are those which to which he formally agreed as a fallback position in the event that there's no deal, so the PD is irrelevant. Of course everyone now agrees that the deal Boris agreed to in that respect was very poor, but that's hardly the EU's fault.
So you're OK with the EU repeatedly going back on its word then?
You just don't think that it entitles us to do the same?
They haven't gone back on their word. There is not a single person in the entire world, outside the loony Brexiteer brigade in England, who thinks they have. They have been entirely consistent, they signed the WA in good faith in the form that Boris personally asked them to do (which was a 'great deal', remember?), and now they not unreasonably are surprised that Boris wants to go back on it, having ratified it just eight months ago, presumably because he's finally got round to reading it.
While I am in general agreement with you, it is not possible to argue that the EU have been entirely consistent, or in the slightest bit friendly in their negotiating.
Yes, that's definitely true, however it's still a fair negotiating tactic but one that inevitably ends in no deal as the UK would never agree to the LPF. I think what changed from 2017 to now is that the EU got used to the May/Robbisn method of negotiating from the UK which was to just bend over, so they tried it again with a much stronger government politically and expected the same reaction and now they are too entrenched to step back from the unreasonable demand of the LPF. If they had started with saying we want a baseline, but to set that baseline at today's levels and a non-binding review process every few years where both sides agree a common approach then it would have gone through. The EU are at fault, but that's not to say it's negotiating in bad faith, they are negotiating from a maximalist position, one they found worked with May and Robbins.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Good luck supplying the whole of UK with "British fruit and veg" in January!!
I guess Raab is about to find out that we can't grow a great deal in the middle of UK winter. I mean, who knew?
We are not banning EU imports, just making them more expensive, you can buy more cheaper, high quality British food instead
Higher food prices and less consumer choice. Other than furthering the career of Boris Johnson I still struggle to see what Brexit's point really is. I do try, I really do.
We're out the EU now - so that part is done. Right now we should be seeking a broad partnership and constructive relationship with them rather than the nonsense sabre rattling Cummings and Johnson are participating in to try and create another "us" vs "them" narrative.
Gove, Sunak and Raab don't want this. But, none of them will break ranks and resign to stop it.
Spain has already overtaken us on deaths per head, so clearly Boris may have been slow off the blocks but is catching up fast if France and Switzerland in due course overtake us on deaths per head too
Catching what up fast? Don’t count your chickens this shit isn’t over yet.
No but our relative performance on Covid deaths per head is improving, we were 2nd in Europe after Belgium, we are now 3rd after Spain overtook us and if France and Switzerland overtake us too we will fall back to 5th, a rather better performance from Boris for the UK
It’s not a competition
The left and anti Brexiteers were trashing Boris for our poor relative performance on Covid deaths recently so in a sense it is
Where the hell do anti brexiters come into the argument, I think you should reboot and view life as of September 2020 not 2016
As I mentioned yesterday, I don't think the government will benefit from a pereceived fight with "elite remainers" within or without parliament in the way it did last year. Starmer is doing a good job to keep out for now, but when the showdown finally comes, a very large number of voters are going to be surprised that Brexit is still an issue.
They are going to be even more surprised when the shelves are empty in January, just in the worst of winter.
Totally off topic, but for those who love in depth sports coverage and analysis, The Athletic have an offer of a £1 a month for next 12 months. Total bargain.
Thanks, not the first time I have heard it recommended so went to have a look but see £1 for 6 months, where is the 12 month deal? Also it has a shocking rating on trustpilot - has anyone successfully unsubscribed?
Not to sound like their PR department...
You can just unsubscribe by clicking a button on the website. What issues are people having?
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
Compulsory vaccination of adults would surely be unprecedented, unenforceable, and a shark-jumpingly insane infringement of liberty. Is anyone proposing it?
Given that COVID is largely harmless to the vast majority of the population of working age I’m not sure why the purpose of vaccination need be “herd immunity”? If the most at risk are vaccinated and the rest aren’t then the virus basically ceases to become an exceptional public health problem. So why would special measures be needed to combat it. If there is no material risk of the NHS becoming overwhelmed why should taking the risk of contracting the virus not become a matter of personal choice?
It seems to me that we’re in danger of thinking that the actual health consequences of the virus are an irrelevance. If vaccine for the vulnerable backed up by improved treatment results in acceptable health outcomes when set against other public health issues, why does it need to go any further? In the case of flu we only routinely vaccinate the vulnerable (and it’s still a matter of personal choice). Why should this be any different? Yes unfortunately there will be a relatively small number of people who can’t have the vaccination, and are vulnerable - but again that is not a unique situation with vaccines.
Yes, lets ignore the 10% with longer term effects
From PHE Around 10% of mild coronavirus (COVID-19) cases who were not admitted to hospital have reported symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. A number of hospitalised cases reported continuing symptoms for 8 or more weeks following discharge.
Persistent health problems reported following acute COVID-19 disease include:
respiratory symptoms and conditions such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, lung inflammation and fibrosis, and pulmonary vascular disease cardiovascular symptoms and disease such as chest tightness, acute myocarditis and heart failure protracted loss or change of smell and taste mental health problems including depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties inflammatory disorders such as myalgia, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or neuralgic amyotrophy gastrointestinal disturbance with diarrhoea continuing headaches fatigue, weakness and sleeplessness liver and kidney dysfunction clotting disorders and thrombosis lymphadenopathy skin rashes
Mr. Royale, Boris Johnson's dangerous levels of stupidity and incompetence should be cause for the 1922 Committee to take action.
Actively seeking to break the law contrary to a treaty that the selfsame Government signed is alarming. If the treaty's no good then don't bloody sign it.
A failure to negotiate is leading to a childish attempt to brute force matters, leaving an agreement in tatters as new ones (many) are sought, harming the UK's reputation whilst also harming the economy.
He remains better than Corbyn, but the gulf narrows.
Personally I still kept some of my no-deal supplies from last year - 'amy's kitchen' organic tinned food, for the London liberal elite conspiracy - aside and in reserve. I wonder if I might need them after all.
I do recommend Amy's Kitchen in general, by the way - some of the only good-tasting tinned food I've ever had.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
Buy more British beef, pork, chicken, lamb and fruit and vegetables then which will relatively cheaper if EU imports face tariffs
Dig for Victory ! Except this is a bizarre 1940 that the government has created for itself, a bit like one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting in the jungle in 1975.
Perhaps HYUFD can have Woolton pie along with his broth ?
@Philip_Thompson so basically you’re whining that we’re not getting a comprehensive deal based on a flag on a powerpoint slide. Says it all.
Interesting that it’s Canada “type” not exactly the same as Canada’s deal.
So you're saying if someone says one thing before signing an agreement - and in the agreement itself - and then another thing afterwards, that it isn't going back on their word?
The PD literally says the LPF should be "the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship" and now the EU are saying the exact opposite.
The EU have gone back on their word.
Sorry, but this is utter tosh. The bits of the agreement which Boris is wanting to renege on are those which to which he formally agreed as a fallback position in the event that there's no deal, so the PD is irrelevant. Of course everyone now agrees that the deal Boris agreed to in that respect was very poor, but that's hardly the EU's fault.
So you're OK with the EU repeatedly going back on its word then?
You just don't think that it entitles us to do the same?
They haven't gone back on their word. There is not a single person in the entire world, outside the loony Brexiteer brigade in England, who thinks they have. They have been entirely consistent, they signed the WA in good faith in the form that Boris personally asked them to do (which was a 'great deal', remember?), and now they not unreasonably are surprised that Boris wants to go back on it, having ratified it just eight months ago, presumably because he's finally got round to reading it.
While I am in general agreement with you, it is not possible to argue that the EU have been entirely consistent, or in the slightest bit friendly in their negotiating.
Yes, that's definitely true, however it's still a fair negotiating tactic but one that inevitably ends in no deal as the UK would never agree to the LPF. I think what changed from 2017 to now is that the EU got used to the May/Robbisn method of negotiating from the UK which was to just bend over, so they tried it again with a much stronger government politically and expected the same reaction and now they are too entrenched to step back from the unreasonable demand of the LPF. If they had started with saying we want a baseline, but to set that baseline at today's levels and a non-binding review process every few years where both sides agree a common approach then it would have gone through. The EU are at fault, but that's not to say it's negotiating in bad faith, they are negotiating from a maximalist position, one they found worked with May and Robbins.
I think that's a reasonable way of putting it. And I agree that what we're doing now is just mad.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
I get the feeling loads of Tories will vote against, it ruins the party's reputation for rule of law and the UK's reputation for honouring a word once given.
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people have been given this vaccine without major ill-effects or getting infected with the virus. It seems a clear possibility that this vaccine will be approved. If so, and if we have no other vaccine, will the UK government negotiate to buy it, considering that the alternative could be continuing with years of wearing masks and working from home?
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people have been given this vaccine without major ill-effects or getting infected with the virus. It seems a clear possibility that this vaccine will be approved. If so, and if we have no other vaccine, will the UK government negotiate to buy it, considering that the alternative could be continuing with years of wearing masks and working from home?
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
I respectfully disagree. There is no question that the UK government can do this and can determine what the law is within the UK including Northern Ireland.
Whether they should do this is an entirely different matter but that is above the paygrade of the AG.
I will be interested to see what court the EU try to bring their case in. I think that they will find that we no longer accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU.
Mr. Royale, Boris Johnson's dangerous levels of stupidity and incompetence should be cause for the 1922 Committee to take action.
Actively seeking to break the law contrary to a treaty that the selfsame Government signed is alarming. If the treaty's no good then don't bloody sign it.
A failure to negotiate is leading to a childish attempt to brute force matters, leaving an agreement in tatters as new ones (many) are sought, harming the UK's reputation whilst also harming the economy.
He remains better than Corbyn, but the gulf narrows.
I'm texting all the Tory MPs I know spitting teeth.
Great news that Dom has a plan for creating a trillion dollar tech company. But why is he wasting his time in the Cabinet Office rather than getting the venture capital and hiring the geeks?
I imagine it would just be a bill that empowers the First Lord of the Treasury, or whatever, to set the date of the next election to any time but no later than 5 years after the last one.
And there it is. The good old British constitution. Why shouldn't we let the elected dictator pick the date that suits them best? Gives them time to gerrymander constituencies and pack the Lords.
The Supreme Court's judgement does seem clear. Parliament may pass laws on domestic matters that infringe on treaty obligations. Northern Ireland is part of the domestic UK.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
Maybe he never bothered to read the WA either?
Or maybe it is part of his masterplan of Creative Destruction? No doubt Dom has wargamed this....
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
I get the feeling loads of Tories will vote against, it ruins the party's reputation for rule of law and the UK's reputation for honouring a word once given.
I know Theresa May and Bob Neill have said disobliging things, but I think only Roger Gale has said he'll vote against.
I suppose most MPs are waiting to see whether there's a u-turn over the weekend before committing.
I respectfully disagree. There is no question that the UK government can do this and can determine what the law is within the UK including Northern Ireland.
Whether they should do this is an entirely different matter but that is above the paygrade of the AG.
I will be interested to see what court the EU try to bring their case in. I think that they will find that we no longer accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU.
Precisely. This is the grounds of international diplomacy now.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
The key to this is multiple tests, rapidity and not depending on throat swabs.
So a 20 minute test, based of saliva, which is cheap enough and requires little/no laboratory support, would be useful.
Which is exactly what is being trialled at the moment.
If you have a positive test, probably best to have another couple of tests. If both of those show up negative then the first was likely a false positive ? With a true positive that'd be unlikely.
Not entirely.
It depends on whether false positives are entirely random. If a false positive was generated by another virus, then the repeats by the same test would most likely produce the same false positive.
Similarly, people can test positive by shedding antigen for some months, indeed there is a poster here who has a family member that tested positive for months.
What Moonshot supposedly aims for is screening of an assymptomatic population.
A screening test needs to have a high pick up rate in order identify those needing a more sensitive diagnostic test. For example breast mammography when used for screening is then followed up by a more specific test, such as biopsy. 90% of the referrals turn out benign. False negatives result in missed tumours.
When done on a vast scale the issues of false positives are significant.
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
Mr. Royale, Boris Johnson's dangerous levels of stupidity and incompetence should be cause for the 1922 Committee to take action.
Actively seeking to break the law contrary to a treaty that the selfsame Government signed is alarming. If the treaty's no good then don't bloody sign it.
A failure to negotiate is leading to a childish attempt to brute force matters, leaving an agreement in tatters as new ones (many) are sought, harming the UK's reputation whilst also harming the economy.
He remains better than Corbyn, but the gulf narrows.
The Tories are still ahead in the polls, albeit narrowly, as long as that stays the case no matter what Boris does he is safe.
If however Labour take a clear poll lead then the knives will be out amongst Tory backbenchers for Boris and Sunak will likely take over as PM
“Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice” - President Goldwater
immediately followed by "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue"
Selectively quoting half a comment and using it to bolster an extreme interpretation - you are Dominic Cummings and I claim my £10
You may have missed I attributed the quote to president Goldwater, who was in fact never president and was completely tonked by LBJ. I'm saying this line won't work from Trump.
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
If the French don't stop the deadly Channel crossings and the UK decided to copy Australia's precedence in dealing with the problem, then I wonder who would support that and who would oppose that?
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
People were asking about the new hospitalisation rates on the previous thread.
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
From a peak of over 3000 in April the figures are still very low - and at this stage we cannot be certain that the recent rise in hospitalisaton from a low base is something that should generate a panicky response.
Especially as most hospitals remain empty
We are well past the time when authoritarian measures were justified on a "protect the NHS" basis. We`ve slipped into something different. We`re now in a hole we can`t get out of until herd immunity is achieved (probably - hopefully - via a vaccine).
I am sceptical that the vaccine will be first available in the UK, or in a Western country. There is a strong safety culture that is likely to stop any vaccine, as we have just seen with the Oxford vaccine. This has been stopped due to a single person becoming ill, with no proof that the illness has been caused by the vaccine. People get neurological illnesses naturally all the time. I could understand the decision if two or more people had become ill with similar symptoms, but you must expect people to become ill in a large trial. That is the point of doing them, so the trial should continue.
I think it is far more likely that the first vaccine will be deployed in Russia, China or India. The Oxford vaccine trials are still continuing in India, led by the Serum Institute of India.
Consider this. Suppose that you give the vaccine to 100,000 people, knowing that it has a rare side effect that affects 1 in 10,000 people and this kills half of them. You expect 10 people to get this side effect and 5 of them to die.
If these 100,000 are not vaccinated however, eventually many of them will get COVID-19, say 30,000 of them. COVID-19 has a death rate of about 1%, so this will cause around 300 deaths. 300 >> 5, so this is why I believe that a COVID vaccine should not be stopped because of a rare side effect.
I am not optimistic though. Are doctors and scientists who sit on safety bodies going to give up their status and allow safety standards to be redefined in the wider public interest? I will believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, a vaccine will be developed in an eastern country, and when it has been shown to be effective the UK government will have to negotiate even with Russia or China to get it.
The problem isn't the risk for the 'herd', it is the risk for the individual.
If there is a 1/10000 risk of a bad reaction, then why wouldn't I wait until everyone else has been vaccinated and thus herd immunity has been achieved without taking the risk myself?
Your numbers are of course correct if the vaccination is compulsory.
Compulsory vaccination of adults would surely be unprecedented, unenforceable, and a shark-jumpingly insane infringement of liberty. Is anyone proposing it?
Given that COVID is largely harmless to the vast majority of the population of working age I’m not sure why the purpose of vaccination need be “herd immunity”? If the most at risk are vaccinated and the rest aren’t then the virus basically ceases to become an exceptional public health problem. So why would special measures be needed to combat it. If there is no material risk of the NHS becoming overwhelmed why should taking the risk of contracting the virus not become a matter of personal choice?
It seems to me that we’re in danger of thinking that the actual health consequences of the virus are an irrelevance. If vaccine for the vulnerable backed up by improved treatment results in acceptable health outcomes when set against other public health issues, why does it need to go any further? In the case of flu we only routinely vaccinate the vulnerable (and it’s still a matter of personal choice). Why should this be any different? Yes unfortunately there will be a relatively small number of people who can’t have the vaccination, and are vulnerable - but again that is not a unique situation with vaccines.
Harmless?
"Very likely you won't die" isn't necessarily equated to "harmless"
Using the latest numbers on the IFR variance with age (which is indeed hugely different for the young and the old) and the figures for the first 16,573 hospitalised in the UK to work out the proportion of each age that died to those who were hospitalised and recovered, and the best estimates I've found that 5% of all ages suffer "long Covid" (up to 3 months of symptoms) and a minority of those have on-running chronic damage (estimated at a fifth; could be higher and could be lower) and comparing that to the demographics of the UK in each age range:
That's not at all rigorous, of course, but should be broadly indicative.
A "harmless" virus that hospitalises a third of a million of the age range to whom it is "harmless", kills more than 16,000 of them, and leaves a further third of a million with on-going incapacity of some degree or another (and more than one and a half million incapacitated for up to a quarter of a year) - it does seem to be placing rather an excessive load on the word "harmless."
The vast majority of those who become ill in the younger age groups will have preexisting conditions, obesity or some other comorbidity – and would therefore be shielded under any risk segmentation strategy.
Can you post the figures for fit and healthy under 45s?
Can you post your strategy for separating families and workplaces where you don't have only young people or only fit people?
Families where Dad is older than you and Mum is younger, and so are the kids?
Workplaces where half are over 45 and half under?
Shops, restaurants, gyms, public transport - to be divided between under 45s and over 45s?
"Risk segmentation strategies" are pure fantasy and always will be.
Even if they weren't - filter out the non-obese (down to 71%) and the non-asthmatics and non-diabetics (about 85% of the remainder; down to 60%) and those with other co-mobidities (another 5% off), and you're down to 20 million people out of the 67 million of the UK.
You're trying to somehow give freedom to under a third of the country by some bizarre apartheid separation where you're shielding "only" two thirds of the country. Including the parents of loads of the first lot, who are somehow to be separated from their kids!
And, of course, the "long covid" and chronic conditions don't seem to have any requirement for co-morbidities. So a million of those 20 million - at least - will have lengthy incapacity, and quite a few of them will have that go on and on and on.
Not that I expect you to change your mind. You've decided that this MUST be a way and there MUST not be a danger to your chosen demographics. Reality, though, gives no craps over what you want to believe.
That's a very long, angry, intemperate rant to say: "I don't have the numbers you are asking for."
Here's a risk segmentation strategy by a very senior medical professional, Dr David Katz. You should give it a read, and consider it.
First of all this proposal still says low risk people should practice "Routine social distancing; personal sanitation", which is the policy the UK has had in July and August, but you have often implied is too strict.
The proposal is only one slide and does not realistically address many practical problems of segregation. How exactly does the high risk group "shelter in place". How does a low risk person live with someone with "Chronic lung disease, any age" who is here categorised as high risk? That chronic lung disease might be Asthma or COPD which covers a lot of people. It is likely that this "shelter in place" will need to continue until there is a vaccine so probably another 6 months.
By applying social distancing restrictions on everyone the low-risk children and partners of high-risk people are living in an environment where very few people are carrying the virus, and so dramatically reducing the chances that the high risk are exposed to the virus.
Miller answers the ability for Parliament to determine it's own laws. It's just a shame that this issue isn't about UK law but rather International law..
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
No, that can't be right - shurely no one has ever trusted Australia again, or traded with them, or invested in their country, or signed a deal with them, or gone on holiday there, or watched their awful soaps since they Broke. The. Law.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
I get the feeling loads of Tories will vote against, it ruins the party's reputation for rule of law and the UK's reputation for honouring a word once given.
I know Theresa May and Bob Neill have said disobliging things, but I think only Roger Gale has said he'll vote against.
I suppose most MPs are waiting to see whether there's a u-turn over the weekend before committing.
Guido Fawkes is claiming labour may not even vote against. If that's the case this is going through.
I respectfully disagree. There is no question that the UK government can do this and can determine what the law is within the UK including Northern Ireland.
Whether they should do this is an entirely different matter but that is above the paygrade of the AG.
I will be interested to see what court the EU try to bring their case in. I think that they will find that we no longer accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU.
Precisely. This is the grounds of international diplomacy now.
Miller answers the ability for Parliament to determine it's own laws. It's just a shame that this issue isn't about UK law but rather International law..
Northern Ireland is domestic, it isn't international.
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
If the French don't stop the deadly Channel crossings and the UK decided to copy Australia's precedence in dealing with the problem, then I wonder who would support that and who would oppose that?
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
There’s no international water between the UK and France so the Australian model cannot apply as far as I can recall.
Also Australia pays Fiji or someone to take the refugees don’t they? Who are we going to pay?
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people have been given this vaccine without major ill-effects or getting infected with the virus. It seems a clear possibility that this vaccine will be approved. If so, and if we have no other vaccine, will the UK government negotiate to buy it, considering that the alternative could be continuing with years of wearing masks and working from home?
Must be an incredible vaccine...I mean afaik every vaccine ever made has a small percentage that it doesn't work on and always a few cases of ill effects.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
I get the feeling loads of Tories will vote against, it ruins the party's reputation for rule of law and the UK's reputation for honouring a word once given.
I know Theresa May and Bob Neill have said disobliging things, but I think only Roger Gale has said he'll vote against.
I suppose most MPs are waiting to see whether there's a u-turn over the weekend before committing.
Guido Fawkes is claiming labour may not even vote against. If that's the case this is going through.
Wow. Sir Keir is engineering the destruction of Bors's own EU deal and there's absolutely nothing Boris can say.
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people have been given this vaccine without major ill-effects or getting infected with the virus. It seems a clear possibility that this vaccine will be approved. If so, and if we have no other vaccine, will the UK government negotiate to buy it, considering that the alternative could be continuing with years of wearing masks and working from home?
Must be an incredible vaccine...I mean afaik every vaccine ever made has a small percentage that it doesn't work on and always a few cases of ill effects.
Miller answers the ability for Parliament to determine it's own laws. It's just a shame that this issue isn't about UK law but rather International law..
Northern Ireland is domestic, it isn't international.
Has the Republic evaporated? because any change to where a border is impacts the whole island not just a small part of it.
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
If the French don't stop the deadly Channel crossings and the UK decided to copy Australia's precedence in dealing with the problem, then I wonder who would support that and who would oppose that?
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
There’s no international water between the UK and France so the Australian model cannot apply as far as I can recall.
Also Australia pays Fiji or someone to take the refugees don’t they? Who are we going to pay?
Any country that wants money. 💰
My proposal would be we speak to Turkey. We give Turkey a hefty chunk of "development" money from our Aid budget and do a refugee exchange with them. Any illegal migrant who makes it across gets deported immediately back to Turkey and we take a legitimate refugee from a Turkish refugee camp.
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
Quite funny. I'm starting to see a few people in my industry starting to drop "machine learning" and "predictive algorithms" into their reports.
They know the right tummies need tickling.
As I put in a report recently, 'Machine learning is like teenage sex. Everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it.'
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
So, why not do that?
Presumably because the political calculation is that the government would rather someone else takes the blame for whatever clustershambles is incoming. Either the enemy within (aka Remoaners) or without (aka Brussels) or both.
But what do No 10 really want? A No Deal which is someone else's fault, or an extension which is someone else's fault? (The crucial bit is the someone else's fault bit.) Because there is no sign that anyone in the UK has the capacity to prepare for an actual No Deal, and Christmas is 3 1/2 months away.
A not-our-fault extension (sorry, Interim Pay-as-you-go no strings trade deal for a bargain £300 million a week), on the other hand, keeps the wheels turning and the psychodrama going, and the government is largely held together by the psychodrama.
Given that even Michael Howard is against this, the trade bill is surely and predictably going nowhere. But what if everyone tuts, but nobody external to the government forces them to ditch it? Do they have to climb down themselves? What happens then? Alternatively, what happens if the government is lumbered with a law it didn't really want, but hoped they would have snatched from them?
The Oscars have just killed themselves. Best Picture to be Woke Picture from 2024:
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
Can the left just hold up on the whole culture war thing till November 5th ?
Sincerely, Biden backers.
Trump has just got an early Christmas present, another culture war, straight from the academy, coming to Trump attack ads on your TV screen in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida soon along with photos of all those Hollywood donors backing Biden
In order to stop illegal immigration Australia abrogated an entire convention. The 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
They seem to be doing OK.
If the French don't stop the deadly Channel crossings and the UK decided to copy Australia's precedence in dealing with the problem, then I wonder who would support that and who would oppose that?
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
There’s no international water between the UK and France so the Australian model cannot apply as far as I can recall.
Also Australia pays Fiji or someone to take the refugees don’t they? Who are we going to pay?
Any country that wants money. 💰
My proposal would be we speak to Turkey. We give Turkey a hefty chunk of "development" money from our Aid budget and do a refugee exchange with them. Any illegal migrant who makes it across gets deported immediately back to Turkey and we take a legitimate refugee from a Turkish refugee camp.
🤷♂️ I have no idea if that breaches any kind of treaty.
Operation Moonshot is completely absurd. Quite apart from the ludicrous cost, there is no way that it can work given the number of false positives it would throw up.
False positives aren't the issue (And are difficult to achieve since you need actual virus for the test to come back positive), a couple of false negatives at a packed concert say are the big potential issue.
False positives are an issue. Even with a very small proportion of false positives, with a very frequent test you can end up putting a surprisingly large proportion of the population into quarantine unnecessarily. A 1% false positive rate (which would be very good) on a test done on 10 million people -> 100,000 A DAY put into quarantine, presumably for 10 days, possibly also their family members etc. If the true rate is relatively low, then the vast majority of those put into quarantine might be false positives.
The key to this is multiple tests, rapidity and not depending on throat swabs.
So a 20 minute test, based of saliva, which is cheap enough and requires little/no laboratory support, would be useful.
Which is exactly what is being trialled at the moment.
If you have a positive test, probably best to have another couple of tests. If both of those show up negative then the first was likely a false positive ? With a true positive that'd be unlikely.
Not entirely.
It depends on whether false positives are entirely random. If a false positive was generated by another virus, then the repeats by the same test would most likely produce the same false positive.
Similarly, people can test positive by shedding antigen for some months, indeed there is a poster here who has a family member that tested positive for months.
What Moonshot supposedly aims for is screening of an assymptomatic population.
A screening test needs to have a high pick up rate in order identify those needing a more sensitive diagnostic test. For example breast mammography when used for screening is then followed up by a more specific test, such as biopsy. 90% of the referrals turn out benign. False negatives result in missed tumours.
When done on a vast scale the issues of false positives are significant.
Even if the specificity is good, you are still going to get a high number of false positives in screening programmes. The vast majority of people screened are negative, so the majority of positives will be false positives. I could bore everyone with the probability calculations, they are not difficult, but I will spare you.
Miller answers the ability for Parliament to determine it's own laws. It's just a shame that this issue isn't about UK law but rather International law..
Northern Ireland is domestic, it isn't international.
Has the Republic evaporated? because any change to where a border is impacts the whole island not just a small part of it.
NI is legally in the UK unless or until it's populace votes otherwise. Where the border is, is clearly defined.
How well the Republic wants to enforce their side of the border is of course for negotiations. How we enforce our side is up to us.
If it goes to a vote and Labour abstain it'll be interesting to see if there's a bigger Labour rebellion to vote against or Tory rebellion of abstention. I can't possibly see why any Tories would vote against or Labour MPs vote for the bill. The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
If this is exactly what Cummings wanted last year then it's a wonder he bothered to vote through the WA after GE2019.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
So, why not do that?
Presumably because the political calculation is that the government would rather someone else takes the blame for whatever clustershambles is incoming. Either the enemy within (aka Remoaners) or without (aka Brussels) or both.
But what do No 10 really want? A No Deal which is someone else's fault, or an extension which is someone else's fault? (The crucial bit is the someone else's fault bit.) Because there is no sign that anyone in the UK has the capacity to prepare for an actual No Deal, and Christmas is 3 1/2 months away.
A not-our-fault extension (sorry, Interim Pay-as-you-go no strings trade deal for a bargain £300 million a week), on the other hand, keeps the wheels turning and the psychodrama going, and the government is largely held together by the psychodrama.
Given that even Michael Howard is against this, the trade bill is surely and predictably going nowhere. But what if everyone tuts, but nobody external to the government forces them to ditch it? Do they have to climb down themselves? What happens then? Alternatively, what happens if the government is lumbered with a law it didn't really want, but hoped they would have snatched from them?
Howard isn't good enough.
It needs one or two senior people in the ERG to throw their hands up, and show some leadership *the other way*.
Comments
It's going to be No Deal.
Fucking mad.
It should tell us a lot about how "wise" it is.
Try really hard to become an MP, so you can break the law and crash out with no deal...
You can just unsubscribe by clicking a button on the website. What issues are people having?
As for offer,
https://theathletic.com/checkout2/intro1/introperiod12?source=fbads&ad_id=23845471087640092&fbclid=IwAR0sxgsFqgKhHUHh9hvndtUcrilABLVK7lyLOXrsJ8lMxyE9el-Z5TyhgW4
🔥🔥🔥
From PHE
Around 10% of mild coronavirus (COVID-19) cases who were not admitted to hospital have reported symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. A number of hospitalised cases reported continuing symptoms for 8 or more weeks following discharge.
Persistent health problems reported following acute COVID-19 disease include:
respiratory symptoms and conditions such as chronic cough, shortness of breath, lung inflammation and fibrosis, and pulmonary vascular disease
cardiovascular symptoms and disease such as chest tightness, acute myocarditis and heart failure
protracted loss or change of smell and taste
mental health problems including depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties
inflammatory disorders such as myalgia, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, or neuralgic amyotrophy
gastrointestinal disturbance with diarrhoea
continuing headaches
fatigue, weakness and sleeplessness
liver and kidney dysfunction
clotting disorders and thrombosis
lymphadenopathy
skin rashes
Actively seeking to break the law contrary to a treaty that the selfsame Government signed is alarming. If the treaty's no good then don't bloody sign it.
A failure to negotiate is leading to a childish attempt to brute force matters, leaving an agreement in tatters as new ones (many) are sought, harming the UK's reputation whilst also harming the economy.
He remains better than Corbyn, but the gulf narrows.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1304066710689980416?s=20
I do recommend Amy's Kitchen in general, by the way - some of the only good-tasting tinned food I've ever had.
The SNP and Lib Dems will ensure a division.
The Gov't manufactures something, then drops it, is only back to where they would have been.
Calling off negotiations because of the display of bad faith would have been 🔥🔥🔥
Oops! Maybe too continental
And I agree that what we're doing now is just mad.
But Boris has certainly got his fight which he had wanted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/chinese-vaccine-tested-safely-hundreds-thousands-volunteers/
Apparently, hundreds of thousands of people have been given this vaccine without major ill-effects or getting infected with the virus. It seems a clear possibility that this vaccine will be approved. If so, and if we have no other vaccine, will the UK government negotiate to buy it, considering that the alternative could be continuing with years of wearing masks and working from home?
All that is left is the Popcorn Lobby where we sit here and watch because there is f--- all we can do to change anything.
Johnson's power grab is altogether different as is his fantasy "Moonshot".
Time to go Boris
It's got everyone fooled.
They could have just timed out the clock to 31st January.
Whether they should do this is an entirely different matter but that is above the paygrade of the AG.
I will be interested to see what court the EU try to bring their case in. I think that they will find that we no longer accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU.
They are mainly telling me to calm down.
Selectively quoting half a comment and using it to bolster an extreme interpretation - you are Dominic Cummings and I claim my £10
Or maybe it is part of his masterplan of Creative Destruction? No doubt Dom has wargamed this....
They seem to be doing OK.
I suppose most MPs are waiting to see whether there's a u-turn over the weekend before committing.
It depends on whether false positives are entirely random. If a false positive was generated by another virus, then the repeats by the same test would most likely produce the same false positive.
Similarly, people can test positive by shedding antigen for some months, indeed there is a poster here who has a family member that tested positive for months.
What Moonshot supposedly aims for is screening of an assymptomatic population.
A screening test needs to have a high pick up rate in order identify those needing a more sensitive diagnostic test. For example breast mammography when used for screening is then followed up by a more specific test, such as biopsy. 90% of the referrals turn out benign. False negatives result in missed tumours.
When done on a vast scale the issues of false positives are significant.
"To be eligible for the 2024 best picture category, films released the previous year will be assessed on four diversity standards.
The first, Standard A, covers on-screen representation. Films must either have at least one lead or significant supporting actors from an ethnic minority; ensure at least 30 per cent of the secondary cast are female, LGBTQ+, disabled or racially diverse, or feature a storyline centred on underrepresented groups.
Standard B, looking at the “creative leadership and project team”, is focused on behind-the-camera roles, including directors, editors and hairstylists, asking they be made up of diverse workers. It requires that at least 30 per cent of the crew be from underrepresented groups.
Standard C is titled “industry access and opportunities” and is concerned with improving diversity among apprentices and interns.
Standard D, titled “audience development”, requires the studio or film company to have “multiple in-house senior executives” from underrepresented groups on their marketing, publicity or distribution teams."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/films-must-be-diverse-to-win-best-picture-at-oscars-6bgtjwqs3
If however Labour take a clear poll lead then the knives will be out amongst Tory backbenchers for Boris and Sunak will likely take over as PM
I'm saying this line won't work from Trump.
I imagine much of the outrage would be similar to the response to this.
It goes against everything I have ever stood for in business and my private life and has had an enormous negative impact on my attitude to Boris
I want him gone but I do want Brexit and remain a conservative party member
The proposal is only one slide and does not realistically address many practical problems of segregation. How exactly does the high risk group "shelter in place". How does a low risk person live with someone with "Chronic lung disease, any age" who is here categorised as high risk? That chronic lung disease might be Asthma or COPD which covers a lot of people. It is likely that this "shelter in place" will need to continue until there is a vaccine so probably another 6 months.
By applying social distancing restrictions on everyone the low-risk children and partners of high-risk people are living in an environment where very few people are carrying the virus, and so dramatically reducing the chances that the high risk are exposed to the virus.
That's what people tell me, anyway.
Also Australia pays Fiji or someone to take the refugees don’t they? Who are we going to pay?
Sincerely, Biden backers.
And the consequences of that will be far further reaching then Boris or so think and expect.
They know the right tummies need tickling.
My proposal would be we speak to Turkey. We give Turkey a hefty chunk of "development" money from our Aid budget and do a refugee exchange with them. Any illegal migrant who makes it across gets deported immediately back to Turkey and we take a legitimate refugee from a Turkish refugee camp.
Presumably because the political calculation is that the government would rather someone else takes the blame for whatever clustershambles is incoming. Either the enemy within (aka Remoaners) or without (aka Brussels) or both.
But what do No 10 really want? A No Deal which is someone else's fault, or an extension which is someone else's fault? (The crucial bit is the someone else's fault bit.) Because there is no sign that anyone in the UK has the capacity to prepare for an actual No Deal, and Christmas is 3 1/2 months away.
A not-our-fault extension (sorry, Interim Pay-as-you-go no strings trade deal for a bargain £300 million a week), on the other hand, keeps the wheels turning and the psychodrama going, and the government is largely held together by the psychodrama.
Given that even Michael Howard is against this, the trade bill is surely and predictably going nowhere. But what if everyone tuts, but nobody external to the government forces them to ditch it? Do they have to climb down themselves? What happens then? Alternatively, what happens if the government is lumbered with a law it didn't really want, but hoped they would have snatched from them?
The Government should be in no doubt as to how quickly its whole world will collapse when (and it is when, not if) this goes wrong.
How well the Republic wants to enforce their side of the border is of course for negotiations. How we enforce our side is up to us.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/08/americans-racism-police-brutality-problems-poll
Looks like the needed reform that will only come with a Biden presidency can preserve order in the USA
It needs one or two senior people in the ERG to throw their hands up, and show some leadership *the other way*.
No, me neither.