This is the key: the country tolerated and to an extent supported three months of national lockdown because we thought the government would sort it out. It hasn't done so.
There is no real support for the reintroduction of such measures where the government hasn't been able to set out a clear path out of this.
And has wasted the months since then instead of building an effective Test and Trace system.
Sunak to depose Johnson by Xmas with full support of 1922 on a ticket of a far more balanced economic and public health response to the virus?
Sounds far fetched, but this public policy disaster and crisis is moving fast.
Boris isn't going anywhere. At the very least until a polling collapse, which will come at some point (Covid, Brexit deal pending - either way, he might take a hit, from Fargists or people angry at no deal - natural exhaustion after 11 years of Tory government), he is surely safe as he retains a huge majority that will be loyal on most issues as the public haven't turned on him.
He's also nees an exit strategy - Boris going back to the backbenches a la May after this? No way. But quitting in disgrace? He's already rubbished the idea of health as an excuse.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
Good luck with that argument.
I've tried explaining this for 4 years to EU supporters and they are completely unable to grasp this simple concept.
Tony Benn used to make this point. Now I can count on the fingers of one hand things I agreed with Tony Benn on, but on this he was bang on the money.
If you can’t fire your rulers you’ve got big problems.
It's no less disingenuous than any of Tony Benn's other arguments. The UK PM is chosen by an electoral college of elected MPs and the President of the European Council is chosen by an electoral college of elected heads of government.
Oh do fuck off. No ordinary European voter voted for the EU President - any of them. I forget how many EU presidents there are. Five? Boris Johnson was elected twice over, by the people of Uxbridge, and also by Tory MPs, who
The EU is a piece of shit. Good riddance.
You just said Brexit was a calamity. Which is it?
It is an unfortunately necessary calamity, due to the asinine stupidity and arrogance of europhiles, who denied us a vote for so many years, stoking the resentment which led to the Brexit explosion. Yes, I'm looking at you: Heseltine, Clarke, Major, Blair, Clegg, Cameron, and so on.
If they'd allowed a vote earlier, democratic anger would have been vented, and Brexit would have been avoided.
In the end these stupid fucks left it so late, we pressed the big red button marked Nuclear Option, as that was the only option we were given
Siri, give me an example of passive aggressive deliberate self harm...
I am not saying there's a better option but isn't there a danger that stringent regional lockdowns will breed resentment and civil disobedience in a way that national lockdowns where we're 'all in it together' avoid?
You would hope not, any more than a sunny day in London causes resentment in a rainy Newcastle.
Actually it almost certainly does, so scrap that comparison. I am sure it has crossed the governmental mind that national lockdowns are politically safer than selective ones, and that they have maps correlating covidity with voting habits.
I was in Skye recently, and I asked the locals how they stayed sane during a rainy Scottish summer week. They said, unanimously,: (three of them): "don't check the weather in London".
One of them opined that SE England having superior weather (it's all relative) was a major driver of indy support. London is seen as wealthier AND luckier. Breeding resentment. Who knows...
Why are people abjuring rationality and logical thinking in this way? It's like going back to the middle ages.
Average western IQs are declining (and possibly worldwide). Never forget
I genuinely believe this is now having a serious impact on world affairs. People are getting dumber
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
That's an interesting one. Collins in Maine but I wouldn't rule her out. Possibly Iowa. Cunningham (I think) has ruined his chances in NC not only by being caught a second time but pulling out of the Town Hall, which shows weakness (although he could be hit with a court martial). Funnily enough, we haven't heard much from Colorado, which should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but which is strangely quiet.
Hopefully sensible MPs can get a grip next week and vote out the 10pm curfew - then tell Boris and Hancock to sort out the testing rather than lunatic lockdown proposals which will wreck an already half-bankrupt economy.
Welsh Labour have tonight endorsed the 10.00pm pub time
Not surprising in the end... LAB will always follow the totalitarian approach. Good job Drakeford is sorting it out SO well in Wales!
Drakeford is a disaster
He really is.
This will come as a surprise to many PBers, but I spent the first lockdown in a pretty Welsh seaside town.
Drakeford decided to close the local country park. An area of lovely little lakes and woods and hills, ideal for exercise and cycling and family happiness, while big enough to allow massive social distancing. A place you could walk to and enjoy, from the town, without fear of infection.
It was the perfect asset during Covid. The town was lucky to have it. His stupid government tried to close it.
TBF to the good sane people of Wales, they realised Drakeford is a massive twat, and ignored the law. Even the guy who was instructed to drive around with a megaphone telling people to go home to the town where they could be more easily infected, said Yes this is absolutely stupid, and then he and I agreed to just wave at each other and say hi. From that moment on he drove around without even trying to enforce the rule and he turned his megaphone off.
The Cardiff government is even stupider than the London government
While the UK government was getting both barrels for piss poor testing, the Welsh testing was even worse. Over the month Hancock and the man from Delmonte managed to 10x the capacity, the Welsh managed virtually no increase in capacity.
I am not saying there's a better option but isn't there a danger that stringent regional lockdowns will breed resentment and civil disobedience in a way that national lockdowns where we're 'all in it together' avoid?
You would hope not, any more than a sunny day in London causes resentment in a rainy Newcastle.
Actually it almost certainly does, so scrap that comparison. I am sure it has crossed the governmental mind that national lockdowns are politically safer than selective ones, and that they have maps correlating covidity with voting habits.
I was in Skye recently, and I asked the locals how they stayed sane during a rainy Scottish summer week. They said, unanimously,: (three of them): "don't check the weather in London".
One of them opined that SE England having superior weather (it's all relative) was a major driver of indy support. London is seen as wealthier AND luckier. Breeding resentment. Who knows...
Why are people abjuring rationality and logical thinking in this way? It's like going back to the middle ages.
Average western IQs are declining (and possibly worldwide). Never forget
I genuinely believe this is now having a serious impact on world affairs. People are getting dumber
This is the key: the country tolerated and to an extent supported three months of national lockdown because we thought the government would sort it out. It hasn't done so.
There is no real support for the reintroduction of such measures where the government hasn't been able to set out a clear path out of this.
I'm afraid there is probably a huge proportion of the country who DO still support it. Because they don't perceive that they lose anything from it happening. Secure income, and feel they are vulnerable to the virus.
Well then, they can pay a bit more tax on their secure income to help those who are now very insecure and without an income or a much reduced one.
Don't be silly. They paid into the system don't you know.
The last time the COVID numbers were this bad the government were getting criticised for not bringing in lockdown quickly enough.
What is your point?
That whatever the government does they will be criticised.
Ok. But where do you stand on the current COVID strategy?
I don't think they should lockdown and instead think they should let people make their owns minds up about the risks they are prepared to take, whilst taking steps to protect the most vulnerable.
Hopefully sensible MPs can get a grip next week and vote out the 10pm curfew - then tell Boris and Hancock to sort out the testing rather than lunatic lockdown proposals which will wreck an already half-bankrupt economy.
Welsh Labour have tonight endorsed the 10.00pm pub time
Not surprising in the end... LAB will always follow the totalitarian approach. Good job Drakeford is sorting it out SO well in Wales!
Drakeford is a disaster
He really is.
This will come as a surprise to many PBers, but I spent the first lockdown in a pretty Welsh seaside town.
Drakeford decided to close the local country park. An area of lovely little lakes and woods and hills, ideal for exercise and cycling and family happiness, while big enough to allow massive social distancing. A place you could walk to and enjoy, from the town, without fear of infection.
It was the perfect asset during Covid. The town was lucky to have it. His stupid government tried to close it.
TBF to the good sane people of Wales, they realised Drakeford is a massive twat, and ignored the law. Even the guy who was instructed to drive around with a megaphone telling people to go home to the town where they could be more easily infected, said Yes this is absolutely stupid, and then he and I agreed to just wave at each other and say hi. From that moment on he drove around without even trying to enforce the rule and he turned his megaphone off.
The Cardiff government is even stupider than the London government
While the UK government was getting both barrels for piss poor testing, the Welsh testing was even worse. Over the month Hancock and the man from Delmonte managed to 10x the capacity, the Welsh managed virtually no increase in capacity.
Isn't testing an exclusively UK issue? Welsh Govt don't do testing..
The last time the COVID numbers were this bad the government were getting criticised for not bringing in lockdown quickly enough.
What is your point?
That whatever the government does they will be criticised.
Ok. But where do you stand on the current COVID strategy?
I don't think they should lockdown and instead think they should let people make their owns minds up about the risks they are prepared to take, whilst taking steps to protect the most vulnerable.
Hopefully sensible MPs can get a grip next week and vote out the 10pm curfew - then tell Boris and Hancock to sort out the testing rather than lunatic lockdown proposals which will wreck an already half-bankrupt economy.
Welsh Labour have tonight endorsed the 10.00pm pub time
Not surprising in the end... LAB will always follow the totalitarian approach. Good job Drakeford is sorting it out SO well in Wales!
Drakeford is a disaster
He really is.
This will come as a surprise to many PBers, but I spent the first lockdown in a pretty Welsh seaside town.
Drakeford decided to close the local country park. An area of lovely little lakes and woods and hills, ideal for exercise and cycling and family happiness, while big enough to allow massive social distancing. A place you could walk to and enjoy, from the town, without fear of infection.
It was the perfect asset during Covid. The town was lucky to have it. His stupid government tried to close it.
TBF to the good sane people of Wales, they realised Drakeford is a massive twat, and ignored the law. Even the guy who was instructed to drive around with a megaphone telling people to go home to the town where they could be more easily infected, said Yes this is absolutely stupid, and then he and I agreed to just wave at each other and say hi. From that moment on he drove around without even trying to enforce the rule and he turned his megaphone off.
The Cardiff government is even stupider than the London government
While the UK government was getting both barrels for piss poor testing, the Welsh testing was even worse. Over the month Hancock and the man from Delmonte managed to 10x the capacity, the Welsh managed virtually no increase in capacity.
Don't know why they're even bothering with spending money on test and trace. What is its purpose?
In principle it allows you to isolate those who are infectious, so that you avoid (a) infectious people infecting other people leading to mass death and (b) isolating everyone to avoid (a).
But at the moment the test turnaround isn't fast enough, people aren't isolating when asked to, and the tracing isn't much cop either, so it's become a very expensive way to more accurately count the number of cases.
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
That's an interesting one. Collins in Maine but I wouldn't rule her out. Possibly Iowa. Cunningham (I think) has ruined his chances in NC not only by being caught a second time but pulling out of the Town Hall, which shows weakness (although he could be hit with a court martial). Funnily enough, we haven't heard much from Colorado, which should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but which is strangely quiet.
I wasn't asking for a balanced view of what might happen. Just how bad could it get?
I am not saying there's a better option but isn't there a danger that stringent regional lockdowns will breed resentment and civil disobedience in a way that national lockdowns where we're 'all in it together' avoid?
You would hope not, any more than a sunny day in London causes resentment in a rainy Newcastle.
Actually it almost certainly does, so scrap that comparison. I am sure it has crossed the governmental mind that national lockdowns are politically safer than selective ones, and that they have maps correlating covidity with voting habits.
I was in Skye recently, and I asked the locals how they stayed sane during a rainy Scottish summer week. They said, unanimously,: (three of them): "don't check the weather in London".
One of them opined that SE England having superior weather (it's all relative) was a major driver of indy support. London is seen as wealthier AND luckier. Breeding resentment. Who knows...
Why are people abjuring rationality and logical thinking in this way? It's like going back to the middle ages.
Average western IQs are declining (and possibly worldwide). Never forget
I genuinely believe this is now having a serious impact on world affairs. People are getting dumber
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
Senate. GOP looking near certain to lose Arizona, Colorado and Maine. Dems will almost certainly lose the Alabama seat they gained in the 2018 special election. That would leave the GOP on a bare majority of one. Now, until this weekends revelations I'd've also said the GOP was near certain to lose North Carolina, but that's now definitely a toss-up. I still think the Dems will do it, though. That would balance the Senate 50/50 which would require the new Veep to actually work for a living breaking ties. In any case the Dems are also looking favourites to win Iowa, so I think a 50/50 or 51/49 Dem Senate is looking pretty likely. That said, the remaining Democratic Senator for West Virginia, Joe Manchin, is about the most conservative Democrat in Congress and might side with the GOP from time to time.
However, the Dems are also barely ahead in one of the Georgia races, and the Republican Senators in Alaska, Montana and South Carolina (yes, Lindsey Graham) are looking vulnerable.
So if all the chips come down for the Dems in the Senate, we could see the Dems with a solid 55-45 majority. Not enough to overcome the filibuster, but certainly enough to abolish it.
The House is harder to call as many safer seats just don't get polled, but the Democrats maintaining a majority is, I feel, nailed on, and a modest increase in their majority (say another 10 seats) is definitely possible.
Just looking at Manchester's map and it's not pretty:
The 22 ONS neighbourhoods nearest the University neighbourhood (basically two rings around), population would typically be about 160k, but I'm expecting the universities could easily swell that by 30k, have 1969 covid cases, so we're looking at 1000-1200 cases per 100k population, in that area - mainly Manchester but with nibbles of Trafford and Salford.
Fallowfield Central alone accounts for 612 cases in a population of, say, 7-10k, so we're around 6-8000 positive tests per 100k in the last 7 days. The testing might not catch everyone, so it's possible that 10-15% of the population have caught COVID in the last 7 days. That's pretty much at Diamond Princess levels (the total infection rate for the whole duration there was under 20%.
That seems good news to me.
I am worried that people are panicking and going to overreact to Freshers Flu. If 10-15% already have the virus this will burn out quickly, like Freshers Flu normally does.
Its a shame people aren't talking much about what's happened overseas in other countries with universities that started back before ours. In America the experience of many universities seems to be 2-3 weeks of high cases then it burns out.
I really, really hope we don't panic and overreact to Freshers Flu only to see cases collapse back down but the damage has been done.
Where the cases are happening, and how well self-isolated you feel the infected population is, are certainly relevant to the appropriate response. But equally you don't want to get that wrong and end up with 3-4 more weeks of 60% week on week rises.
Hopefully sensible MPs can get a grip next week and vote out the 10pm curfew - then tell Boris and Hancock to sort out the testing rather than lunatic lockdown proposals which will wreck an already half-bankrupt economy.
Welsh Labour have tonight endorsed the 10.00pm pub time
Not surprising in the end... LAB will always follow the totalitarian approach. Good job Drakeford is sorting it out SO well in Wales!
Drakeford is a disaster
He really is.
This will come as a surprise to many PBers, but I spent the first lockdown in a pretty Welsh seaside town.
Drakeford decided to close the local country park. An area of lovely little lakes and woods and hills, ideal for exercise and cycling and family happiness, while big enough to allow massive social distancing. A place you could walk to and enjoy, from the town, without fear of infection.
It was the perfect asset during Covid. The town was lucky to have it. His stupid government tried to close it.
TBF to the good sane people of Wales, they realised Drakeford is a massive twat, and ignored the law. Even the guy who was instructed to drive around with a megaphone telling people to go home to the town where they could be more easily infected, said Yes this is absolutely stupid, and then he and I agreed to just wave at each other and say hi. From that moment on he drove around without even trying to enforce the rule and he turned his megaphone off.
The Cardiff government is even stupider than the London government
While the UK government was getting both barrels for piss poor testing, the Welsh testing was even worse. Over the month Hancock and the man from Delmonte managed to 10x the capacity, the Welsh managed virtually no increase in capacity.
Isn't testing an exclusively UK issue? Welsh Govt don't do testing..
It has recently been stated as a fact that Biden is not doing as well in the State polls as in the National polls. However, this seemed to be based on little more than the examination of individual state and national polls, rather than an analysis in the aggregate. Therefore, I decided to look at this to see whether there was a systematic difference.
To do so I looked at the 538 polling averages for each state (note there is not a 538 polling average for DC, NE, RI, SD or WY) and at the national level. I calculated the swing for each state compared to the 2016 result, and the difference between the state swing and the national swing. I could then plot this difference against Clinton's lead for each state. This is the attached plot.
I would say that the hypothesis is disproved. There are many states where the polling average implies a greater swing than the national swing, and many where it is less. There is a suggestion that the swing to Biden is greatest in states lost by Clinton by the widest margins, and least in those Clinton won comfortably. This would be consistent with the idea of Biden as a much less polarising figure than Clinton who has a greater chance of unifying the country to some extent (though this would seem to be an obvious observation).
Great stuff.
Way back when we had a bunch of arguments here about Proportional Loss vs UNS. The thought was that if you flip 10% of GOP supporters to Dem, that will be a greater proportion of the total in a state with 80% GOP (8% went Dem) than in a state with 20% GOP (2% went Dem). The argument was that UNS can't be right, because if you have a 10% national swing against GOP in a state where GOP got 6% they end up with -4%, but you can't get negative votes.
IIUC the UNS method seems to be a better predictor of actual results *in close states* for various reasons, but I wonder if that's what we're seeing here?
I said this this afternoon. The current restrictions aren't working across the North. The only two options were tighter restrictions or higher and higher cases and hospitalisations. Several people came back at me with various decent alternative ideas. None could reasonably be implemented within weeks, some months. A wasted Summer of Brexit, boosterism and bollocks has led us right here. And I really think the government has no alternative now. I won't slag them off for tighter measures across the North, but for not preparing a plan for a second wave they deserve every opprobrium.
I am not saying there's a better option but isn't there a danger that stringent regional lockdowns will breed resentment and civil disobedience in a way that national lockdowns where we're 'all in it together' avoid?
You would hope not, any more than a sunny day in London causes resentment in a rainy Newcastle.
Actually it almost certainly does, so scrap that comparison. I am sure it has crossed the governmental mind that national lockdowns are politically safer than selective ones, and that they have maps correlating covidity with voting habits.
I was in Skye recently, and I asked the locals how they stayed sane during a rainy Scottish summer week. They said, unanimously,: (three of them): "don't check the weather in London".
One of them opined that SE England having superior weather (it's all relative) was a major driver of indy support. London is seen as wealthier AND luckier. Breeding resentment. Who knows...
Why are people abjuring rationality and logical thinking in this way? It's like going back to the middle ages.
Average western IQs are declining (and possibly worldwide). Never forget
I genuinely believe this is now having a serious impact on world affairs. People are getting dumber
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
Senate. GOP looking near certain to lose Arizona, Colorado and Maine. Dems will almost certainly lose the Alabama seat they gained in the 2018 special election. That would leave the GOP on a bare majority of one. Now, until this weekends revelations I'd've also said the GOP was near certain to lose North Carolina, but that's now definitely a toss-up. I still think the Dems will do it, though. That would balance the Senate 50/50 which would require the new Veep to actually work for a living breaking ties. In any case the Dems are also looking favourites to win Iowa, so I think a 50/50 or 51/49 Dem Senate is looking pretty likely. That said, the remaining Democratic Senator for West Virginia, Joe Manchin, is about the most conservative Democrat in Congress and might side with the GOP from time to time.
However, the Dems are also barely ahead in one of the Georgia races, and the Republican Senators in Alaska, Montana and South Carolina (yes, Lindsey Graham) are looking vulnerable.
So if all the chips come down for the Dems in the Senate, we could see the Dems with a solid 55-45 majority. Not enough to overcome the filibuster, but certainly enough to abolish it.
The House is harder to call as many safer seats just don't get polled, but the Democrats maintaining a majority is, I feel, nailed on, and a modest increase in their majority (say another 10 seats) is definitely possible.
The voters of NC were happy to vote for a many-times philanderer (D. Trump) so they may not care too much about Cunnigham’s indiscretions anyway.
I think a 50-50 senate is most likely, much as I would love to see Graham lose I don’t think it’s going to happen
I would love to see what the SAGE advice was on focusing on enforcement of the new regulations. The public health messaging seemed so misguided. Do as we say otherwise the plastic police will come and fine you. Totally different to the original message of don't kill granny and save the NHS.
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
That's an interesting one. Collins in Maine but I wouldn't rule her out. Possibly Iowa. Cunningham (I think) has ruined his chances in NC not only by being caught a second time but pulling out of the Town Hall, which shows weakness (although he could be hit with a court martial). Funnily enough, we haven't heard much from Colorado, which should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but which is strangely quiet.
Favourite continues to be clear favourite is a boring story to write.
Has there ever been a government more prone to coming up with empty, unplanned, undeliverable initiatives?
How's project Moonshine Moonshot going?
They clearly never heard of under promise / over deliver. Remember back to we will have millions of antibody tests in a couple of weeks and then we can have immunity passports.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
Good luck with that argument.
I've tried explaining this for 4 years to EU supporters and they are completely unable to grasp this simple concept.
Tony Benn used to make this point. Now I can count on the fingers of one hand things I agreed with Tony Benn on, but on this he was bang on the money.
If you can’t fire your rulers you’ve got big problems.
It's no less disingenuous than any of Tony Benn's other arguments. The UK PM is chosen by an electoral college of elected MPs and the President of the European Council is chosen by an electoral college of elected heads of government.
Oh do fuck off. No ordinary European voter voted for the EU President - any of them. I forget how many EU presidents there are. Five? Boris Johnson was elected twice over, by the people of Uxbridge, and also by Tory MPs, who
The EU is a piece of shit. Good riddance.
You just said Brexit was a calamity. Which is it?
It is an unfortunately necessary calamity, due to the asinine stupidity and arrogance of europhiles, who denied us a vote for so many years, stoking the resentment which led to the Brexit explosion. Yes, I'm looking at you: Heseltine, Clarke, Major, Blair, Clegg, Cameron, and so on.
If they'd allowed a vote earlier, democratic anger would have been vented, and Brexit would have been avoided.
In the end these stupid fucks left it so late, we pressed the big red button marked Nuclear Option, as that was the only option we were given
Siri, give me an example of passive aggressive deliberate self harm...
Bleeding wishy washy social democrats, centrists and liberals, what other choice did the German people have in 1933?
Feck the BBC, this is discrimination pure and simple, you wouldn't be allowed to do this to working class people.
twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1313945354400825347
As a privately educated chap the BBC is making me feel like I live in antebellum Virginia.
Just make decent programmes and people will watch....instead they are wrapped up in this nonsense and clinging on the outdated and unenforceable status quo for the licence fee.
I would love to see what the SAGE advice was on focusing on enforcement of the new regulations. The public health messaging seemed so misguided. Do as we say otherwise the plastic police will come and fine you. Totally different to the original message of don't kill granny and save the NHS.
This is indeed one of the lesser discussed aspects of all this. At every stage of new regulations/laws being announced by the Government they have urged the public to stick to the rules to avert the possibility of things getting worse. And most people, i would suggest, have pretty much stuck to the rules - to a sufficient level to make a difference. But a minority have not. And have not, regardless of the levels of restrictions.
But there appears to have been little or no attempt to enforce the measures, and target the minority to set an example of them to take it seriously.
Instead we just get repeated tightening of restrictions, which never gets any more effective because the minority continue to flout them.
A bit more enforcement of the looser regime that the Government said would be sufficient if followed, and we wouldn't be on a spiral with no end.
I said this this afternoon. The current restrictions aren't working across the North. The only two options were tighter restrictions or higher and higher cases and hospitalisations. Several people came back at me with various decent alternative ideas. None could reasonably be implemented within weeks, some months. A wasted Summer of Brexit, boosterism and bollocks has led us right here. And I really think the government has no alternative now. I won't slag them off for tighter measures across the North, but for not preparing a plan for a second wave they deserve every opprobrium.
I congratulated government a couple of weeks ago for moving the restriction cycle to announce early in week, implement before weekend. Scotland got this in before the weekend, but England has reverted to over the weekend pub carnage havering. Sad!
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
Senate. GOP looking near certain to lose Arizona, Colorado and Maine. Dems will almost certainly lose the Alabama seat they gained in the 2018 special election. That would leave the GOP on a bare majority of one. Now, until this weekends revelations I'd've also said the GOP was near certain to lose North Carolina, but that's now definitely a toss-up. I still think the Dems will do it, though. That would balance the Senate 50/50 which would require the new Veep to actually work for a living breaking ties. In any case the Dems are also looking favourites to win Iowa, so I think a 50/50 or 51/49 Dem Senate is looking pretty likely. That said, the remaining Democratic Senator for West Virginia, Joe Manchin, is about the most conservative Democrat in Congress and might side with the GOP from time to time.
However, the Dems are also barely ahead in one of the Georgia races, and the Republican Senators in Alaska, Montana and South Carolina (yes, Lindsey Graham) are looking vulnerable.
So if all the chips come down for the Dems in the Senate, we could see the Dems with a solid 55-45 majority. Not enough to overcome the filibuster, but certainly enough to abolish it.
The House is harder to call as many safer seats just don't get polled, but the Democrats maintaining a majority is, I feel, nailed on, and a modest increase in their majority (say another 10 seats) is definitely possible.
Well, I think that if Trump does completely collapse - to the extent of losing Texas and a bit beyond - there's an extent to which Senators will be able to present themselves as a moderating influence on a Biden Presidency.
However, if they were to win all the Senate seats up to and including Texas, on the 538 order of likelihood, then that would reduce the Republicans to 41 Senators. That would be a monumental wave, but unfortunately it still wouldn't engulf Mitch McConnell.
My assumption is still that the present deterioration in Trump's polling position is only temporary, and a no more disastrous debate than the first one, and some average rallies would be enough to bring it back to the pre-Trump-ill-with-Covid level.
Even if there's lots to quibble about in the details of the Ferguson Code, the big picture fits on the back of a reasonably small envelope.
Herd immunity by infection needs about 50 million people to get this thing in the UK. Back in March, about 1 % of them were going to die. That gives you about half a million deaths.
From there, your options are pretty limited.
One is to get the band to play "Near my God to Thee". Let the virus do what it will, shield as many as you can as well as you can, pray the hospitals don't get overrun. (They will).
Another is to keep the death rate to a trickle- say 2000 cases, 20 deaths a day on average. Then it takes 25000 days for the 50 million infections to be reached, which is about 70 years.
Another is to have a thicker trickle, more cases, more deaths each day. The funny thing is that, whatever steady state you go for, you basically need the same restrictions. If anything, it's easier to run at a small number of cases per day, because there's less contact tracing to do. And in the end, you have to go for some sort of steady state, because the alternative is to get the band playing.
That's why the "open up to save the economy" thing doesn't really work. If you open up now, you are likely to end up in a situation where you have to close down more a few weeks down the line.
This thread has been locked down to prevent a wave of unnecessary hospitalisations and deaths/ a bloody outrageous curtailment of our civil liberties. It's all students/ Sturgeon/ Drakeford/ the EU/ Boris' fault. Delete as applicable.
Has there ever been a government more prone to coming up with empty, unplanned, undeliverable initiatives?
How's project Moonshine Moonshot going?
They clearly never heard of under promise / over deliver. Remember back to we will have millions of antibody tests in a couple of weeks and then we can have immunity passports.
I think that the problem is that the government seems obsessed with finding a "silver bullet" that solves the problem, when there isn't one. Even the vaccine is just another tool. We get out of this mess by doing a hundred different things, and doing them a bit better each week than the last, and being focused intently on measuring the performance as we go. If something isn't working you stop doing it and try something else, not double down on doing the same thing.
I see no sign that the govenment has a deliverable plan for getting COVID-19 under control, everything points to us at best keeping the plates spinning until a vaccine turns up, but there is no guarantee that a vaccine will be as effective as we need to really bring an end to the pandemic.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
Good luck with that argument.
I've tried explaining this for 4 years to EU supporters and they are completely unable to grasp this simple concept.
Tony Benn used to make this point. Now I can count on the fingers of one hand things I agreed with Tony Benn on, but on this he was bang on the money.
If you can’t fire your rulers you’ve got big problems.
It's no less disingenuous than any of Tony Benn's other arguments. The UK PM is chosen by an electoral college of elected MPs and the President of the European Council is chosen by an electoral college of elected heads of government.
But the UK PM is chosen by UK MPs elected at the UK General Election.
Which election led to the President of the European Council being chosen?
The President of the Council is chosen by EU heads of government by QMV. Those governments are all chosen following elections. So nobody votes for him directly, but then we don't vote directly for our PM either. And I certainly can't vote Dido Harding or Dominic Cummings or any of the other malignant unelected trolls who are casting such a baleful shadow over our national life out of office either.
We vote for the MPs at the General Election, the MPs choose the PM. So the PM is chosen two degrees of separation from the voters at the General Election.
How separated from the voters is Michel? Which General Election leads to him?
Three layers, isn't it (voters vote for MPs, who vote for PMs, who vote for a EuroCouncil President)? So it's an extra layer. Firstly, that's hardly a democratic outrage, is it? Second, Europe could fix that by strengthening the Euro Parliament relative to the Euro Council.
But the key point is still that the UK has gone from some input into who the ECP is to having none.
Just as 26 counties of Ireland went from having a limited say in who was UK PM to none a hundred years ago.
Didn’t do them any harm, and I doubt they’re clamouring to reverse that any time soon.
I asked the question the other day about how many Republican Reps and Senators Trump could theoretically take down with him. But didn't see the response. What are the worst case scenarios for the GOP in November?
That's an interesting one. Collins in Maine but I wouldn't rule her out. Possibly Iowa. Cunningham (I think) has ruined his chances in NC not only by being caught a second time but pulling out of the Town Hall, which shows weakness (although he could be hit with a court martial). Funnily enough, we haven't heard much from Colorado, which should be a slam dunk for the Democrats but which is strangely quiet.
Have you missed Till's wife's "cruel and unusual punishment" stuff today, more than evens out Cunningham's indiscretions I would have thought.
Not having the likes of Charles Michel on our media quite so much post January 1 reminds me why I voted to leave in the first place.
And would again.
Leaving the EU doesn’t make the EU go away.
Of course not, but it will mean there’s less need to have their irritating cast of characters on the TV or radio quite so much, pontificating at us for having had the temerity to see things differently to them, and, unlike all the other times people tried to stop the juggernaut, stick with it.
No more irritating than the muppet show running the UK
Quite possibly so. But I can vote to fire them. Unlike M. Michel.
Good luck with that argument.
I've tried explaining this for 4 years to EU supporters and they are completely unable to grasp this simple concept.
Tony Benn used to make this point. Now I can count on the fingers of one hand things I agreed with Tony Benn on, but on this he was bang on the money.
If you can’t fire your rulers you’ve got big problems.
It's no less disingenuous than any of Tony Benn's other arguments. The UK PM is chosen by an electoral college of elected MPs and the President of the European Council is chosen by an electoral college of elected heads of government.
But the UK PM is chosen by UK MPs elected at the UK General Election.
Which election led to the President of the European Council being chosen?
The President of the Council is chosen by EU heads of government by QMV. Those governments are all chosen following elections. So nobody votes for him directly, but then we don't vote directly for our PM either. And I certainly can't vote Dido Harding or Dominic Cummings or any of the other malignant unelected trolls who are casting such a baleful shadow over our national life out of office either.
We vote for the MPs at the General Election, the MPs choose the PM. So the PM is chosen two degrees of separation from the voters at the General Election.
How separated from the voters is Michel? Which General Election leads to him?
Three layers, isn't it (voters vote for MPs, who vote for PMs, who vote for a EuroCouncil President)? So it's an extra layer. Firstly, that's hardly a democratic outrage, is it? Second, Europe could fix that by strengthening the Euro Parliament relative to the Euro Council.
But the key point is still that the UK has gone from some input into who the ECP is to having none.
Just as 26 counties of Ireland went from having a limited say in who was UK PM to none a hundred years ago.
Didn’t do them any harm, and I doubt they’re clamouring to reverse that any time soon.
Comments
He's also nees an exit strategy - Boris going back to the backbenches a la May after this? No way. But quitting in disgrace? He's already rubbished the idea of health as an excuse.
We're all on here arguing about crap when our ancestors were reading books, learning the piano or writing their diaries.
"Johnson plans second harrying of the North"
I suspect public attitudes will change if the hospitals reach capacity.
With lots of lockdowns and restrictions, we already have ~50,000 dead and the University of Washington now expects 115,000 UK dead by January 1, 2021
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom?view=total-deaths&tab=trend
But at the moment the test turnaround isn't fast enough, people aren't isolating when asked to, and the tracing isn't much cop either, so it's become a very expensive way to more accurately count the number of cases.
However, the Dems are also barely ahead in one of the Georgia races, and the Republican Senators in Alaska, Montana and South Carolina (yes, Lindsey Graham) are looking vulnerable.
So if all the chips come down for the Dems in the Senate, we could see the Dems with a solid 55-45 majority. Not enough to overcome the filibuster, but certainly enough to abolish it.
The House is harder to call as many safer seats just don't get polled, but the Democrats maintaining a majority is, I feel, nailed on, and a modest increase in their majority (say another 10 seats) is definitely possible.
NHS gearing up to roll out a vaccine as soon as one becomes available.
(Please God tell me Dido is not going to be in charge of the roll-out.)
He has a temperature that is bad enough to see him hospitalised soon, if it does not improve.
This fucking bug really is biting back
The current restrictions aren't working across the North.
The only two options were tighter restrictions or higher and higher cases and hospitalisations.
Several people came back at me with various decent alternative ideas. None could reasonably be implemented within weeks, some months.
A wasted Summer of Brexit, boosterism and bollocks has led us right here.
And I really think the government has no alternative now. I won't slag them off for tighter measures across the North, but for not preparing a plan for a second wave they deserve every opprobrium.
I think a 50-50 senate is most likely, much as I would love to see Graham lose I don’t think it’s going to happen
How's project Moonshine Moonshot going?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1313945354400825347
As a privately educated chap the BBC is making me feel like I live as a black man in antebellum Virginia.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1313949550592262144/photo/1
NEW THREAD
But there appears to have been little or no attempt to enforce the measures, and target the minority to set an example of them to take it seriously.
Instead we just get repeated tightening of restrictions, which never gets any more effective because the minority continue to flout them.
A bit more enforcement of the looser regime that the Government said would be sufficient if followed, and we wouldn't be on a spiral with no end.
However, if they were to win all the Senate seats up to and including Texas, on the 538 order of likelihood, then that would reduce the Republicans to 41 Senators. That would be a monumental wave, but unfortunately it still wouldn't engulf Mitch McConnell.
My assumption is still that the present deterioration in Trump's polling position is only temporary, and a no more disastrous debate than the first one, and some average rallies would be enough to bring it back to the pre-Trump-ill-with-Covid level.
Herd immunity by infection needs about 50 million people to get this thing in the UK.
Back in March, about 1 % of them were going to die.
That gives you about half a million deaths.
From there, your options are pretty limited.
One is to get the band to play "Near my God to Thee". Let the virus do what it will, shield as many as you can as well as you can, pray the hospitals don't get overrun. (They will).
Another is to keep the death rate to a trickle- say 2000 cases, 20 deaths a day on average. Then it takes 25000 days for the 50 million infections to be reached, which is about 70 years.
Another is to have a thicker trickle, more cases, more deaths each day. The funny thing is that, whatever steady state you go for, you basically need the same restrictions. If anything, it's easier to run at a small number of cases per day, because there's less contact tracing to do. And in the end, you have to go for some sort of steady state, because the alternative is to get the band playing.
That's why the "open up to save the economy" thing doesn't really work. If you open up now, you are likely to end up in a situation where you have to close down more a few weeks down the line.
Delete as applicable.
I see no sign that the govenment has a deliverable plan for getting COVID-19 under control, everything points to us at best keeping the plates spinning until a vaccine turns up, but there is no guarantee that a vaccine will be as effective as we need to really bring an end to the pandemic.
Have the Irish paid no attention to how well our exit has panned out?