Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
What a ridiculous decision. Dawkins is a liberal, albeit of the non-Woke variety.
Dawkins should not be invited to address any historical society because he has deliberately falsified historical facts in the past. For example, he claimed that Stalin was not an atheist and even if he was, his atheism had no bearing on his conduct in office, both of which are patently untrue.
But I’m deeply uneasy about this idea that people should be no platformed because of their opinions. The whole point of a university is that any opinion can be aired as long as it’s based on a reasonable interpretation of established facts, but it is always open to challenge by other interpretations.
If that’s not allowed, it’s no longer a university.
Stalin trained to be a priest.
Untrue. Although he was educated in a seminary on a scholarship, because he couldn’t get educated elsewhere, he did not undergo priestly training. in fact, he was in constant trouble for proclaiming his atheism.
Moreover, even if you were right, your point is irrelevant to his conduct in office. Dawkins himself was a regular churchgoer at one time. Should he still be considered a Christian many years and many anti-Christian diatribes later? He changed his mind. Google the League of Militant Godless and you will see how irrelevant your comment really is.
Ignorant remarks based on Dawkins‘ lies are the reason why he should not be addressing historical societies. But that is separate from the issue of whether his other views should not be aired and challenged.
Yes, you're correct. Richard Dawkins backs you up:
There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist. He received his education as an Orthodox Seminary, and his mother never lost her disappointment that he had not entered the priesthood as she intended - a fact that, according to Andrew Bullock, caused Stalin much amusement
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
What a ridiculous decision. Dawkins is a liberal, albeit of the non-Woke variety.
Dawkins should not be invited to address any historical society because he has deliberately falsified historical facts in the past. For example, he claimed that Stalin was not an atheist and even if he was, his atheism had no bearing on his conduct in office, both of which are patently untrue.
But I’m deeply uneasy about this idea that people should be no platformed because of their opinions. The whole point of a university is that any opinion can be aired as long as it’s based on a reasonable interpretation of established facts, but it is always open to challenge by other interpretations.
If that’s not allowed, it’s no longer a university.
Stalin trained to be a priest.
Untrue. Although he was educated in a seminary on a scholarship, because he couldn’t get educated elsewhere, he did not undergo priestly training. in fact, he was in constant trouble for proclaiming his atheism.
Moreover, even if you were right, your point is irrelevant to his conduct in office. Dawkins himself was a regular churchgoer at one time. Should he still be considered a Christian many years and many anti-Christian diatribes later? He changed his mind. Google the League of Militant Godless and you will see how irrelevant your comment really is.
Ignorant remarks based on Dawkins‘ lies are the reason why he should not be addressing historical societies. But that is separate from the issue of whether his other views should not be aired and challenged.
Yes, you're correct. Richard Dawkins backs you up:
There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist. He received his education as an Orthodox Seminary, and his mother never lost her disappointment that he had not entered the priesthood as she intended - a fact that, according to Andrew Bullock, caused Stalin much amusement
And elsewhere, he blames Stalin’s Christian background for the purges while denying Stalin’s atheism had anything to do with the roughly 700,000 members of the Orthodox Church targeted in the purges.
So again - not fit to address an historical society. Scientific, different matter. Opinions are open to interpretation but facts are not.
I may have been harsh in comparing him to Irving though. Perhaps Richard Carrier or Philippa Langley would be a better parallel.
Anyway, I have a job to do and I am off to bed. Good night.
Quick question - re: the NHS app. Am i to understand that the inputting of positive test results is a manual thing? And do you actually have to have had a positive result to input it (is there some sort of validation code that goes with it or something?).
Otherwise a malign actor could lockdown half the country by wandering all over London for a few days, and then claiming they had a positive test result.
As I understand it you get a code, so only a genuine test result can be input.
You just cannot control a virus , you can arguably suppress it and then when you go back to normal it comes out again - Learn to live with it and get on with life
We tried that, the NHS almost got overwhelmed
As opposed to being distinctly underwhelmed in the last few months . This country needs to quickly get over its covid -19 obsession
You youngsters!
Catch a thought for us older folks, who if we contract Covid-19 could be up the creek without a paddle.
No idea how old you are but unless you are in nursing home you will almost certainly survive it unless you are about 99
Your hyperbole weakens your argument, such as it is. I'm just over 60, but because of bad stuff (i.e. health issues) in my past I fear that if I get it there's a fair chance it would kill me. I'm not alone.
maybe 1% then? in your case - Id that worth stopping your life activity at 60? I woudl have thought a 60 year old probably has about a 1% chance of dying anyway in a given year .
Much higher than that if I catch it. But the point is, although I'm really careful it hasn't stopped my life. I go to the pub, out to restaurants, and out for walks. I'm a bit more careful with my grown-up children, all in jobs where they could catch it, so I keep my distance - but I still see them. I think what irritates me is the view that life has come to an end because of the restrictions. It hasn't; I have a great life, just a bit different from the one I had back in February.
The whole concept of "lockdown" has, in my view, always been a myth.
It has stopped my life. I`m pleased that you are coping with it, but for me my life is now dominated by worry and postponed or destroyed plans.
I`m at the prime of my life yet my travel plans are up in smoke, my future pension values reduced, my children`s GCSEs and A levels in turmoil. Is it worth them going to university now? The economy is shafted - where will they find work? My mother will likely die in a care home having for the last few months only seen staff with masks and having very inadequate visiting arrangements. Friends are about to, or already have, lost their businesses and now face ruin.
I live in a country where grassing each other up is encouraged (indeed, even regarded as a moral good) and anyone sticking up for liberty is regarded as callous. I don`t expect anyone else to be responsible for my health - but one cannot point this out without being shouted down.
I`ve found the willingness of people from the left and right to give up the basic freedoms of living in a liberal democracy extremely surprising and frightening. Will we get them back? - I don`t take that for granted.
Every day it feels like my life is on hold. I`m living day-to-day, trying to keep my chin up, buoyed by the facts that I am naturally optimistic (really) and stoic. But, even so, yes, it`s pretty much stopped my life. This is a catastrophe and I cannot understand how anyone can tolerate this unless you didn`t really like the freedoms of living in a liberal democracy in the first place.
Just thought I`d give an alternative view.
You’ve expressed very well much of what I feel. I feel utterly despairing for the future - mine, but above all, my children’s. I will likely be a prisoner in my own home for the next few years. My work has dried up for now and I don’t know when - or if - it will come back. I am now worried about money . My children face uncertain futures. The country is rapidly becoming quite nasty and illiberal and much of what made Britain a lovely place to live - not least its culture - will likely disappear. Politics is utterly depressing.
Above all, I feel that all the things I have tried to do in my life and set as an example (in a small way) and teach my children: hard work, trying to do your best, competence, integrity and decency - are for the birds. That I have been a mug for thinking these are or ought to be valued. Look at who is rewarded and praised in this country, who gets to the top - they barely know how to spell such things let alone exhibit them. I’ve been a naive fool for doing what I was taught by my parents, a fool for trying to pass these values onto my children. The only way to get on in this country, in this life now is to behave like a total amoral arsehole.
So I will retreat to my home and try to live “as if” these things mattered and shut out the noise from the charlatans. But our life, our country, our communities should be so much better.
Key sentence: "The country is rapidly becoming quite nasty and illiberal and much of what made Britain a lovely place to live - not least its culture - will likely disappear".
Thinking about it - and I have - I think it is we liberals who are feeling this most. We are under attack from both sides - that`s how it feels to me. The Right through idiocy and a natural tendency towards the authoritarian when they get the chance, and The Left by malicious design, seeing this as an opportunity to hobble our liberal democracy so that it can`t recover. A "new normal" FFS.
Yes true liberals are having an uphill struggle on this amassed against the combined forces of the 4 main UK parties who are all stateish parties . Pleasantly surprised to hear of Richard Madeley being so outspoken against covid-19 restrictions on Talkradio the other day (its on youtube) . Maybe because he does have true liberal instincts .
I’ll dig it out.
Madeley is an intelligent bloke and was a serious journalist prior to becoming famous.
I suspect he chose fluff daytime telly for the money, but he does have credentials.
Yes. I remember him from the halcyon days of Granada Reports (when it was a really top programme). Judy for the human interest stories. The incomparable Tony Wilson (of Factory Records and the Hacienda) for the arts and sports, and Madeley for the hard political interviews. Best local news show ever. They all got on really well too. Real chemistry. Richard and Judy paid for Wilson's cancer treatment after his bankruptcy.
Quick question - re: the NHS app. Am i to understand that the inputting of positive test results is a manual thing? And do you actually have to have had a positive result to input it (is there some sort of validation code that goes with it or something?).
Otherwise a malign actor could lockdown half the country by wandering all over London for a few days, and then claiming they had a positive test result.
As I understand it you get a code, so only a genuine test result can be input.
You just cannot control a virus , you can arguably suppress it and then when you go back to normal it comes out again - Learn to live with it and get on with life
We tried that, the NHS almost got overwhelmed
As opposed to being distinctly underwhelmed in the last few months . This country needs to quickly get over its covid -19 obsession
You youngsters!
Catch a thought for us older folks, who if we contract Covid-19 could be up the creek without a paddle.
No idea how old you are but unless you are in nursing home you will almost certainly survive it unless you are about 99
Your hyperbole weakens your argument, such as it is. I'm just over 60, but because of bad stuff (i.e. health issues) in my past I fear that if I get it there's a fair chance it would kill me. I'm not alone.
maybe 1% then? in your case - Id that worth stopping your life activity at 60? I woudl have thought a 60 year old probably has about a 1% chance of dying anyway in a given year .
Much higher than that if I catch it. But the point is, although I'm really careful it hasn't stopped my life. I go to the pub, out to restaurants, and out for walks. I'm a bit more careful with my grown-up children, all in jobs where they could catch it, so I keep my distance - but I still see them. I think what irritates me is the view that life has come to an end because of the restrictions. It hasn't; I have a great life, just a bit different from the one I had back in February.
The whole concept of "lockdown" has, in my view, always been a myth.
It has stopped my life. I`m pleased that you are coping with it, but for me my life is now dominated by worry and postponed or destroyed plans.
I`m at the prime of my life yet my travel plans are up in smoke, my future pension values reduced, my children`s GCSEs and A levels in turmoil. Is it worth them going to university now? The economy is shafted - where will they find work? My mother will likely die in a care home having for the last few months only seen staff with masks and having very inadequate visiting arrangements. Friends are about to, or already have, lost their businesses and now face ruin.
I live in a country where grassing each other up is encouraged (indeed, even regarded as a moral good) and anyone sticking up for liberty is regarded as callous. I don`t expect anyone else to be responsible for my health - but one cannot point this out without being shouted down.
I`ve found the willingness of people from the left and right to give up the basic freedoms of living in a liberal democracy extremely surprising and frightening. Will we get them back? - I don`t take that for granted.
Every day it feels like my life is on hold. I`m living day-to-day, trying to keep my chin up, buoyed by the facts that I am naturally optimistic (really) and stoic. But, even so, yes, it`s pretty much stopped my life. This is a catastrophe and I cannot understand how anyone can tolerate this unless you didn`t really like the freedoms of living in a liberal democracy in the first place.
Just thought I`d give an alternative view.
You’ve expressed very well much of what I feel. I feel utterly despairing for the future - mine, but above all, my children’s. I will likely be a prisoner in my own home for the next few years. My work has dried up for now and I don’t know when - or if - it will come back. I am now worried about money . My children face uncertain futures. The country is rapidly becoming quite nasty and illiberal and much of what made Britain a lovely place to live - not least its culture - will likely disappear. Politics is utterly depressing.
Above all, I feel that all the things I have tried to do in my life and set as an example (in a small way) and teach my children: hard work, trying to do your best, competence, integrity and decency - are for the birds. That I have been a mug for thinking these are or ought to be valued. Look at who is rewarded and praised in this country, who gets to the top - they barely know how to spell such things let alone exhibit them. I’ve been a naive fool for doing what I was taught by my parents, a fool for trying to pass these values onto my children. The only way to get on in this country, in this life now is to behave like a total amoral arsehole.
So I will retreat to my home and try to live “as if” these things mattered and shut out the noise from the charlatans. But our life, our country, our communities should be so much better.
Key sentence: "The country is rapidly becoming quite nasty and illiberal and much of what made Britain a lovely place to live - not least its culture - will likely disappear".
Thinking about it - and I have - I think it is we liberals who are feeling this most. We are under attack from both sides - that`s how it feels to me. The Right through idiocy and a natural tendency towards the authoritarian when they get the chance, and The Left by malicious design, seeing this as an opportunity to hobble our liberal democracy so that it can`t recover. A "new normal" FFS.
Yes true liberals are having an uphill struggle on this amassed against the combined forces of the 4 main UK parties who are all stateish parties . Pleasantly surprised to hear of Richard Madeley being so outspoken against covid-19 restrictions on Talkradio the other day (its on youtube) . Maybe because he does have true liberal instincts .
I’ll dig it out.
Madeley is an intelligent bloke and was a serious journalist prior to becoming famous.
I suspect he chose fluff daytime telly for the money, but he does have credentials.
Yes. I remember him from the halcyon days of Granada Reports (when it was a really top programme). Judy for the human interest stories. The incomparable Tony Wilson (of Factory Records and the Hacienda) for the arts and sports, and Madeley for the hard political interviews. Best local news show ever.
Would modern ITV produce someone like Wilson? I doubt it.
Good luck surviving this one Williamson. Three strikes and you are out. Or is it four?
It's unbelievable that a minister who failed so completely and unambiguously over the exam fiasco is still in post, as if he couldn't do more damage. And yet already he has been allowed to continue to preside over the shambles of school returns, under which confusion over testing requirements has led to the near collapse of the national testing system and now the scandal of what is being done to students in universities.
And, there's clearly no shortage of things on the horizon for him to screw up as well. Some of them even being repeats of things he's already screwed up once.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
Can everybody please stop and make sure their definitions of "lockdown" line up before they continue spending valuable pixels on this conversation
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
Can everybody please stop and make sure their definitions of "lockdown" line up before they continue spending valuable pixels on this conversation
Not sure what China was doing on the list. Is the argument that it had lockdowns AND mass graves?
Trump should be moving down in the betting because he has yet to get near to overhauling Biden. Yes the debates could change it but its unlikely if Biden in anyway turns up, the guy can out blunt Trump at his best and has enough attack routes to drive through him if he turns up to the debates.
Biden's relative position is better than Clinton's in 2016 full stop. He is nowhere as divisive as Clinton plus the Democrats are taking no chances In 2016 they thought they had it, they aren't so cocky this time.
We are also dealing with a very small rump of undecided voters here, such is the polarisation, that its going to have to be a really bad time for Biden over the next 6 or so weeks for this to turn enough. The hidden damage here for Trump that still isn't clear is motivation. Last time around there was a sliver of GOP voters who hated the man and didn't vote for him, this time that sliver is a visible slice of the pie chart. The motivation of possible voters to get Trump above 45% I'd say is in doubt right now. What some people this side of the ocean fail to understand in their ignorance is that for all the bullshit conception that the GOP voter base is just bunch of gun toting play soldiers & evangelicals, the GOP voter base has plenty of shades and I suspect enough of them are exhausted by Trump. They may be GOP leaning or even regular GOP voters but they dislike the clown act and they dislike their country looking like a clown show.
And again I will say this as I have been saying for months, The bad news for Trump will keep rolling because a) the guy is fundamentally corrupt and b) what we are now seeing is plenty of people, covertly or overtly, wanting to be on the right side of history so are putting their head above the parapet.
The NYT has more on the tax returns but whether they have insight into one of the many bombs that can be dropped is yet unknown. Who does he owe the money to, really? What is Deutsche Banks role and what info have they handed over? That is a daisy cutter sized story.
On today's Monmouth poll if just 3% of voters move from Biden to Trump after tomorrow's debate then Trump takes a popular vote lead never mind the EC, this is not over by any means
The Day The Polls Turned! Or rather The Day A Poll Came Within A Few Percent Of Turning!
The day Trump's best poll plus a bit came within a couple of % of giving him a chance in line with his betting odds
A reminder that this time in 2016 Clinton was @1.47 with a 1.4 percentage point lead in the polls.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
There are certainly countries dealing with the virus better than the British government have done. Generally though the examples you have given are countries where the virus is less prevalent than in Britain, rather than more - no South American countries are on your list, of course.
The only way I can see this improving is if we sort out test, trace and isolate. The point's been made that people would find it easier to isolate if entitlement to sick pay was better - maybe that's a difference with Sweden some on the Tory backbenches might like to ponder? Perhaps there are a series of practical steps that we could take that would improve the test, trace, isolate system and then we could control the virus without driving ourselves to despair.
You'd think the 3 of them would need to come to some sort of arrangement to avoid splitting the vote.
Marty: Let's...uh talk a little bit about the history of the group. I understand Nigel you and David originally started the band wuh...back in...when was it... 1964? David: Well before that we were in different groups, I was in a group called The Creatures and w-which was a skiffle group. Nigel: I was in Lovely Lads. David: Yeah. Nigel: And then we looked at each other and says well we might as well join up you know and uh.... David: So we became The Originals. Nigel: Right. David: And we had to change our name actually.... Nigel: Well there was, there was another group in the East End called The Originals and we had to rename ourselves. David: The New Originals. Nigel: The New Originals and then, uh, they became.... David: The Regulars, they changed their name back to The Regulars and we thought well, we could go back to The Originals but what's the point? Nigel: We became The Thamesmen at that point.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
Is that correct? That, with a +/- of 3.5% MoE, anything less than a 7% lead is within the MoE? What would the probability be of both Biden overstated by 3.5 and Trump understated by 3.5?
Lots of despair on here tonight. We are in serious shit. But we always have been. The economy is in serious trouble, the virus on the loose, and the government in disarray. Wishful thinking about an imminent vaccine, herd immunity (We have no proof of immunity, at all, let alone how long it lasts), a magical disappearance or mutation, that if only we lift all restrictions everything will be fine, and so on, really don't help. Better to accept our hand, knuckle down and play it as best we can.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
Is the alternative mass graves? I genuinely don't know, any more.
Yes, if you don't lock down at all, on the basis of reports from Italy and NYC and s America of what can happen even when you do.
I think.
And yet, Sweden, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan....
Good luck surviving this one Williamson. Three strikes and you are out. Or is it four?
There is only one offence, is there not? And Williamson has not committed it.
And still f*cking going on about Christmas!!! I'll bet there isn't a single student in all these locked down campus's who's is currently asking about what they will be able to do at Christmas!
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
I had mine on Saturday as I am on the “at risk” group. Husband could not get his but told he could try to get it privately. But we were told that they were running out of the vaccine so anyone who had not booked or who was not in the vulnerable list would likely have to wait until November.
Good luck surviving this one Williamson. Three strikes and you are out. Or is it four?
There is only one offence, is there not? And Williamson has not committed it.
And still f*cking going on about Christmas!!! I'll bet there isn't a single student in all these locked down campus's who's is currently asking about what they will be able to do at Christmas!
Good luck surviving this one Williamson. Three strikes and you are out. Or is it four?
There is only one offence, is there not? And Williamson has not committed it.
And still f*cking going on about Christmas!!! I'll bet there isn't a single student in all these locked down campus's who's is currently asking about what they will be able to do at Christmas!
Funny that. There was one asked that very question on the radio. They were more concerned about the next 2 weeks.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
It is a bit scary to think what would happen in a few years if swine flu happened again, after "learning the lessons" of Covid...
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
I had mine on Saturday as I am on the “at risk” group. Husband could not get his but told he could try to get it privately. But we were told that they were running out of the vaccine so anyone who had not booked or who was not in the vulnerable list would likely have to wait until November.
Similar. My wife is booked in for end of October. She is "at risk". I'm her full time carer but I am not eligible yet, whereas I was last year.
I stupidly believed Hancock's blather about there being millions and millions of jabs ready for everyone over 50.
Is that correct? That, with a +/- of 3.5% MoE, anything less than a 7% lead is within the MoE? What would the probability be of both Biden overstated by 3.5 and Trump understated by 3.5?
Extremely unlikely. Luntz should know better than to misuse MOEs. People on here constantly make the mistake of believing that the distribution around the stated poll figure is uniform when in fact the MOE is the 95% confidence interval of a normal distribution.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
It is fairly standard that stuff like this on the front page of newspapers are known by most of the general public, long before it filters through to the media or politicians and becomes a "story".
Remember years ago when Blair was told on Question Time about how GP surgeries operated their surgeries to meet various Government targets for "patient choice" and "on the day access" and was completely unaware about the "phone up on the morning", "no advance bookings" arrangements that many were putting in place, and said "that can't be happening" - to which virtually the entire audience responded "yes it is".
I'll swear that most of the time the media only report this stuff once the editor's mum tells them about it.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Yes. Agree with that. But when did values like “integrity” and “decency” and “competence” and “hard work” become things that only liberals valued? They seem to me quite small ‘c’ conservative.
FFS indeed!!!
The old ways still exist. But they have been crowded out of the public arena
May be you could write a piece on you blog about Gresham’s Law?
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
It is a bit scary to think what would happen in a few years if swine flu happened again, after "learning the lessons" of Covid...
EDIT: it's bad enough what's going on now, where at least what is happening is in response to a virus that has claims to be more serious than the norm. Imagine if we were doing the same for Swine flu (along with counting "deaths with" as "deaths caused by") - until after a couple of months somebody raised their hand and suggested that perhaps we might have over-reacted!
Is that correct? That, with a +/- of 3.5% MoE, anything less than a 7% lead is within the MoE? What would the probability be of both Biden overstated by 3.5 and Trump understated by 3.5?
They are probably inversely related, so if Trump is at the upper limit of MoE, then Biden is more likely to be at the lower level.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
It is a bit scary to think what would happen in a few years if swine flu happened again, after "learning the lessons" of Covid...
It wouldn't surprise me if we have something like that in the future which is actually more serious than Covid-19 but for which we don't have such a draconian response.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
I had mine on Saturday as I am on the “at risk” group. Husband could not get his but told he could try to get it privately. But we were told that they were running out of the vaccine so anyone who had not booked or who was not in the vulnerable list would likely have to wait until November.
Similar. My wife is booked in for end of October. She is "at risk". I'm her full time carer but I am not eligible yet, whereas I was last year.
I stupidly believed Hancock's blather about there being millions and millions of jabs ready for everyone over 50.
Another f***ing mess.
All First School children are having it this week up here. The one my 2 went to had it today. Well the spray one anyway.
Burnham cuts through the crap over 10pm pub shut and tells it like it is. It is just pushing people into their houses for socials.
Illegal now in the Northeast.
I'd guess the idea nationwide though is it should be no more than six people rather than 40 people who are too pissed to maintain social distancing?
I'm not convinced it is a good idea.
And then Hancock claimed that the North East restrictions have been announced "in consultation with local council leaders". Local Council leaders who have responded that "yes, there have been some discussions, but they were given no notice of actual implementation". And it appears that as with much else, the headline announcement has gone out before the details have been finalised.
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
It is a bit scary to think what would happen in a few years if swine flu happened again, after "learning the lessons" of Covid...
EDIT: it's bad enough what's going on now, where at least what is happening is in response to a virus that has claims to be more serious than the norm. Imagine if we were doing the same for Swine flu (along with counting "deaths with" as "deaths caused by") - until after a couple of months somebody raised their hand and suggested that perhaps we might have over-reacted!
Surely the reason we took this more seriously than swine flu is because it is more serious than swine flu, because we could see it causing hospitals and morgues to overflow in China, Iran and Italy in a way that obviously didn't happen with swine flu?
Given that - even now - we still haven't controlled international travel I don't see us doing it for a future virus either.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
It is fairly standard that stuff like this on the front page of newspapers are known by most of the general public, long before it filters through to the media or politicians and becomes a "story".
Remember years ago when Blair was told on Question Time about how GP surgeries operated their surgeries to meet various Government targets for "patient choice" and "on the day access" and was completely unaware about the "phone up on the morning", "no advance bookings" arrangements that many were putting in place, and said "that can't be happening" - to which virtually the entire audience responded "yes it is".
I'll swear that most of the time the media only report this stuff once the editor's mum tells them about it.
Our GP practice have invited my wife and I to attend a marquee in the local park on Saturday 10th October between 12 noon and 2 pm to have our annual flu vaccination and where appropriate a pneumonia vaccination ( we already have had that some time ago) and to have a blood pressure test and be weighed
They go on to say if we are unable to attend it us unlikely they will be able to vaccinate in the surgery for sometime and are not suggesting when this may change
I am very impressed with our practice but have been all the way through his year
Nobly phrased. Millions are nodding in agreement. And not just in the UK
I can see wild civil disorder across Europe and America if lockdowns persist.
The thing is, destroying the economy and ruining lives and stuff is possibly exactly the right thing to do because the alternative is mass graves, and it's kind of an absolute that you never go full mass graves, not even if their occupants are demonstrably old and fat. But parliament gets to vote on it, despite fears it might get the answer wrong.
Of course it's a side effect of having fucking stupid referendums about Brexit that parliamentary debate can now be portrayed as anti democratic.
It's probably not something you are allowed to say, but the irony about this virus is that had it occurred at any other time in history probably until about 20 years ago, it would have probably ultimately resulted in massively beneficial economic outcomes evident within a couple of years. An illness which uniquely targets the very old and vulnerable thereby massively reducing the cost of the welfare state and unlocking the wealth tied up in the older generations.
It is only today that technology has given the politicians the belief that there is another way than continuing life as normal (beyond letting people take their own decisions on protecting themselves). And the other way means keeping the old alive and letting the young suffer and destroy their future prospects for years.
Lockdown and WFH would have been impossible without the Internet in every home.
We had extremely, er, 'destructive' flu epidemics in
1957-58 1968-69 1975-76 2008-09 2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
It is a bit scary to think what would happen in a few years if swine flu happened again, after "learning the lessons" of Covid...
I'm guessing that next time people will be quick to put masks on, a lesson we knew a century ago and East Asia learnt due to SARS.
If we can cope with the next epidemic with just masks like much of East Asia have done then that could be a good lesson.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
The idea that Biden might win by 8% and yet Trump still win the EC is somewhat shocking.
Remember, there have only been 2 elections where the popular vote went the other way to the EC in modern times, and one of those by just 0.5% and the other by 2%.
As usual "London" just treated as one amorphous region, when the variations within it are quite significant. Some areas are barely paying attention to the rules at all (both people and businesses), others have almost universal acceptance and implementation. How about cracking down on the businesses not enforcing their existing obligations, rather than assuming the solution lies in tougher regulations?
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
Yes. Agree with that. But when did values like “integrity” and “decency” and “competence” and “hard work” become things that only liberals valued? They seem to me quite small ‘c’ conservative.
FFS indeed!!!
The old ways still exist. But they have been crowded out of the public arena
May be you could write a piece on you blog about Gresham’s Law?
Next month. I have an idea already for this month.😉
Burnham cuts through the crap over 10pm pub shut and tells it like it is. It is just pushing people into their houses for socials.
Illegal now in the Northeast.
I'd guess the idea nationwide though is it should be no more than six people rather than 40 people who are too pissed to maintain social distancing?
I'm not convinced it is a good idea.
And then Hancock claimed that the North East restrictions have been announced "in consultation with local council leaders". Local Council leaders who have responded that "yes, there have been some discussions, but they were given no notice of actual implementation". And it appears that as with much else, the headline announcement has gone out before the details have been finalised.
Yep. We aren't allowed to socialise with people outside our family bubble. Places of worship are specifically included in this. But it doesn't specify what that entails. Can we meet to worship? But then be in breach if we ask about the well being of anyone attending? Or what? And what, exactly, constitutes worship? I appreciate these are arcane matters, but, as it stands, we don't know if we can go ahead or not tomorrow.
Yes. Agree with that. But when did values like “integrity” and “decency” and “competence” and “hard work” become things that only liberals valued? They seem to me quite small ‘c’ conservative.
FFS indeed!!!
The old ways still exist. But they have been crowded out of the public arena
May be you could write a piece on you blog about Gresham’s Law?
Next month. I have an idea already for this month.😉
And I already make this point in my talks. Can’t give everything away for free.
As with @HYUFD earlier, it's easy to look at the headline numbers but the details tell a different story. A solid phalanx of half the American electorate will not vote for Trump - you have a tiny number supporting third party candidates but basically the 50-45-5 split is about as good as it gets for Trump.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
The idea that Biden might win by 8% and yet Trump still win the EC is somewhat shocking.
Remember, there have only been 2 elections where the popular vote went the other way to the EC in modern times, and one of those by just 0.5% and the other by 2%.
Even if there were none then xkcd would apply.
Elections only occur every four years so there aren't that many. For it to have happened twice certainly means it can happen again. Improbably but not implausible.
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
It is fairly standard that stuff like this on the front page of newspapers are known by most of the general public, long before it filters through to the media or politicians and becomes a "story".
Remember years ago when Blair was told on Question Time about how GP surgeries operated their surgeries to meet various Government targets for "patient choice" and "on the day access" and was completely unaware about the "phone up on the morning", "no advance bookings" arrangements that many were putting in place, and said "that can't be happening" - to which virtually the entire audience responded "yes it is".
I'll swear that most of the time the media only report this stuff once the editor's mum tells them about it.
Our GP practice have invited my wife and I to attend a marquee in the local park on Saturday 10th October between 12 noon and 2 pm to have our annual flu vaccination and where appropriate a pneumonia vaccination ( we already have had that some time ago) and to have a blood pressure test and be weighed
They go on to say if we are unable to attend it us unlikely they will be able to vaccinate in the surgery for sometime and are not suggesting when this may change
I am very impressed with our practice but have been all the way through his year
Our local surgery arranged drive-in flu vaccination sessions at a local airfield, which were by all accounts very successful.
Unfortunately, I found out today that the flu vaccine marker on my case record had unnacountably been set to 'off' so I never got an invite. :-(
Some of these commentators like Goodwin are determined to find ridiculously unlikely scenarios where Trump could lose by a large margin and still pull out an EC win .
Don't understand that Telegraph splash. My GP practice have already told me that I will have to wait as they are doing over 65s and very vulnerable first.
It is fairly standard that stuff like this on the front page of newspapers are known by most of the general public, long before it filters through to the media or politicians and becomes a "story".
Remember years ago when Blair was told on Question Time about how GP surgeries operated their surgeries to meet various Government targets for "patient choice" and "on the day access" and was completely unaware about the "phone up on the morning", "no advance bookings" arrangements that many were putting in place, and said "that can't be happening" - to which virtually the entire audience responded "yes it is".
I'll swear that most of the time the media only report this stuff once the editor's mum tells them about it.
Our GP practice have invited my wife and I to attend a marquee in the local park on Saturday 10th October between 12 noon and 2 pm to have our annual flu vaccination and where appropriate a pneumonia vaccination ( we already have had that some time ago) and to have a blood pressure test and be weighed
They go on to say if we are unable to attend it us unlikely they will be able to vaccinate in the surgery for sometime and are not suggesting when this may change
I am very impressed with our practice but have been all the way through his year
Our local surgery arranged drive-in flu vaccination sessions at a local airfield, which were by all accounts very successful.
Unfortunately, I found out today that the flu vaccine marker on my case record had unnacountably been set to 'off' so I never got an invite. :-(
Burnham cuts through the crap over 10pm pub shut and tells it like it is. It is just pushing people into their houses for socials.
Illegal now in the Northeast.
I'd guess the idea nationwide though is it should be no more than six people rather than 40 people who are too pissed to maintain social distancing?
I'm not convinced it is a good idea.
And then Hancock claimed that the North East restrictions have been announced "in consultation with local council leaders". Local Council leaders who have responded that "yes, there have been some discussions, but they were given no notice of actual implementation". And it appears that as with much else, the headline announcement has gone out before the details have been finalised.
Yep. We aren't allowed to socialise with people outside our family bubble. Places of worship are specifically included in this. But it doesn't specify what that entails. Can we meet to worship? But then be in breach if we ask about the well being of anyone attending? Or what? And what, exactly, constitutes worship? I appreciate these are arcane matters, but, as it stands, we don't know if we can go ahead or not tomorrow.
What indeed constitutes "socialising"? Does it just mean - come into contact with somebody whilst being within the distances for approved "social distancing". It's one of those questions about the rule of six in pubs. Are you allowed to talk to somebody at an adjacent table, as long as the table in 2m away? Or are you only allowed to communicate with somebody at your table? In the North-East, if you're in a queue in the shop, are you allowed to talk to somebody next to you in the line?
I understand fully the complaints about the spectacle of the media calling for "simple guidance" and then looking for elaborate loopholes when this guidance (eg. rule of six) is produced. But increasingly the latest laws are being backed up by legislation for significant fines and penalties. And yet nobody really knows what they can and can't do. And this isn't people inventing slightly silly scenarios.
And also, communication outside your household is actually important. It is many people's source for what is really going on in the world and (especially) the local area. If all such communication is now effectively being curtailed, what is people's source of information?
Trump should be moving down in the betting because he has yet to get near to overhauling Biden. Yes the debates could change it but its unlikely if Biden in anyway turns up, the guy can out blunt Trump at his best and has enough attack routes to drive through him if he turns up to the debates.
Biden's relative position is better than Clinton's in 2016 full stop. He is nowhere as divisive as Clinton plus the Democrats are taking no chances In 2016 they thought they had it, they aren't so cocky this time.
We are also dealing with a very small rump of undecided voters here, such is the polarisation, that its going to have to be a really bad time for Biden over the next 6 or so weeks for this to turn enough. The hidden damage here for Trump that still isn't clear is motivation. Last time around there was a sliver of GOP voters who hated the man and didn't vote for him, this time that sliver is a visible slice of the pie chart. The motivation of possible voters to get Trump above 45% I'd say is in doubt right now. What some people this side of the ocean fail to understand in their ignorance is that for all the bullshit conception that the GOP voter base is just bunch of gun toting play soldiers & evangelicals, the GOP voter base has plenty of shades and I suspect enough of them are exhausted by Trump. They may be GOP leaning or even regular GOP voters but they dislike the clown act and they dislike their country looking like a clown show.
And again I will say this as I have been saying for months, The bad news for Trump will keep rolling because a) the guy is fundamentally corrupt and b) what we are now seeing is plenty of people, covertly or overtly, wanting to be on the right side of history so are putting their head above the parapet.
The NYT has more on the tax returns but whether they have insight into one of the many bombs that can be dropped is yet unknown. Who does he owe the money to, really? What is Deutsche Banks role and what info have they handed over? That is a daisy cutter sized story.
On today's Monmouth poll if just 3% of voters move from Biden to Trump after tomorrow's debate then Trump takes a popular vote lead never mind the EC, this is not over by any means
That is a gigantic Spartan "if". "If" my auntie was my uncle!
@Yokes - I'm waiting for which member of Trump's family will be the first to be arrested. Eric looked likeliest until yesterday, when Ivanka may have taken over.
At yesterday's press conference he kept boasting that the Republicans were united, very united, more united than a very united thing, really bigly united. He sounded scared stiff that the GOP are about to dump him.
You are right about the GOP. I've lost count of how many times I've read "experts" claim it has become the QAnon party and so on. Of course it hasn't.
Nothing of substance will happen until the election is done, mainly because any cases against Trump org and the family therein will sit tight until then. Any ideas of the party removing him (they did exist) early have probably gone now but if he loses in November, he should worry more about the Secret Service & Marines lifting him out if he tries to outstay the welcome. And they will lift him out though I don't think its going to come to that.
The blatant refusal of Trump's figures to get above 45% to me is a killer. All I can see is that the undecideds are getting more decided and it isn't swinging for him. As a known quantity, by now he should be showing signs of being above 45% in a binary contest with what looks to me to be a very small undecided group left. Biden doesn't have the negative of Clinton either, just not that divisive a character. I don't see it as a swing voter issue because I'm not sure there is enough left to reverse the numbers, he needs Biden's voters not to turn out
If a lot of help from Republican SC justices is required to keep the cases against the Trump Org and family members from coming to a head before the election, it may not be forthcoming. If they help him too much, they'd be practically asking the Democrats to increase the size of the SC after the election. Eric Trump is currently under order to testify on oath by 7 October...the day of the VP debate. Also Trump is a genuine nutter and by general agreement difficult to work with. If he goes before 3 November it could be as a result of a mutual interaction with GOP figures - he threatens them, they threaten him back, he adds a flounce-out to his threat, they call his bluff, bang.
If Trump knows he's going to lose the election - there will come a time when it sinks in - why hang on? I don't buy the line that Pence will pardon him and his family members for all possible crimes, and Biden surely won't do it. From a GOP POV, another candidate might be more likely to beat Biden.
What a ridiculous decision. Dawkins is a liberal, albeit of the non-Woke variety.
Dawkins should not be invited to address any historical society because he has deliberately falsified historical facts in the past. For example, he claimed that Stalin was not an atheist and even if he was, his atheism had no bearing on his conduct in office, both of which are patently untrue.
But I’m deeply uneasy about this idea that people should be no platformed because of their opinions. The whole point of a university is that any opinion can be aired as long as it’s based on a reasonable interpretation of established facts, but it is always open to challenge by other interpretations.
If that’s not allowed, it’s no longer a university.
Stalin trained to be a priest.
Untrue. Although he was educated in a seminary on a scholarship, because he couldn’t get educated elsewhere, he did not undergo priestly training. in fact, he was in constant trouble for proclaiming his atheism.
Moreover, even if you were right, your point is irrelevant to his conduct in office. Dawkins himself was a regular churchgoer at one time. Should he still be considered a Christian many years and many anti-Christian diatribes later? He changed his mind. Google the League of Militant Godless and you will see how irrelevant your comment really is.
Ignorant remarks based on Dawkins‘ lies are the reason why he should not be addressing historical societies. But that is separate from the issue of whether his other views should not be aired and challenged.
Yes, you're correct. Richard Dawkins backs you up:
There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist. He received his education as an Orthodox Seminary, and his mother never lost her disappointment that he had not entered the priesthood as she intended - a fact that, according to Andrew Bullock, caused Stalin much amusement
And elsewhere, he blames Stalin’s Christian background for the purges while denying Stalin’s atheism had anything to do with the roughly 700,000 members of the Orthodox Church targeted in the purges.
So again - not fit to address an historical society. Scientific, different matter. Opinions are open to interpretation but facts are not.
I may have been harsh in comparing him to Irving though. Perhaps Richard Carrier or Philippa Langley would be a better parallel.
Anyway, I have a job to do and I am off to bed. Good night.
Blaming Stalin's Christian background for the purges is ridiculous. It sounds as though Dawkins is relying on his audiences knowing as little as he does about the purges (which were mainly against the "intelligentsia" and holders of posts in the party and other organisations) and the vicious onslaught against the peasantry. Perhaps he is confusing the bogatyrs from whom the Cheka took their hat style with Christian Arthurian knights?
Burnham cuts through the crap over 10pm pub shut and tells it like it is. It is just pushing people into their houses for socials.
Illegal now in the Northeast.
I'd guess the idea nationwide though is it should be no more than six people rather than 40 people who are too pissed to maintain social distancing?
I'm not convinced it is a good idea.
And then Hancock claimed that the North East restrictions have been announced "in consultation with local council leaders". Local Council leaders who have responded that "yes, there have been some discussions, but they were given no notice of actual implementation". And it appears that as with much else, the headline announcement has gone out before the details have been finalised.
Yep. We aren't allowed to socialise with people outside our family bubble. Places of worship are specifically included in this. But it doesn't specify what that entails. Can we meet to worship? But then be in breach if we ask about the well being of anyone attending? Or what? And what, exactly, constitutes worship? I appreciate these are arcane matters, but, as it stands, we don't know if we can go ahead or not tomorrow.
What indeed constitutes "socialising"? Does it just mean - come into contact with somebody whilst being within the distances for approved "social distancing". It's one of those questions about the rule of six in pubs. Are you allowed to talk to somebody at an adjacent table, as long as the table in 2m away? Or are you only allowed to communicate with somebody at your table? In the North-East, if you're in a queue in the shop, are you allowed to talk to somebody next to you in the line?
I understand fully the complaints about the spectacle of the media calling for "simple guidance" and then looking for elaborate loopholes when this guidance (eg. rule of six) is produced. But increasingly the latest laws are being backed up by legislation for significant fines and penalties. And yet nobody really knows what they can and can't do. And this isn't people inventing slightly silly scenarios.
And also, communication outside your household is actually important. It is many people's source for what is really going on in the world and (especially) the local area. If all such communication is now effectively being curtailed, what is people's source of information?
For people who live on their own, you are effectively cutting them off from all but the most casual social contact
Comments
There seems no doubt that, as a matter of fact, Stalin was an atheist. He received his education as an Orthodox Seminary, and his mother never lost her disappointment that he had not entered the priesthood as she intended - a fact that, according to Andrew Bullock, caused Stalin much amusement
Tomorrow's World Order, Our Island, Alliance for Democracy and Freedom and Scotia Future just a few of them. Scotia Future even have a nifty logo.
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP12489
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP10355
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP12513
http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP10288
Sadly we rarely get to vote for many of them.
So again - not fit to address an historical society. Scientific, different matter. Opinions are open to interpretation but facts are not.
I may have been harsh in comparing him to Irving though. Perhaps Richard Carrier or Philippa Langley would be a better parallel.
Anyway, I have a job to do and I am off to bed. Good night.
Judy for the human interest stories. The incomparable Tony Wilson (of Factory Records and the Hacienda) for the arts and sports, and Madeley for the hard political interviews.
Best local news show ever.
They all got on really well too. Real chemistry. Richard and Judy paid for Wilson's cancer treatment after his bankruptcy.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1310676447426641921
Good luck surviving this one Williamson. Three strikes and you are out. Or is it four?
And, there's clearly no shortage of things on the horizon for him to screw up as well. Some of them even being repeats of things he's already screwed up once.
https://twitter.com/AndrewNoymer/status/1310317683414413313?s=09
The only way I can see this improving is if we sort out test, trace and isolate. The point's been made that people would find it easier to isolate if entitlement to sick pay was better - maybe that's a difference with Sweden some on the Tory backbenches might like to ponder? Perhaps there are a series of practical steps that we could take that would improve the test, trace, isolate system and then we could control the virus without driving ourselves to despair.
Don't know about CL!
Spot on lol
David: Well before that we were in different groups, I was in a group called The Creatures and w-which was a skiffle group.
Nigel: I was in Lovely Lads.
David: Yeah.
Nigel: And then we looked at each other and says well we might as well join up you know and uh....
David: So we became The Originals.
Nigel: Right.
David: And we had to change our name actually....
Nigel: Well there was, there was another group in the East End called The Originals and we had to rename ourselves.
David: The New Originals.
Nigel: The New Originals and then, uh, they became....
David: The Regulars, they changed their name back to The Regulars and we thought well, we could go back to The Originals but what's the point?
Nigel: We became The Thamesmen at that point.
We are in serious shit. But we always have been.
The economy is in serious trouble, the virus on the loose, and the government in disarray.
Wishful thinking about an imminent vaccine, herd immunity (We have no proof of immunity, at all, let alone how long it lasts), a magical disappearance or mutation, that if only we lift all restrictions everything will be fine, and so on, really don't help.
Better to accept our hand, knuckle down and play it as best we can.
The concern for Biden is or should be the counties where it was close between Trump and Clinton (counties won by less than 10 points). The previous Monmouth poll had Biden winning those 47-40 but Trump now leads 47-46 so Trump is regaining ground where he needs to but is it enough?
The notion there will be a 3% direct move from Biden to Trump because of the tv debate is neither rational nor borne out by the polling. It's wishful thinking from those still holding out for a Trump win.
1957-58
1968-69
1975-76
2008-09
2017-18
all within my lifetime. Most PBers will have lived through three or more of them.
I'd say we under-reacted in 2017-18 because a bit of distancing, extra hygiene and lots of vitamin D would have helped. Then in 2020 we panicked at what turned out to be 'Ferguson's fake news'. We shouldn't have done because he'd been wrong three times before on foot and mouth, BSE and swine flu.
A fatality rate of 0.1-0.2% among the infected doesn't exactly amount to 'mass graves' any more than flu which is ~0.1% in an average year.
The UK went back to negative excess deaths in the summer after a spike in spring, Sweden not dissimilar and Japan's had virtually no excess deaths in 2020, i.e. the 1,500 dead from COVID are within the statistical noise.
Edit: Obvious joke is obvious
I stupidly believed Hancock's blather about there being millions and millions of jabs ready for everyone over 50.
Another f***ing mess.
/Sean
Remember years ago when Blair was told on Question Time about how GP surgeries operated their surgeries to meet various Government targets for "patient choice" and "on the day access" and was completely unaware about the "phone up on the morning", "no advance bookings" arrangements that many were putting in place, and said "that can't be happening" - to which virtually the entire audience responded "yes it is".
I'll swear that most of the time the media only report this stuff once the editor's mum tells them about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2012_United_States_presidential_election
In 2004 Kerry cut Bush's lead back to a tie in some polls after being 5%+ behind following the first debate on 30th September which Kerry won.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls
Plus
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1310674267483377664?s=20
I'd guess the idea nationwide though is it should be no more than six people rather than 40 people who are too pissed to maintain social distancing?
I'm not convinced it is a good idea.
May be you could write a piece on you blog about Gresham’s Law?
Or vice versa of course, with Biden 12% ahead...
Calexit.
Given that - even now - we still haven't controlled international travel I don't see us doing it for a future virus either.
The government is losing this now. It is spiralling out of control as they place one made-up whack a mole policy on top of another.
Shambles.
They go on to say if we are unable to attend it us unlikely they will be able to vaccinate in the surgery for sometime and are not suggesting when this may change
I am very impressed with our practice but have been all the way through his year
If we can cope with the next epidemic with just masks like much of East Asia have done then that could be a good lesson.
But it doesn't specify what that entails. Can we meet to worship? But then be in breach if we ask about the well being of anyone attending? Or what?
And what, exactly, constitutes worship?
I appreciate these are arcane matters, but, as it stands, we don't know if we can go ahead or not tomorrow.
It does seem the public really do like the nanny state and there is plenty of evidence in Scotland of this v Nicola Sturgeon
Elections only occur every four years so there aren't that many. For it to have happened twice certainly means it can happen again. Improbably but not implausible.
Unfortunately, I found out today that the flu vaccine marker on my case record had unnacountably been set to 'off' so I never got an invite. :-(
I understand fully the complaints about the spectacle of the media calling for "simple guidance" and then looking for elaborate loopholes when this guidance (eg. rule of six) is produced. But increasingly the latest laws are being backed up by legislation for significant fines and penalties. And yet nobody really knows what they can and can't do. And this isn't people inventing slightly silly scenarios.
And also, communication outside your household is actually important. It is many people's source for what is really going on in the world and (especially) the local area. If all such communication is now effectively being curtailed, what is people's source of information?
If Trump knows he's going to lose the election - there will come a time when it sinks in - why hang on? I don't buy the line that Pence will pardon him and his family members for all possible crimes, and Biden surely won't do it. From a GOP POV, another candidate might be more likely to beat Biden.