So in the 4d chess world, is Trump seriously ill and they are hiding it or are they trying to show a bit of leg that he was perhaps morr sick than they let on and when he leaves hospital tomorrow his reputation as the man who duffed up the Vvchina virus with ease?
The atmosphere of the briefings indicates to me that he is not seriously ill.
Then why the dexamethasone? It’s madly contradictory.
My view is that this is (so far) a mild case. He did not need to go to hospital. He had no clinical need for extra oxygen or for dexamethasone. But for Donald Trump, the showman who is down in the polls with an election coming up, this is a situation to be milked for drama and concern and sympathy. He could have stayed in the White House and quietly isolated for the requisite period but that would have been too boring. Hence all this.
I could be wrong, and of course he could get genuinely very sick in the next few days, but that is my strong sense of what is happening at the moment.
More likely, the virus has turned him into panicky jelly and he has insisted on getting every possible treatment right away.
Yes maybe so. Impossible to know for sure what's really going on. No doubt the truth will emerge.
One i think question that needs to be addressed at the scientists/govt at some point is this:
There is speculation that at some point (whether it's already happened to some extent or in the future) the virus will reduce in general harmfulness - either because it will mutate into a less harmful form or because treatment will improve so that the relative risk compared to other illnesses will not be obvious. It will just be one illness among many in the national picture of illnesses and deaths.
As long as the focus of government policy is largely on case numbers alone, how would they be able to adjust to this? Or can we be confident that they are actually doing serious research into whether Covid continues, or will continue, to be a unique illness for which the economy and other health outcomes must be compromised for.
Early in the pandemic data on excess deaths was highly useful in showing just how harmful Covid was. But at some point we will probably have to accept Covid is here to say in which case excess deaths figures/deaths caused by Covid are no longer relevant. We don't generally consider flu deaths as 'excess' in comparison to a world in which flu doesn't exist.
Is this 'lost a stash of data' a bit like when Dido Harding lost a stash of thousands of TalkTalk customers personal data?
It's data from university labs. They run their own tests because they have the means.
But instead of explaining where they came from, the story is government incompetence. Plenty of that to go around, but not here.
Because, as always, the hacks like Peston and Catherwood don't care about giving accurate information if bashing the government gets them more retweets.
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Encouraging people back to city centres was always a silly idea. The market had decisively shifted and lots of small town businesses benefited. That smacks of the CBI’s influence bias towards larger chain hospitality. Other than that it makes some sense. I think the idea of Tim Martin sitting on SAGE is risible but consulting them through SPI-B is the obvious answer.
Agreed. The key points are (1) the time wasted over the summer; (2) actually talking to those in business when coming up with new rules/guidelines.
I also think the government should be forced to provide all scientific evidence for measures taken in advance.
"Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 typically report symptom onset three to five days after exposure (fatigue, chills), progressing to fever and dry cough 48 hours later. Transition to severe disease with hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, about 8-14 days after original exposure. In the RECOVERY trial, dexamethasone was beneficial for participants treated seven or more days into the symptomatic phase, with the onset of hypoxaemia. Importantly, there was a non-significant trend (P=0.14) towards possible harm affecting participants without hypoxaemia and not on mechanical ventilation. RECOVERY findings therefore support use of dexamethasone only for patients with hypoxaemia, not those with milder disease. The data do not support use of dexamethasone or other corticosteroids in the outpatient setting." https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2648
So, if hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, and Trump was displaying hypoxaemia on Friday, that suggests he would have been symptomatic since the previous Monday at least, doesn't it?
It seems to me that either Trump is in a pretty bad way, or the WH is doing an excellent job of making it look that way by claiming all is rosy but allowing enough unsettling hints to come through to cause a lot of concern, with the intent of producing a miracle recovery early next week to push Trump as the strong man who's beaten the 'Rona personally and can be trusted to beat it for the country.
Trouble is, this administration has proven itself to be so leaky, and so incompetent at spinning a line without it falling to pieces soon after, that the latter option seems barely credible.
Which leaves...
The latter is exactly what I think. I agree it's barely credible but I'm credding it.
So i downloaded the NHS covid app. Whether it's generally good or not, the "risk data" is ridiculous isn't it?
1) High risk area - under local lockdown 2) Medium risk area - your authority or neighbouring authority has high or rising levels of infects 3) Low - it is inappropriate for anything to be in this category given the national situation.
Basically there must be some areas that don't meet the definition for 1) or 2) but aren't allowed to be in 3) because of the "national situation".
Sounds like they're missing a level
One is us on the island. Next to no local cases, but everyone is trying to work out how on earth we got downgraded to medium a couple of weeks back. You may have cracked it.
To be fair it didn't need much "cracking". I just clicked on the link for "definitions of area risk levels" on the app
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Encouraging people back to city centres was always a silly idea. The market had decisively shifted and lots of small town businesses benefited. That smacks of the CBI’s influence bias towards larger chain hospitality. Other than that it makes some sense. I think the idea of Tim Martin sitting on SAGE is risible but consulting them through SPI-B is the obvious answer.
Agreed. The key points are (1) the time wasted over the summer; (2) actually talking to those in business when coming up with new rules/guidelines.
I think they are talking to people, the problem is that the wrong sort of people can more easily talk to the people in power.
Hence all the bullshit about getting people into cities as a priority, because that is what matters to businesses where they operate.
Small businesses up and down the country are going to have different needs to large chains and city centre businesses.
So in the 4d chess world, is Trump seriously ill and they are hiding it or are they trying to show a bit of leg that he was perhaps morr sick than they let on and when he leaves hospital tomorrow his reputation as the man who duffed up the Vvchina virus with ease?
I think the spin will be he's so tough, the political Chuck Norris, and don't worry it's not really fatal.
Well Sleepy Joe hasn't taken on the Chynna virus and kicked it's ass. The mask wearing p***y!
One i think question that needs to be addressed at the scientists/govt at some point is this:
There is speculation that at some point (whether it's already happened to some extent or in the future) the virus will reduce in general harmfulness - either because it will mutate into a less harmful form or because treatment will improve so that the relative risk compared to other illnesses will not be obvious. It will just be one illness among many in the national picture of illnesses and deaths.
As long as the focus of government policy is largely on case numbers alone, how would they be able to adjust to this? Or can we be confident that they are actually doing serious research into whether Covid continues, or will continue, to be a unique illness for which the economy and other health outcomes must be compromised for.
Early in the pandemic data on excess deaths was highly useful in showing just how harmful Covid was. But at some point we will probably have to accept Covid is here to say in which case excess deaths figures/deaths caused by Covid are no longer relevant. We don't generally consider flu deaths as 'excess' in comparison to a world in which flu doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that the virus has mutated into a milder form. This is common wishful thinking.
The reason that the latest rise in infections (the actual rise, as shown by the ONS survey) had not caused a propionate increase in deaths is that the demographic of those infected has changed massively.
Before, the very elderly were massively over represented. Now it is the younger cohorts. Though there are some worrying indications at the edges of the stats that could indicate the profile is going to change again. This latter issue is the worry across Europe - the new wave is currently not especially deadly. But if the profile moves to the elderly.....
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Stability is important but it's spoilt with the idea the government should be in the job of getting people into cities in order to make hospitality secure.
Sorry but that's just nonsense and special pleading by city venues. I don't think getting people into cities would eg help your daughter's business one iota would it?
What's needed is some certainty and ideas about issues that can be resolved ... Not trying to push people to work elsewhere as if that is a magic solution to the problems. It isn't.
Agree re city centres. But understanding the importance of not introducing new rules at a moment’s notice matters to all businesses - including my daughter’s. Food / ale / drink has to be ordered; beer has to be made ready etc etc. Changing things in a panicky way costs small businesses real money - and they get no compensation and cannot claim on insurance.
We’re not in March any more. There has been plenty of time to learn lessons, from here, from other countries; plenty of time to talk to those who have real knowledge of these sectors.
It just feels as if they’re making it up as they’re going along, alternately panicking or trying to jolly us along and more concerned with the appearance of things than implementing consistent, coherent, comprehensible and practical plans.
Well aware that this is not easy stuff. But we could and should have been better.
It seems to me that either Trump is in a pretty bad way, or the WH is doing an excellent job of making it look that way by claiming all is rosy but allowing enough unsettling hints to come through to cause a lot of concern, with the intent of producing a miracle recovery early next week to push Trump as the strong man who's beaten the 'Rona personally and can be trusted to beat it for the country.
Trouble is, this administration has proven itself to be so leaky, and so incompetent at spinning a line without it falling to pieces soon after, that the latter option seems barely credible.
Which leaves...
The latter is exactly what I think. I agree it's barely credible but I'm credding it.
I think the other flaw in the latter argument is that there is too much briefing about his worrying symptoms and treatments he is receiving from people who would lack the medical knowledge to make this sort of stuff up without saying something silly.
So the more serious reports are almost certainly the ones to believe. And i really don't think doctors are going to have been giving him treatment he doesn't need, or could be counterproductive, just because he asked for it.
"Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 typically report symptom onset three to five days after exposure (fatigue, chills), progressing to fever and dry cough 48 hours later. Transition to severe disease with hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, about 8-14 days after original exposure. In the RECOVERY trial, dexamethasone was beneficial for participants treated seven or more days into the symptomatic phase, with the onset of hypoxaemia. Importantly, there was a non-significant trend (P=0.14) towards possible harm affecting participants without hypoxaemia and not on mechanical ventilation. RECOVERY findings therefore support use of dexamethasone only for patients with hypoxaemia, not those with milder disease. The data do not support use of dexamethasone or other corticosteroids in the outpatient setting." https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2648
So, if hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, and Trump was displaying hypoxaemia on Friday, that suggests he would have been symptomatic since the previous Monday at least, doesn't it?
Indeed, in the viral phase, before the inflammatory phase there is reason to think dexamethasone harmful.
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Stability is important but it's spoilt with the idea the government should be in the job of getting people into cities in order to make hospitality secure.
Sorry but that's just nonsense and special pleading by city venues. I don't think getting people into cities would eg help your daughter's business one iota would it?
What's needed is some certainty and ideas about issues that can be resolved ... Not trying to push people to work elsewhere as if that is a magic solution to the problems. It isn't.
Agree re city centres. But understanding the importance of not introducing new rules at a moment’s notice matters to all businesses - including my daughter’s. Food / ale / drink has to be ordered; beer has to be made ready etc etc. Changing things in a panicky way costs small businesses real money - and they get no compensation and cannot claim on insurance.
We’re not in March any more. There has been plenty of time to learn lessons, from here, from other countries; plenty of time to talk to those who have real knowledge of these sectors.
It just feels as if they’re making it up as they’re going along, alternately panicking or trying to jolly us along and more concerned with the appearance of things than implementing consistent, coherent, comprehensible and practical plans.
Well aware that this is not easy stuff. But we could and should have been better.
Indeed. There's a trade off because acting quickly saves lives but giving notice saves businesses.
The logical compromise for me would be to act quickly but to have some form of compensation scheme of grants (not loans) to businesses to compensate.
One i think question that needs to be addressed at the scientists/govt at some point is this:
There is speculation that at some point (whether it's already happened to some extent or in the future) the virus will reduce in general harmfulness - either because it will mutate into a less harmful form or because treatment will improve so that the relative risk compared to other illnesses will not be obvious. It will just be one illness among many in the national picture of illnesses and deaths.
As long as the focus of government policy is largely on case numbers alone, how would they be able to adjust to this? Or can we be confident that they are actually doing serious research into whether Covid continues, or will continue, to be a unique illness for which the economy and other health outcomes must be compromised for.
Early in the pandemic data on excess deaths was highly useful in showing just how harmful Covid was. But at some point we will probably have to accept Covid is here to say in which case excess deaths figures/deaths caused by Covid are no longer relevant. We don't generally consider flu deaths as 'excess' in comparison to a world in which flu doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that the virus has mutated into a milder form. This is common wishful thinking.
The reason that the latest rise in infections (the actual rise, as shown by the ONS survey) had not caused a propionate increase in deaths is that the demographic of those infected has changed massively.
Before, the very elderly were massively over represented. Now it is the younger cohorts. Though there are some worrying indications at the edges of the stats that could indicate the profile is going to change again. This latter issue is the worry across Europe - the new wave is currently not especially deadly. But if the profile moves to the elderly.....
I didn't say there was evidence that it had (mutated into a less dangerous form). What i asked was how Government policy would adapt if it did? (and i included improved outcomes due to improved treatments as well).
Many thanks and apologies 'cosi I can't remember who it was but great Arc Sottsass tip.
Moi.
Did it at 20s ante post and got lucky with all the withdrawals. Started about 7.
Well thank you. BF account looking a bit healthier.
And note to all tipsters: all tips are welcome. Doesn't matter if they don't come in.
Nice to hear someone else on here backed it. On a roll with the nags atm. Got the Leger winner too. I'm good at the Arc but it's the first time for ages I've got the Leger winner.
This United fan is long past caring. The pox chaos means that anyone can demolish anyone - West Ham battering Leicester and Citeh also struggling so who cares. TBH the fact that the Premier League is still demanding money to keep going when it has gazillionaire owners / players is just insulting.
It's very promising because it does give some prospect that a Biden administration won't be compelled to exacerbate division and partisanship but might actually be able to consider some sort of unifying agenda. Just got to find some Republicans to join with...
If we are going to have organised sport, they really need to organise it. If they can't reliably test players, staff, coaches etc then they shouldn't be there.
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Encouraging people back to city centres was always a silly idea. The market had decisively shifted and lots of small town businesses benefited. That smacks of the CBI’s influence bias towards larger chain hospitality. Other than that it makes some sense. I think the idea of Tim Martin sitting on SAGE is risible but consulting them through SPI-B is the obvious answer.
Agreed. The key points are (1) the time wasted over the summer; (2) actually talking to those in business when coming up with new rules/guidelines.
1 is definitely a problem. If we’d been willing to go full New Zealand with furlough for the travel industry we could be at near zero cases right now. If we’d spent the time being more careful and experimental with easing by determining what measures had the biggest R number effect we could be more targeted. Either option is better than “open all the things, panic, try wild experimentation”.
2 should be done through an adjunct to SAGE where the government asks: what are the consequences to this decision. Don’t get me wrong, much of the bleating from Spoons and Pret will be self interested rubbish but at least SPI-B can sort the wheat from the chaff and identify any externalities and HMT can identify support that is needed. Better to have that information and use it to guide any restrictions.
"Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 typically report symptom onset three to five days after exposure (fatigue, chills), progressing to fever and dry cough 48 hours later. Transition to severe disease with hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, about 8-14 days after original exposure. In the RECOVERY trial, dexamethasone was beneficial for participants treated seven or more days into the symptomatic phase, with the onset of hypoxaemia. Importantly, there was a non-significant trend (P=0.14) towards possible harm affecting participants without hypoxaemia and not on mechanical ventilation. RECOVERY findings therefore support use of dexamethasone only for patients with hypoxaemia, not those with milder disease. The data do not support use of dexamethasone or other corticosteroids in the outpatient setting." https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2648
So, if hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, and Trump was displaying hypoxaemia on Friday, that suggests he would have been symptomatic since the previous Monday at least, doesn't it?
Indeed, in the viral phase, before the inflammatory phase there is reason to think dexamethasone harmful.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
"Patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 typically report symptom onset three to five days after exposure (fatigue, chills), progressing to fever and dry cough 48 hours later. Transition to severe disease with hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, about 8-14 days after original exposure. In the RECOVERY trial, dexamethasone was beneficial for participants treated seven or more days into the symptomatic phase, with the onset of hypoxaemia. Importantly, there was a non-significant trend (P=0.14) towards possible harm affecting participants without hypoxaemia and not on mechanical ventilation. RECOVERY findings therefore support use of dexamethasone only for patients with hypoxaemia, not those with milder disease. The data do not support use of dexamethasone or other corticosteroids in the outpatient setting." https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2648
So, if hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, and Trump was displaying hypoxaemia on Friday, that suggests he would have been symptomatic since the previous Monday at least, doesn't it?
Indeed, in the viral phase, before the inflammatory phase there is reason to think dexamethasone harmful.
So he could have given it to Biden?
2020 'aint done with us yet folks.
On that timescale, he could have given it to the other people at the Rose Garden event.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
The problem is that there's nowhere to build council houses in areas that they are needed.
There are areas of the country where "social rents" are actually higher than private sector rents. Lots of people don't realise that (this is because social rents are based on a formula based on house prices in 1999 - adjusted for inflation ever since). Private sector rents are based on, well, the market.
It's very promising because it does give some prospect that a Biden administration won't be compelled to exacerbate division and partisanship but might actually be able to consider some sort of unifying agenda. Just got to find some Republicans to join with...
He's only grouping the 'not Trump'.
Biden is hopeless in my view. A Biden administration won't even know where to start as their leader isn't with it.
One i think question that needs to be addressed at the scientists/govt at some point is this:
There is speculation that at some point (whether it's already happened to some extent or in the future) the virus will reduce in general harmfulness - either because it will mutate into a less harmful form or because treatment will improve so that the relative risk compared to other illnesses will not be obvious. It will just be one illness among many in the national picture of illnesses and deaths.
As long as the focus of government policy is largely on case numbers alone, how would they be able to adjust to this? Or can we be confident that they are actually doing serious research into whether Covid continues, or will continue, to be a unique illness for which the economy and other health outcomes must be compromised for.
Early in the pandemic data on excess deaths was highly useful in showing just how harmful Covid was. But at some point we will probably have to accept Covid is here to say in which case excess deaths figures/deaths caused by Covid are no longer relevant. We don't generally consider flu deaths as 'excess' in comparison to a world in which flu doesn't exist.
There is no evidence that the virus has mutated into a milder form. This is common wishful thinking.
The reason that the latest rise in infections (the actual rise, as shown by the ONS survey) had not caused a propionate increase in deaths is that the demographic of those infected has changed massively.
Before, the very elderly were massively over represented. Now it is the younger cohorts. Though there are some worrying indications at the edges of the stats that could indicate the profile is going to change again. This latter issue is the worry across Europe - the new wave is currently not especially deadly. But if the profile moves to the elderly.....
I didn't say there was evidence that it had (mutated into a less dangerous form). What i asked was how Government policy would adapt if it did? (and i included improved outcomes due to improved treatments as well).
That recent US research did find that it had mutated. Maybe too early to analyse precisely what has changed?
It's very promising because it does give some prospect that a Biden administration won't be compelled to exacerbate division and partisanship but might actually be able to consider some sort of unifying agenda. Just got to find some Republicans to join with...
He's only grouping the 'not Trump'.
Biden is hopeless in my view. A Biden administration won't even know where to start as their leader isn't with it.
He seemed pretty with it in Grand Rapids the other day. The speech is well worth a listen.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
It really is astonishing - at least in London - how shit landlords keep their properties and how much money they charge and receive, because people have no choice.
I had a flat which you couldn't open some of the windows because the locks were stuck - broken - and the landlord had never got anyone to fix them. Why would they care, they got idiots like me in regardless.
It seems to me that either Trump is in a pretty bad way, or the WH is doing an excellent job of making it look that way by claiming all is rosy but allowing enough unsettling hints to come through to cause a lot of concern, with the intent of producing a miracle recovery early next week to push Trump as the strong man who's beaten the 'Rona personally and can be trusted to beat it for the country.
Trouble is, this administration has proven itself to be so leaky, and so incompetent at spinning a line without it falling to pieces soon after, that the latter option seems barely credible.
Which leaves...
The latter is exactly what I think. I agree it's barely credible but I'm credding it.
I think the other flaw in the latter argument is that there is too much briefing about his worrying symptoms and treatments he is receiving from people who would lack the medical knowledge to make this sort of stuff up without saying something silly.
So the more serious reports are almost certainly the ones to believe. And i really don't think doctors are going to have been giving him treatment he doesn't need, or could be counterproductive, just because he asked for it.
Well it will soon become clear one way or the other. If he is seriously ill, and was knowingly "with virus" days before he says he was, that could be quite the scandal. TBH I put nothing past this deeply dodgy character and his gruesome entourage.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
The problem is that there's nowhere to build council houses in areas that they are needed.
There are areas of the country where "social rents" are actually higher than private sector rents. Lots of people don't realise that (this is because social rents are based on a formula based on house prices in 1999 - adjusted for inflation ever since). Private sector rents are based on, well, the market.
The market is very broken in larger and more economically active cities. London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol are the obvious examples. I’m sure there are areas where the formula disadvantages social tenants but that’s fixable with political capital or might not be the appropriate policy for those areas. Edinburgh losing housing stock to investors, AirBnB and HMO abuse is a knottier issue. There are some things that can be done.
The sacred green belt cow should be shot in the first instance in places that desperately need housing. There is a lot of pointless scrubland considered green belt around here that just bridges the housing developments slightly outside the green belt with the houses just inside. A switch to WFH should also be pushed to further distribute housing demand. Finally, if you must preserve Right to Buy, the proceeds should be hypothecated to new social housing development.
We got a very nice payoff for our 3rd best defender. Maguire is a good player, but benefited greatly at Leicester by having Ndidi in front of him. Could have done with Wilf today...
Just as a recap, #Trump has received the following (AFAIK)
- REGN-COV2 - Remdesivir - Decadron
This does not sound like a person who was admitted to #WalterReedMedicalCenter as a "precaution". These are heavy duty medications being given to a person who is likely pretty sick.
A Tottenham side who have played something insane like 8 matches in 18 days were imperious even before the sending off. They will have 2-3 first team signings to come into the team, including Bale.
If we are going to have organised sport, they really need to organise it. If they can't reliably test players, staff, coaches etc then they shouldn't be there.
Yep. Formula 1 showed how to do it, as are the IPL cricketers at the moment.
It involves quarantining everyone involved - often for several weeks at a time - and an awful lot of testing, as well as people behaving themselves and not trying to get around rules put in place for their safety and the continuity of their sport.
If we are going to have organised sport, they really need to organise it. If they can't reliably test players, staff, coaches etc then they shouldn't be there.
Zverev. Last test 5 days ago. No temperature tests at Roland Garros. Apparently they are using a Trump style honour system.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
It really is astonishing - at least in London - how shit landlords keep their properties and how much money they charge and receive, because people have no choice.
I had a flat which you couldn't open some of the windows because the locks were stuck - broken - and the landlord had never got anyone to fix them. Why would they care, they got idiots like me in regardless.
I had one refuse to repair anything in my flat. Including the grouting in the shower. After six months of reports the letting agent discovered it had rotted out the wall. Felt fucking good when I got my whole deposit back.
It's very promising because it does give some prospect that a Biden administration won't be compelled to exacerbate division and partisanship but might actually be able to consider some sort of unifying agenda. Just got to find some Republicans to join with...
He's only grouping the 'not Trump'.
Biden is hopeless in my view. A Biden administration won't even know where to start as their leader isn't with it.
I'd like to see a longer section to see what the broken system is she is referring to but it seems to match what she is saying about being unpopular on Twitter.
It's very promising because it does give some prospect that a Biden administration won't be compelled to exacerbate division and partisanship but might actually be able to consider some sort of unifying agenda. Just got to find some Republicans to join with...
He's only grouping the 'not Trump'.
Biden is hopeless in my view. A Biden administration won't even know where to start as their leader isn't with it.
He seemed pretty with it in Grand Rapids the other day. The speech is well worth a listen.
It has been my great misfortune that on the occasions Scotland has beaten South Africa at the rugby I've been working with the only White South Africans who didn't give a shit about sport never mind rugby.
“They think they can turn the economy off and on as you might a car, without any damage. Businesses do not work like that. You need certainty and cash flow to be able to make payroll, pay bills and interest on loans, manage inventory and plan and invest for the future. Stop-start kills you.”
Osmond uses the restaurant business to illustrate his point: “If you introduce random new rules — telling a restaurant one day it can open and the next day it can’t, or not after 10pm — they can’t sell all the food they’ve bought, so it goes bad.
“If they can’t sell the food, can they afford to pay the firms that supplied it? What happens to the staffing rotas they have carefully drawn up? Do staff who were going to come in, but no longer can, get paid? It’s untenable.”
Things might have been different had ministers invited business leaders to sit alongside the scientists and academics on Sage, the government’s emergency advisory committee, Osmond says.
He points out that some social risks — for example, that 10pm pub closing would create crowds on the streets and encourage private house parties — would have become obvious had ministers “even bothered to talk to anyone in the hospitality sector for five minutes”.
He also accuses the government of failing to encourage workers back into city centre offices, boosting local cafés and restaurants, by making public transport safer for commuters.
“They didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining and the infection rate low in August. It’s criminal,” he says.
The failure to support the private sector is a double whammy, business leaders say. As the country begins to emerge from the crisis and navigate Brexit, we will need entrepreneurs who can not only create millions of jobs but also establish thriving new businesses that pay corporation tax to help the government to invest even more to stimulate growth.”
Of course there’s a large amount of self-interest but still a lot of sense which the government seems blissfully oblivious to.
Stability is important but it's spoilt with the idea the government should be in the job of getting people into cities in order to make hospitality secure.
Sorry but that's just nonsense and special pleading by city venues. I don't think getting people into cities would eg help your daughter's business one iota would it?
What's needed is some certainty and ideas about issues that can be resolved ... Not trying to push people to work elsewhere as if that is a magic solution to the problems. It isn't.
Agree re city centres. But understanding the importance of not introducing new rules at a moment’s notice matters to all businesses - including my daughter’s. Food / ale / drink has to be ordered; beer has to be made ready etc etc. Changing things in a panicky way costs small businesses real money - and they get no compensation and cannot claim on insurance.
We’re not in March any more. There has been plenty of time to learn lessons, from here, from other countries; plenty of time to talk to those who have real knowledge of these sectors.
It just feels as if they’re making it up as they’re going along, alternately panicking or trying to jolly us along and more concerned with the appearance of things than implementing consistent, coherent, comprehensible and practical plans.
Well aware that this is not easy stuff. But we could and should have been better.
Indeed. There's a trade off because acting quickly saves lives but giving notice saves businesses.
The logical compromise for me would be to act quickly but to have some form of compensation scheme of grants (not loans) to businesses to compensate.
On this we are in complete agreement. A pity we’re not running the government ...... 😉
re the Spreader-in-Chief himself contracting COVID-19 (the Crud has the Crud and visa versa) methinks that PB Brits are thinking in terms of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his predecessors (and successors) esp. the sickly ones.
When the proper comparison for any US President (even our current Fearless Leader) is NOT with any PM, but rather with the Queen, and previous/future UK monarchs.
In America, the President is NEVER just a VIP = Very Important Person. She or he is ALWAYS the MIP = Most Important Person.
In monarchies, the health of the sovereign is ALWAY a major matter of state, both for it's immediate effects and (perhaps even more so) for the potential & actual impact on succession of the crown.
Same in USA, except of course with limited terms most presidents do NOT die in office.
However, enough have expired on the job to make presidential health a MAJOR preoccupation.
Starting with the demise of William Henry Harrison in 1841 just a month into his first (and obviously only) term. Which launched a MAJOR political crisis. Soon followed by the death in office of yet another president, Zachary Taylor, on the eve of another critical moment in American politics (resulting in Compromise of 1850).
These untimely vacancies got the ball rolling, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln kicked it far down the field. Followed in fairly short order by the assassinations of James Garfield and William McKinley.
Note that in the last two cases, presidential demise was prolonged (not the case previously) which increased public concern. Also, in both instances the victims were ill-served by the team of eminent doctors in attendance - very similar to the experience of George III and some other British monarchs.
So American preoccupation with the health of their presidents was WELL established by the dawn of the 20th century. A century that saw two presidents assassinated (McKinley, JFK), three nearly assassinated (TR while running as ex-Pres in 1912, FDR while Pres-elect, Truman, Ford, Reagan who was seriously wounded) and two others seriously incapacitated (Wilson, Eisenhower) at some point.
Also note the widely-publicized albeit under-reported health problems of FDR and JFK.
If we are going to have organised sport, they really need to organise it. If they can't reliably test players, staff, coaches etc then they shouldn't be there.
Yep. Formula 1 showed how to do it, as are the IPL cricketers at the moment.
It involves quarantining everyone involved - often for several weeks at a time - and an awful lot of testing, as well as people behaving themselves and not trying to get around rules put in place for their safety and the continuity of their sport.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
The problem is that there's nowhere to build council houses in areas that they are needed.
There are areas of the country where "social rents" are actually higher than private sector rents. Lots of people don't realise that (this is because social rents are based on a formula based on house prices in 1999 - adjusted for inflation ever since). Private sector rents are based on, well, the market.
The market is very broken in larger and more economically active cities. London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol are the obvious examples. I’m sure there are areas where the formula disadvantages social tenants but that’s fixable with political capital or might not be the appropriate policy for those areas. Edinburgh losing housing stock to investors, AirBnB and HMO abuse is a knottier issue. There are some things that can be done.
The sacred green belt cow should be shot in the first instance in places that desperately need housing. There is a lot of pointless scrubland considered green belt around here that just bridges the housing developments slightly outside the green belt with the houses just inside. A switch to WFH should also be pushed to further distribute housing demand. Finally, if you must preserve Right to Buy, the proceeds should be hypothecated to new social housing development.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
The painfully obvious solution is to build council houses again. That puts a ceiling on rent for the sort of houses people actually need (generally 2-4 beds). That gets people saving more and being able to buy, which should stimulate private sector home building. The only people who lose are landlords with low-quality portfolios, and having lived in too many ill managed properties I’m not sure I care.
The problem is that there's nowhere to build council houses in areas that they are needed.
There are areas of the country where "social rents" are actually higher than private sector rents. Lots of people don't realise that (this is because social rents are based on a formula based on house prices in 1999 - adjusted for inflation ever since). Private sector rents are based on, well, the market.
The market is very broken in larger and more economically active cities. London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Bristol are the obvious examples. I’m sure there are areas where the formula disadvantages social tenants but that’s fixable with political capital or might not be the appropriate policy for those areas. Edinburgh losing housing stock to investors, AirBnB and HMO abuse is a knottier issue. There are some things that can be done.
The sacred green belt cow should be shot in the first instance in places that desperately need housing. There is a lot of pointless scrubland considered green belt around here that just bridges the housing developments slightly outside the green belt with the houses just inside. A switch to WFH should also be pushed to further distribute housing demand. Finally, if you must preserve Right to Buy, the proceeds should be hypothecated to new social housing development.
If you are talking about Edinburgh, they do build council houses in Scotland. My small town has had more council houses built under the SNP than in the previous SLAB-LD coalition administrations, for the WHOLE of Scotland. And they look pretty decent too.
Comments
Did it at 20s ante post and got lucky with all the withdrawals. Started about 7.
There is speculation that at some point (whether it's already happened to some extent or in the future) the virus will reduce in general harmfulness - either because it will mutate into a less harmful form or because treatment will improve so that the relative risk compared to other illnesses will not be obvious. It will just be one illness among many in the national picture of illnesses and deaths.
As long as the focus of government policy is largely on case numbers alone, how would they be able to adjust to this? Or can we be confident that they are actually doing serious research into whether Covid continues, or will continue, to be a unique illness for which the economy and other health outcomes must be compromised for.
Early in the pandemic data on excess deaths was highly useful in showing just how harmful Covid was. But at some point we will probably have to accept Covid is here to say in which case excess deaths figures/deaths caused by Covid are no longer relevant. We don't generally consider flu deaths as 'excess' in comparison to a world in which flu doesn't exist.
United have conceded as many goals this season as Fulham, in one game fewer. Only WBA have conceded more.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2648
So, if hypoxaemia occurs five to seven days into the symptomatic illness, and Trump was displaying hypoxaemia on Friday, that suggests he would have been symptomatic since the previous Monday at least, doesn't it?
And note to all tipsters: all tips are welcome. Doesn't matter if they don't come in.
Hence all the bullshit about getting people into cities as a priority, because that is what matters to businesses where they operate.
Small businesses up and down the country are going to have different needs to large chains and city centre businesses.
The reason that the latest rise in infections (the actual rise, as shown by the ONS survey) had not caused a propionate increase in deaths is that the demographic of those infected has changed massively.
Before, the very elderly were massively over represented. Now it is the younger cohorts. Though there are some worrying indications at the edges of the stats that could indicate the profile is going to change again. This latter issue is the worry across Europe - the new wave is currently not especially deadly. But if the profile moves to the elderly.....
We’re not in March any more. There has been plenty of time to learn lessons, from here, from other countries; plenty of time to talk to those who have real knowledge of these sectors.
It just feels as if they’re making it up as they’re going along, alternately panicking or trying to jolly us along and more concerned with the appearance of things than implementing consistent, coherent, comprehensible and practical plans.
Well aware that this is not easy stuff. But we could and should have been better.
So the more serious reports are almost certainly the ones to believe. And i really don't think doctors are going to have been giving him treatment he doesn't need, or could be counterproductive, just because he asked for it.
Thousands have died leaving families bereaved and grieving and some have also suffered long-term health damage.
Yet all that matters to some is getting back into pubs and agonising about wearing masks.
We have treated the dead and those who mourn them with contempt.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1312807267226578946
The logical compromise for me would be to act quickly but to have some form of compensation scheme of grants (not loans) to businesses to compensate.
Boris Johnson interested in not fixing the problem of housing and instead continuing to see prices rise. Typical Tory
Is this the first time they've lost at home in the league after scoring first since 1985?
They definitely did it in March 2009 when they took the lead against Liverpool then lost the match 4-1.
I know, I was there.
2 should be done through an adjunct to SAGE where the government asks: what are the consequences to this decision. Don’t get me wrong, much of the bleating from Spoons and Pret will be self interested rubbish but at least SPI-B can sort the wheat from the chaff and identify any externalities and HMT can identify support that is needed. Better to have that information and use it to guide any restrictions.
He has spent every day of the last three months with his hi-viz jacket on building houses. The camera doesn't lie!
2020 'aint done with us yet folks.
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1312810233857806345
https://twitter.com/CAFinUS/status/1312734325104873473?s=20
There are areas of the country where "social rents" are actually higher than private sector rents. Lots of people don't realise that (this is because social rents are based on a formula based on house prices in 1999 - adjusted for inflation ever since). Private sector rents are based on, well, the market.
Biden is hopeless in my view. A Biden administration won't even know where to start as their leader isn't with it.
I thought he went off it a while back.
C&S with the SNP, implement PR first. Then hold the referendum a few years later
https://youtu.be/KRhEbxh9vdI
I had a flat which you couldn't open some of the windows because the locks were stuck - broken - and the landlord had never got anyone to fix them. Why would they care, they got idiots like me in regardless.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1312812845239799809?s=20
The sacred green belt cow should be shot in the first instance in places that desperately need housing. There is a lot of pointless scrubland considered green belt around here that just bridges the housing developments slightly outside the green belt with the houses just inside. A switch to WFH should also be pushed to further distribute housing demand. Finally, if you must preserve Right to Buy, the proceeds should be hypothecated to new social housing development.
It involves quarantining everyone involved - often for several weeks at a time - and an awful lot of testing, as well as people behaving themselves and not trying to get around rules put in place for their safety and the continuity of their sport.
No temperature tests at Roland Garros.
Apparently they are using a Trump style honour system.
NEW THREAD
If something is broken then fixing it isn't bad.
When the proper comparison for any US President (even our current Fearless Leader) is NOT with any PM, but rather with the Queen, and previous/future UK monarchs.
In America, the President is NEVER just a VIP = Very Important Person. She or he is ALWAYS the MIP = Most Important Person.
In monarchies, the health of the sovereign is ALWAY a major matter of state, both for it's immediate effects and (perhaps even more so) for the potential & actual impact on succession of the crown.
Same in USA, except of course with limited terms most presidents do NOT die in office.
However, enough have expired on the job to make presidential health a MAJOR preoccupation.
Starting with the demise of William Henry Harrison in 1841 just a month into his first (and obviously only) term. Which launched a MAJOR political crisis. Soon followed by the death in office of yet another president, Zachary Taylor, on the eve of another critical moment in American politics (resulting in Compromise of 1850).
These untimely vacancies got the ball rolling, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln kicked it far down the field. Followed in fairly short order by the assassinations of James Garfield and William McKinley.
Note that in the last two cases, presidential demise was prolonged (not the case previously) which increased public concern. Also, in both instances the victims were ill-served by the team of eminent doctors in attendance - very similar to the experience of George III and some other British monarchs.
So American preoccupation with the health of their presidents was WELL established by the dawn of the 20th century. A century that saw two presidents assassinated (McKinley, JFK), three nearly assassinated (TR while running as ex-Pres in 1912, FDR while Pres-elect, Truman, Ford, Reagan who was seriously wounded) and two others seriously incapacitated (Wilson, Eisenhower) at some point.
Also note the widely-publicized albeit under-reported health problems of FDR and JFK.
Edit - just looked at Fox’s twitter feed. Bloody hell. He’d better have some good lawyers handy.