In March 92% of CON members thought Johnson was handling the COVID19 crisis well – that’s now down t
Options
In March 92% of CON members thought Johnson was handling the COVID19 crisis well – that’s now down to just 28% – politicalbetting.com
The above data comes from the latest monthly survey by Conservative Home and shows a dramatic decline in the assessment of party members of Johnson’s handling of the crisis.
0
Comments
-
FPT: 28% still looks too high.3
-
I wonder whether the Conservative members think Boris is being too heavy handed in restricting us so much or that he hasn't gone far enough.
If it is the former, he his in the position of upsetting people on both extremes which, when it is the BBC, lefties say proves the beeb are right. I doubt they'll say the same here though0 -
A bit of both. It is not just the left who support tighter lockdown measures. I know a few people who are way on the right who are very risk averse and also think that rules are not tight enough, didn`t happen fast enough etc etc.isam said:I wonder whether the Conservative members think Boris is being too heavy handed in restricting us so much or that he hasn't gone far enough.
If it is the former, he his in the position of upsetting people on both extremes which, when it is the BBC, lefties say proves the beeb are right. I doubt they'll say the same here though
Then there is the other wing of Tory support which thinks the measures are far too authoritarian.
So Johnson is walking a fine line and is in a very difficult situation. Seems to me that he has antagonised both wings.2 -
I know a few on the left who think the measures are too strict too.Stocky said:
A bit of both. It is not just the left who support tighter lockdown measures. I know a few people who are way on the right who are very risk averse and also think that rules are not tight enough, didn`t happen fast enough etc etc.isam said:I wonder whether the Conservative members think Boris is being too heavy handed in restricting us so much or that he hasn't gone far enough.
If it is the former, he his in the position of upsetting people on both extremes which, when it is the BBC, lefties say proves the beeb are right. I doubt they'll say the same here though
Then there is the other wing of Tory support which thinks the measures are far too authoritarian.
So Johnson is walking a fine line and is in a very difficult situation. Seems to me that he has antagonised both wings.
I don't think it is a traditional left right split, even if it is tempting or even comforting to see it as such.2 -
1
-
The former, according to the same ConHome survey 49% of Tory members want a Swedish style voluntary social distancing approach, 38% want a German style track and trace policy and only 13% back another state regulated lockdownisam said:I wonder whether the Conservative members think Boris is being too heavy handed in restricting us so much or that he hasn't gone far enough.
If it is the former, he his in the position of upsetting people on both extremes which, when it is the BBC, lefties say proves the beeb are right. I doubt they'll say the same here though
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/10/our-monthly-survey-finds-support-for-a-swedish-style-covid-policy-is-up-from-about-a-third-of-party-activists-to-almost-half.html1 -
ONS cases down. 111 telephone triage numbers down.
Second wave turns out to be a blip caused by freshers flu and back to school?2 -
Covid inpatients in Leicester are stable in the thirties for the last fortnight. Up on August, but down on June.rottenborough said:ONS cases down. 111 telephone triage numbers down.
Second wave turns out to be a blip caused by freshers flu and back to school?2 -
What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?0 -
If these freshers are locked up and shagging each other sore this may be the one time that university is worth £9000.rottenborough said:ONS cases down. 111 telephone triage numbers down.
Second wave turns out to be a blip caused by freshers flu and back to school?1 -
This is another example of the Church of England being the Conservative Party at prayer. God fearing Tories have the Almighty in their corner. They are assuming non-Conservative heathens will succumb and not them.HYUFD said:
The former, according to the same ConHome survey 49% of Tory members want a Swedish style voluntary social distancing approach, 38% want a German style track and trace policy and only 13% back another state regulated lockdownisam said:I wonder whether the Conservative members think Boris is being too heavy handed in restricting us so much or that he hasn't gone far enough.
If it is the former, he his in the position of upsetting people on both extremes which, when it is the BBC, lefties say proves the beeb are right. I doubt they'll say the same here though
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/10/our-monthly-survey-finds-support-for-a-swedish-style-covid-policy-is-up-from-about-a-third-of-party-activists-to-almost-half.html
I prefer the German system but as a non-Tory my view doesn't count.0 -
Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.0 -
Unexpected crises rock every government, but what the faithful are picking up on is the government's response to them. Its first instinct is not conservative. Far from it.
Boris's replacement will face the challenges of a leader who inherited a country that had Corbynism for a while.
0 -
-
-
...-1
-
It would only be the exponential graph of doom if we'd taken no actions and had no extra restrictions though wouldn't it?rottenborough said:
Given actions were immediately taken its impossible to know what would have happened otherwise.1 -
Err, if Covid cases are subsiding (which I hope is the case, although we don't know for sure yet), then surely that vindicates the measures the government has taken?Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?3 -
If Johnson has brought the virus back under control this quickly, and with a comparatively light touch (given the derision that the restrictions received), while keeping schools and universities open, and can follow that up with a Brexit Trade Deal by Halloween... Would a few journalists start to feel a bit silly about the political obituaries they recently published?isam said:witter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1311985271408394240?s=20
2 -
Post hoc ergo propter hoc....Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, if Covid cases are subsiding (which I hope is the case, although we don't know for sure yet), then surely that vindicates the measures the government has taken?Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?0 -
I believe that is a fair comment.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Have you forgotten already. A bad Brexit is the fault of Covid-19, not Johnson.Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?
A hundred lines to remind you!1 -
Its funny the number of people who immediately replied to the "rule of 6" and 10pm curfew with a reply of "is that it" and suggesting this meant in 2 weeks time we'd be back to a proper lockdown.LostPassword said:
If Johnson has brought the virus back under control this quickly, and with a comparatively light touch (given the derision that the restrictions received), while keeping schools and universities open, and can follow that up with a Brexit Trade Deal by Halloween... Would a few journalists start to feel a bit silly about the political obituaries they recently published?isam said:witter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1311985271408394240?s=20
Now the line is that the rule of 6 and 10pm curfew are authoritarian measures and overkill.
Its hard to keep up. I just wish Parliament was scrutinising these measures more and they weren't made just by Ministers.1 -
The hospital figures in Ireland have declined for two days in a row too, where they've recently reopened pubs at the same time as asking people to take more care.
Would be encouraging if largely voluntary action was sufficient to keep a lid on this while pressure on the hospitals was relatively low.0 -
If it can be shown that the measures are led to the drop then fair enough, because nobody wants a plague. The dreaded "Second wave" seems to be less severe than predicted in many countries all of which have different measures. Maybe they all work?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, if Covid cases are subsiding (which I hope is the case, although we don't know for sure yet), then surely that vindicates the measures the government has taken?Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?
With Covid off the radar, he needs to get moving on Brexit.0 -
Shit, those are TERRRIBLE figures for Boris, because you can bet your bottom $ that a good 50% of the doing wellers think he's shit, but are whistle in the dark stiff upper lippers.1
-
Whatever Nippy's motives. She is making all the right noises, Johnson did not.Scott_xP said:0 -
It is certainly encouraging to see the forecast exponential growth not materialising at present. To draw your conclusion from a single piece of data is absurd.rottenborough said:ONS cases down. 111 telephone triage numbers down.
Second wave turns out to be a blip caused by freshers flu and back to school?
It may be equally valid to argue local tightening of restrictions in combination with more stringent enforcement and greater public awareness have combined to slow the growth of the virus.
We are still a long way above the midsummer numbers and those arguing for a rapid relaxation of restrictions need to explain how and why doing so would not lead to a renewed surge in cases.
With the onset of autumn and the consequent return to more indoor socialising the risk of the virus spreading remains very evident and we have no idea how it will develop in the next 3-6 months.
1 -
He's meeting von der Leyen soon to begin the proper negotiations.Beibheirli_C said:
If it can be shown that the measures are led to the drop then fair enough, because nobody wants a plague. The dreaded "Second wave" seems to be less severe than predicted in many countries all of which have different measures. Maybe they all work?Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, if Covid cases are subsiding (which I hope is the case, although we don't know for sure yet), then surely that vindicates the measures the government has taken?Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?
With Covid off the radar, he needs to get moving on Brexit.0 -
Its like Aztecs slaughtering natives isn;t it?
Things are good. Its because we are slaughtering natives
Things are bad We aren't slaughtering enough natives
Things got better. Increased native slaughtering clearly worked.
Things didn;t get better. Increased native slaughtering 'stopped things worsening even more' We clearly underestimated how angry the gods were.
Does this mean we can slack off on native slaughtering again?
Gradually, but we must't go to far or Aztecs will die.
0 -
Not if the SNP loses the by election to Labour thanks to Tory and LD tactical voting, that would be a huge boost to Unionists and a damaging blow to the NationalistsCarlottaVance said:0 -
I wonder if the reports about it being terrible have pushed people into being more careful. Potentially a very smart move.4
-
FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.3 -
You can't win with these people.Philip_Thompson said:
Its funny the number of people who immediately replied to the "rule of 6" and 10pm curfew with a reply of "is that it" and suggesting this meant in 2 weeks time we'd be back to a proper lockdown.LostPassword said:
If Johnson has brought the virus back under control this quickly, and with a comparatively light touch (given the derision that the restrictions received), while keeping schools and universities open, and can follow that up with a Brexit Trade Deal by Halloween... Would a few journalists start to feel a bit silly about the political obituaries they recently published?isam said:witter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1311985271408394240?s=20
Now the line is that the rule of 6 and 10pm curfew are authoritarian measures and overkill.
Its hard to keep up. I just wish Parliament was scrutinising these measures more and they weren't made just by Ministers.
Infections go up? The measures are useless! Infections go down? The measures are unnecessary!
It seems to me that the measures are proving to be teetering on the edge of sufficient, but, as Stodge says, it could well get tougher as winter approaches. We certainly can't afford to reduce restrictions yet.2 -
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.2 -
I swear we will get the take "Sturgeon only cured cancer to stoke nationalist grievance and make Westminster look bad" if it should ever happen.Mexicanpete said:
Whatever Nippy's motives. She is making all the right noises, Johnson did not.Scott_xP said:3 -
-
I am generally a critic of the government but think they are being harshly treated here. Alternating between using the brake and accelerator is the right way forward at the moment, but wont be popular with either the dominant shut everything down group or the keep everything open group.rkrkrk said:Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.
I am glad we were able to socialise and enjoy summer far more than we would have done under a continued lockdown. I can accept that some further restrictions were needed to reduce the risk and size of a big second wave.
They are certainly making a lot of mistakes but not sure this is one.2 -
Agreed.noneoftheabove said:
I am generally a critic of the government but think they are being harshly treated here. Alternating between using the brake and accelerator is the right way forward at the moment, but wont be popular with either the dominant shut everything down group or the keep everything open group.rkrkrk said:Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.
I am glad we were able to socialise and enjoy summer far more than we would have done under a continued lockdown. I can accept that some further restrictions were needed to reduce the risk and size of a big second wave.
They are certainly making a lot of mistakes but not sure this is one.0 -
You've gone a bit quiet lately about the organised Unionist alliance involving the likes of Galloway. What's happening on that front?HYUFD said:
Not if the SNP loses the by election to Labour thanks to Tory and LD tactical voting, that would be a huge boost to Unionists and a damaging blow to the NationalistsCarlottaVance said:0 -
Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being0
-
Galloway's Alliance will stand for the list only at Holyrood 2021Theuniondivvie said:
You've gone a bit quiet lately about the organised Unionist alliance involving the likes of Galloway. What's happening on that front?HYUFD said:
Not if the SNP loses the by election to Labour thanks to Tory and LD tactical voting, that would be a huge boost to Unionists and a damaging blow to the NationalistsCarlottaVance said:0 -
You could argue that the new measures were not designed to guard against there being an upsurge in the virus.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
They were to guard against there not being an upsurge. No upsurge after no activity would have broken the government's iron link between government action and virus prevalence.
How can they ever do nothing from here on in, following their logic?0 -
I wasn't proposing it as a conclusion, but a question. Time will show. If the numbers continue to be falling then maybe we have been through a blip. All virus and cold type things have a spike when there's back to school and university.stodge said:
It is certainly encouraging to see the forecast exponential growth not materialising at present. To draw your conclusion from a single piece of data is absurd.rottenborough said:ONS cases down. 111 telephone triage numbers down.
Second wave turns out to be a blip caused by freshers flu and back to school?
It may be equally valid to argue local tightening of restrictions in combination with more stringent enforcement and greater public awareness have combined to slow the growth of the virus.
We are still a long way above the midsummer numbers and those arguing for a rapid relaxation of restrictions need to explain how and why doing so would not lead to a renewed surge in cases.
With the onset of autumn and the consequent return to more indoor socialising the risk of the virus spreading remains very evident and we have no idea how it will develop in the next 3-6 months.0 -
If we take patients in hospital with COVID as the best measure (not volatile, not as lagging as deaths, not dependent on #testinglevel) - then I think we have doubled in the past 12 days.
But it looks like our rate of increase is slowing a little.
0 -
That would only happen if he handed over his phone.Foxy said:
No, Trump is isolating, but not handed over powers.HYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
Has he tweeted much lately?0 -
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.0 -
That is NOT the White House line. At the moment, they are saying Trump is carrying on his duties while in isolation, so Pence is NOT acting President. And, indeed, there is no reason why that shouldn't be the case if he's asymptomatic or only exhibiting quite mild symptoms at the moment.HYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
4 -
I would tend to agree with that.noneoftheabove said:
I am generally a critic of the government but think they are being harshly treated here. Alternating between using the brake and accelerator is the right way forward at the moment, but wont be popular with either the dominant shut everything down group or the keep everything open group.rkrkrk said:Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.
I am glad we were able to socialise and enjoy summer far more than we would have done under a continued lockdown. I can accept that some further restrictions were needed to reduce the risk and size of a big second wave.
They are certainly making a lot of mistakes but not sure this is one.
The 10pm restriction is an odd one, though, as its effect is going to be to close a lot of businesses without compensation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54369809
1 -
I would regard hospital inpatients is a reasonable proxy for serious disease. There will be deaths outside hospital of course too.rkrkrk said:If we take patients in hospital with COVID as the best measure (not volatile, not as lagging as deaths, not dependent on #testinglevel) - then I think we have doubled in the past 12 days.
But it looks like our rate of increase is slowing a little.2 -
Yes people in hospital with Covid-19 and deaths from the virus were doubling every 11 days. Now it's every 12 or 13 days.rkrkrk said:If we take patients in hospital with COVID as the best measure (not volatile, not as lagging as deaths, not dependent on #testinglevel) - then I think we have doubled in the past 12 days.
But it looks like our rate of increase is slowing a little.
0 -
Hmm.contrarian said:
You could argue that the new measures were not designed to guard against there being an upsurge in the virus.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
They were to guard against there not being an upsurge. No upsurge after no activity would have broken the government's iron link between government action and virus prevalence.
How can they ever do nothing from here on in, following their logic?
Possibly the same way they went around gradually lightening the restrictions when the rate of infections kept falling?
Or does that not follow from the "it's all a government conspiracy to impose totally unnecessary restrictions on our way of life just because they have a mysterious need to do so which is somehow shared with so many governments worldwide, don't look at the virus, that's got nothing to do with it?"
(Is this the latest stuff on the Toby Young site? Aka "lockdownsceptics"?)0 -
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.0 -
The alternative is that The Boris & Cummings Junta got something right.Andy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Quite a few people would rather die of COVID than do that.1 -
Yes, the 10pm one is perhaps a wider nudge to the younger demographic, rather than a policy based on stopping spreading in pubs after 10pm specifically. Id expect they will look to remove that restriction very quickly if we get R below or around 1, or remove it in a while if R is close to but above 1.Nigelb said:
I would tend to agree with that.noneoftheabove said:
I am generally a critic of the government but think they are being harshly treated here. Alternating between using the brake and accelerator is the right way forward at the moment, but wont be popular with either the dominant shut everything down group or the keep everything open group.rkrkrk said:Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.
I am glad we were able to socialise and enjoy summer far more than we would have done under a continued lockdown. I can accept that some further restrictions were needed to reduce the risk and size of a big second wave.
They are certainly making a lot of mistakes but not sure this is one.
The 10pm restriction is an odd one, though, as its effect is going to be to close a lot of businesses without compensation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-543698090 -
Dave, annoying all the 'right' people.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1311975396993269762?s=201 -
Gilead here we comeHYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
0 -
No he's not.HYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
They've said Trump is still carrying out his duties. Pence only becomes acting President if Trump becomes incapacitated.0 -
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.1 -
I wonder if you realise how stupid you make yourself look with that last sentenceAndy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.0 -
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.Andy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
0 -
I don't completely disagree with the sentiment, but would say that good driving does not involve alternating too much and too hard between accelerator and brake. It involves using each when necessary but essentially maintaining a fairly steady pace.noneoftheabove said:
I am generally a critic of the government but think they are being harshly treated here. Alternating between using the brake and accelerator is the right way forward at the moment, but wont be popular with either the dominant shut everything down group or the keep everything open group.rkrkrk said:Remarkable decline. The penny is dropping.
Govt unwisely raised expectations things would go back to normal much earlier than was even vaguely plausible.
In this case, I agree the "let it rip" and "hide until next May" mobs are equally nuts but in different ways. However, you get a lot of uncertainty and frustration if you hit the gas hard as soon as there's a bit of clear road ahead, only to have to slam on the brakes when you realise you're about to smash into the car in front.0 -
Surprising that it is the mask phobic Trumpites that fell ill rather than the mask wearing Biden folk, as obviously masks cause Covid-19.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
😇1 -
It's continental drift mainly though.contrarian said:
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.Andy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.0 -
I've always felt that what ethno-nationalist conflicts lacked was a bit of Eurovision fairy dust.
https://twitter.com/simulacrax/status/1311772844364361728?s=200 -
Dream on!HYUFD said:
Not if the SNP loses the by election to Labour thanks to Tory and LD tactical voting, that would be a huge boost to Unionists and a damaging blow to the NationalistsCarlottaVance said:
No voter under a certain age, has ever heard of Labour in Scotland. And for everyone else their memories don't go back far enough to remember them.1 -
Dunno. I am pro restrictions, as you should know by now.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
I think, however, that the restrictions are poorly targeted and ignorant of the risk profile of various groups.0 -
The ONS infection data is the ground truth for this stuff -Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, if Covid cases are subsiding (which I hope is the case, although we don't know for sure yet), then surely that vindicates the measures the government has taken?Beibheirli_C said:What will Boris do if Covid subsides enough to make his "Rule of 6" nonsense look even more useless?
The double-whammy is that if Covid falls off the radar, what will he use to distract from the continuing disaster of Brexit?
1 -
On the whole, I don't particularly want to become a future barrel of oil...contrarian said:
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.Andy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.1 -
But surely a pandemic is a natural event like a tsunami or an earthquake or a flood or a volcanic eruption. There are, unavoidably and very sadly, going to be victims.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
The human response to the natural event merely decides how many and of what character the casualties are. We may have lost more eighty year olds with two-comorbidities by not locking down.
But how many younger people have we consigned to unnecessary deaths in other ways by doing so?0 -
Your ability to jump to odd conclusions and then assert them as fact is unrivalled.HYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
2 -
Eurovision gone seriously dystopian.Theuniondivvie said:I've always felt that what ethno-nationalist conflicts lacked was a bit of Eurovision fairy dust.
https://twitter.com/simulacrax/status/1311772844364361728?s=202 -
Hospital inpatients (admissions) is the most important stat IMO.Foxy said:
I would regard hospital inpatients is a reasonable proxy for serious disease. There will be deaths outside hospital of course too.rkrkrk said:If we take patients in hospital with COVID as the best measure (not volatile, not as lagging as deaths, not dependent on #testinglevel) - then I think we have doubled in the past 12 days.
But it looks like our rate of increase is slowing a little.0 -
FPT
You're wrong and thinking from a British perspective where the only options are those on the ballot paper. In the USA it doesn't work that way. You can vote for B or C, or minor candidates D and E like here . . . or you can write in X, Y or Z if you dislike any of the above.kinabalu said:
Think deeper. It is B vs C for EC votes. So when assessing how many of the 540 available B will win you assess the chances of B against C. It has no meaning in isolation. What C is defines and affects what B is. For example, if C is Superman, you get one answer for B's chances, and if C is Clark Kent, you get another. Thus if B or C is void, so in logic should the other one be. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes it is. The question is solely Biden ECVs so Trump isn't in the equation.kinabalu said:
That is not material to the point I am demonstrating.Philip_Thompson said:
You're wrong.kinabalu said:
Not my point. It is indeed logical that A is void if either B or C is void. The illogicality is that B is not void if C is, and C is not void if B is.Philip_Thompson said:
Its entirely logical.kinabalu said:
But that's what I mean by illogical. The supremacy is Biden EC over Trump EC. It's A = B - C. So, the basis of B and C should be the same as that of A. But so long as the rules were clear and put up in advance - as they were - then I guess a punter cannot complain. You could factor the illogicality in.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's perfectly logical in principle: If Biden withdraws, the Biden ECV market is voided but the Trump ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If Trump withdraws, the Trump ECV market is voided but the Biden ECV market stands because he hasn't withdrawn. If either withdraws, the Supremacy market is voided because it's the delta between two figures one of which is not considered not valid.kinabalu said:
That to me seems an illogical difference. The EC supremacy market is the delta between Biden EC and opponent EC.
In practice, though, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The market is essentially about the Trump/Biden contest and only the Trump/Biden contest. The whole basis of the market would be invalid if one of them withdraws.
If A = Supremacy, B = Biden and C = Trump then Biden withdrawing voids B and therefore also voids A. Trump withdrawing voids C and therefore also voids A.
Why?
Because B = 540 - C and C = 540 - B. Thus if C changes its identity (e.g. from Trump to Pence) it is no longer the C it used to be - as confirmed by the fact it would be void. Ergo B (being 540 minus a void C) should also be void. QED.
B is not 540 - C since voters also have the right to vote for third parties D. Electoral college votes have indeed gone to third parties in the past on more than a few occasions.
For every ECV the question is if it is won by Biden (you win) or A N Other (you lose).
Trump is only relevant for the Trump and Supremacy markets.
If C is Clark Kent and you dislike Clark Kent but are happy to vote for Superman or Bruce Wayne then you are not obliged to vote for either B or Clark Kent. You can write in Superman, or you can write in Bruce Wayne. Here your vote would be spoilt if you do that, there it would be counted.0 -
I don't agree at all that this would be bad news for Labour.Theuniondivvie said:
For the wider public, by-election holds are boring. If Ferrier does stand down and the SNP win a seat they won with reasonable ease only a year ago, so what? A few people in the bubble will go "oh, Starmer should've done better!" but the public don't give a sh*t.
If, however, Labour gain the seat, it's news which is actually of interest and will be trumpeted (prematurely but still) as a Labour resurgence in Scotland. That IS of interest beyond the bubble.
In general, it is almost always a pain in the arse to have to defend a by-election, and a good opportunity to be able to give it a go from second place.
It could be problematic for Labour if they had to look behind them in this seat to a well-placed third party in the seat, but they don't.2 -
ConHome polls are the pineapple toppings on pizza of the polling world.0
-
FYI, two pieces here on the question of voter registration in the US election and canvassing efforts:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-winning-voter-registration-battle-against-biden-key-states-n1241674
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-campaign-resume-person-canvassing-key-battleground-states-n1241722
On the principle that you should look at what somebody does for how they truly feel, not what they say, the second one is perhaps more interesting. Not only is a change from the previous approach but look at where they are canvassing:
"Beginning this weekend, the Biden campaign will send out several hundred volunteers to reach voters in Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, with the efforts expanding, in a phased approach, to 17 battleground states, one official said."
Now, I may be looking at things from a skewed angle and there are maybe logistical reasons involved, but I don't know why the Biden campaign would have Nevada and NH as two of their first states for this approach unless (a) they think numbers are tight here and / or (b) they recognise the election might be tight and therefore even states with 4-5 electoral votes might be crucial.
0 -
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.contrarian said:
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.Andy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.1 -
HYUFD is channelling the ghost of Al Haig, after a fashion.Benpointer said:
Your ability to jump to odd conclusions and then assert them as fact is unrivalled.HYUFD said:Vice President Pence has tested negative for Covid so with Trump isolating after his positive test he is in effect acting President for the time being
0 -
Obviously, some people haven't encounter Serbian Turbo-Folk. Hard to describe. National Socialism plus Volk Musik meets the 90s?Nigelb said:
Eurovision gone seriously dystopian.Theuniondivvie said:I've always felt that what ethno-nationalist conflicts lacked was a bit of Eurovision fairy dust.
https://twitter.com/simulacrax/status/1311772844364361728?s=200 -
Agreed. And there probably won't be a by-election anyway.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't agree at all that this would be bad news for Labour.Theuniondivvie said:
For the wider public, by-election holds are boring. If Ferrier does stand down and the SNP win a seat they won with reasonable ease only a year ago, so what? A few people in the bubble will go "oh, Starmer should've done better!" but the public don't give a sh*t.
If, however, Labour gain the seat, it's news which is actually of interest and will be trumpeted (prematurely but still) as a Labour resurgence in Scotland. That IS of interest beyond the bubble.
In general, it is almost always a pain in the arse to have to defend a by-election, and a good opportunity to be able to give it a go from second place.
It could be problematic for Labour if they had to look behind them in this seat to a well-placed third party in the seat, but they don't.0 -
Some of us seasoned Eurovision watcher still haven't recovered from the Russian Grannies.Malmesbury said:
Obviously, some people haven't encounter Serbian Turbo-Folk. Hard to describe. National Socialism plus Volk Musik meets the 90s?Nigelb said:
Eurovision gone seriously dystopian.Theuniondivvie said:I've always felt that what ethno-nationalist conflicts lacked was a bit of Eurovision fairy dust.
https://twitter.com/simulacrax/status/1311772844364361728?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgUstrmJzyc0 -
I`m concerned about civil liberties, but despair of those who manipulate statistics to suit their lockdown-skeptic views. They spoil their argument by doing this because it becomes unscientific and dogmatic.Anabobazina said:
Dunno. I am pro restrictions, as you should know by now.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
I think, however, that the restrictions are poorly targeted and ignorant of the risk profile of various groups.
Better to stick to arguing against overly, or poorly targeted, authoritarian measures on philosophical grounds - i.e. through points of principle. Seeking to re-look at the balance between health considerations and other considerations (freedoms and economics and non-Covid health and psychological considerations) is a perfectly arguable line to take.6 -
He had symptoms and he was attending events with symptoms and throwing caps into the crowd. With symptoms.TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
There is a point to be explored here. That Atlantic article on overdispersion provides some very useful steers - there could well be some very low-hanging fruit that has big effects on the spread and minimal effects on the way of life and economy, by targeting potential superspreader scenarios.Anabobazina said:
Dunno. I am pro restrictions, as you should know by now.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
I think, however, that the restrictions are poorly targeted and ignorant of the risk profile of various groups.
The lockdowns and restrictions work to reduce spread, but many of them (full lockdown especially) are crude and poorly targeted, including restrictions on things that have minimal or no effect.
The curfew, especially, seems to be either minimal in effect or counterproductive.
Others (reducing numbers of people you can socialise with - which would prevent superspreader events) should be a lot more effective.
Unfortunately, your stance appears comparatively rare. Too many seem to go straight to denial that covid has an effect, or could be serious, or that restrictions could have any discernible effect (we've seen a bunch of the latter on here just now, insistent that the restrictions could have had nothing to do with the downturn and at least one person scoffing at the idea that diseases could be prevented or controlled at all)2 -
If I was the kind of agenda pusher who posted shit graphs to twitter this is the kind of thing I'd post.
2 -
Given that RCS has been claiming for months that NH might swing to Trump against the national swing, it makes a lot of sense. Money and staff resources are much better spent in NH and Nevada than in Ohio, Iowa and Georgia, which are in the nice to have but not crucial category.MrEd said:FYI, two pieces here on the question of voter registration in the US election and canvassing efforts:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-winning-voter-registration-battle-against-biden-key-states-n1241674
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-campaign-resume-person-canvassing-key-battleground-states-n1241722
On the principle that you should look at what somebody does for how they truly feel, not what they say, the second one is perhaps more interesting. Not only is a change from the previous approach but look at where they are canvassing:
"Beginning this weekend, the Biden campaign will send out several hundred volunteers to reach voters in Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, with the efforts expanding, in a phased approach, to 17 battleground states, one official said."
Now, I may be looking at things from a skewed angle and there are maybe logistical reasons involved, but I don't know why the Biden campaign would have Nevada and NH as two of their first states for this approach unless (a) they think numbers are tight here and / or (b) they recognise the election might be tight and therefore even states with 4-5 electoral votes might be crucial.1 -
Apart from anything else it would be an opportunity to practice for the Holyrood election. Worst-case scenario they can learn what doesn't work and then try something else.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't agree at all that this would be bad news for Labour.Theuniondivvie said:
For the wider public, by-election holds are boring. If Ferrier does stand down and the SNP win a seat they won with reasonable ease only a year ago, so what? A few people in the bubble will go "oh, Starmer should've done better!" but the public don't give a sh*t.
If, however, Labour gain the seat, it's news which is actually of interest and will be trumpeted (prematurely but still) as a Labour resurgence in Scotland. That IS of interest beyond the bubble.
In general, it is almost always a pain in the arse to have to defend a by-election, and a good opportunity to be able to give it a go from second place.
It could be problematic for Labour if they had to look behind them in this seat to a well-placed third party in the seat, but they don't.0 -
If Ms. Ferrier can keep her head down until Covid news dies down, maybe in late 2021, she can then quietly dovetail back into the Parliamentary party when the coast is clear.tlg86 said:
Agreed. And there probably won't be a by-election anyway.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I don't agree at all that this would be bad news for Labour.Theuniondivvie said:
For the wider public, by-election holds are boring. If Ferrier does stand down and the SNP win a seat they won with reasonable ease only a year ago, so what? A few people in the bubble will go "oh, Starmer should've done better!" but the public don't give a sh*t.
If, however, Labour gain the seat, it's news which is actually of interest and will be trumpeted (prematurely but still) as a Labour resurgence in Scotland. That IS of interest beyond the bubble.
In general, it is almost always a pain in the arse to have to defend a by-election, and a good opportunity to be able to give it a go from second place.
It could be problematic for Labour if they had to look behind them in this seat to a well-placed third party in the seat, but they don't.
Nippy has already said all the right things at the right time.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj8UbmdV7bkAlistair said:If I was the kind of agenda pusher who posted shit graphs to twitter this is the kind of thing I'd post.
0 -
That Atlantic article was very interesting indeed. Thanks to whoever posted it (I think Nigelb).Andy_Cooke said:
There is a point to be explored here. That Atlantic article on overdispersion provides some very useful steers - there could well be some very low-hanging fruit that has big effects on the spread and minimal effects on the way of life and economy, by targeting potential superspreader scenarios.Anabobazina said:
Dunno. I am pro restrictions, as you should know by now.Andy_Cooke said:
It's equally impossible for any evidence to be accepted by certain PBers that any restrictions might possibly have ever been necessary, isn't it?Anabobazina said:
Quite.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
Certainly it will be impossible to prove to certain PBers that anything other than full blown hardcore lockdownism would be wrong.
I think, however, that the restrictions are poorly targeted and ignorant of the risk profile of various groups.
The lockdowns and restrictions work to reduce spread, but many of them (full lockdown especially) are crude and poorly targeted, including restrictions on things that have minimal or no effect.
The curfew, especially, seems to be either minimal in effect or counterproductive.
Others (reducing numbers of people you can socialise with - which would prevent superspreader events) should be a lot more effective.
Unfortunately, your stance appears comparatively rare. Too many seem to go straight to denial that covid has an effect, or could be serious, or that restrictions could have any discernible effect (we've seen a bunch of the latter on here just now, insistent that the restrictions could have had nothing to do with the downturn and at least one person scoffing at the idea that diseases could be prevented or controlled at all)1 -
That a good point but there's a distinction. Those diseases were largely brought under control not by human behaviour but by human treatments. By real science. People were not ordered to dramatically alter their day to day behaviour, surrender their liberty or give up their businesses.Andy_Cooke said:
Which is why diseases such as typhoid, measles, polio, smallpox, and so on remain such a problem and have never been brought under control.contrarian said:
The idea that natural phenomena, whether volcanoes, eclipses, floods, drought or viruses, or even global climate for that matter, are relatable to and controllable by human behaviour is as old as the dark ages and belongs there, surely.Andy_Cooke said:
Well, if measures were brought in to reduce socialisations and the opportunity to spread the virus, the simplest hypothesis is therefore that the rate of spread of the virus would decrease, comparative to not bringing them in.isam said:
How could it possibly be proven that the restrictions were a mistake? Is this a Karl Popper falsification thing? It seems that it was a free option for the govt, no matter what happened they were rightAndy_Cooke said:FPT
- Infection rates surge -Anabobazina said:
Which will mean the government will claim victory over its new restrictions.isam said:
What won't happen is Vallance admitting his scaremongering was exactly that.
- New restrictions brought in and Government scientists tell the public that it's surging and warn them how bad it could get if it continued at its fastest observed rate - while emphasising they don't expect it to be that bad -
-
- Infections continue to ramp up for a while, slowing, and start to fall in exactly the time frame you'd expect if the warnings and restrictions were responsible -
- Conclusion: It just happened on its own and there's no way the warnings and restrictions could have had anything to do with it -
Sure.
To then jump to "These couldn't have had any effect and the reduction was exactly what would have happened without them" would seem to be the less likely hypothesis and would require greater evidence than "I've decided it didn't happen like that."
If the level of spread suddenly dropped like a rock instantly after the speech and far sooner than the effects of any warning or restrictions would allow, we could switch to the simplest hypothesis being that they were unnecessary.
Which it didn't, so we couldn't, so they weren't.
We can amelerioate the effects of almightly nature. But we cannot, and never will be able to, control it.
We get oil from Scottish seas because there were forests there once. Our valleys were glaciers.
That's climate change, right there.
Seriously, that entire worldview is laughable - that strange and inexplicable phenomena govern our world like the effects of capricious gods.
Is this some strange trolling or joke?
Someone called Semmelweiss made some rather important discoveries in the 1800s. Something called the Germ Theory of Disease came along. And one of the bigger steps in changing behaviours in order to control disease outbreaks was carried out by someone called Florence Nightingale (you may have heard of her) who produced excellent data visualisations to convince some decision-makers of the way to deal with disease outbreaks in hospitals.
And other viruses. such as influenza, still kill. Right now, more than COVID.
1
This discussion has been closed.