This Daily Express WH2020 “poll” is not what it seems – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
0
-
Andy_JS said:
I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
0 -
Sir Keir has played an absolute blinder.0
-
Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.0
-
1m jobs for a 3 week lockdown with businesses financially supported.Flatlander said:
Or 3k with the loss of 1m jobs.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
No wonder the government is dithering.
Don't think so0 -
...for the public sector unions......until job cuts come.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sir Keir has played an absolute blinder.
1 -
My father had a BT phone that was about the size of a standard phone. Didn’t fit very comfortably in a pocket, he had to carry it on the front seat of his car.Sandpit said:Andy_JS said:I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
0 -
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.0 -
Why don't the footballers bet on cricket, or horses? Or just go to the goddam casino like every other rich kid.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
0 -
Why do you call it an experiment, and does just doing it and seeing what happens, not count as evaluating it anyway?FrancisUrquhart said:
I really am starting to wonder about the quality of some of this advice. The 2 week circuit breaker, you can't measure its impact, what scientist suggests experiments that they can't evaluate.MaxPB said:
I really want to know who actually approves these reports. 3k to 107k is ridiculous.FrancisUrquhart said:
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
0 -
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.1 -
-
Best selling phone in each year - 1985-2015:ydoethur said:
My father had a BT phone that was about the size of a standard phone. Didn’t fit very comfortably in a pocket, he had to carry it on the front seat of his car.Sandpit said:Andy_JS said:I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/smartphones/116476-mobile-phones-1985-to-2015.html0 -
Due to the nature of COVID you won't be able to tell after 2 weeks. I am not calling lockdown an experiment, I am saying the scientific method is to propose an experiment and evaluate it. They are proposing a course of action that they know they won't be able to ascertain its effects, if it needs to be longer etc.IshmaelZ said:
Why do you call it an experiment, and does just doing it and seeing what happens, not count as evaluating it anyway?FrancisUrquhart said:
I really am starting to wonder about the quality of some of this advice. The 2 week circuit breaker, you can't measure its impact, what scientist suggests experiments that they can't evaluate.MaxPB said:
I really want to know who actually approves these reports. 3k to 107k is ridiculous.FrancisUrquhart said:
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/10 -
1
-
Yes, I actually could get on board with 2 months coupled with a serious look at measures for a proper isolation system. 2 weeks is not going to do anything.FrancisUrquhart said:
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.0 -
The solution has got to be to find treatments that keep people out of icu and allows hospitals to function as normally as possible. All the money spent on TT etc should he been directed at mitigation not containment. The second wave is not the end of this and if vaccines are not forthcoming then a different approach is needed. The rules should be simplified and less draconian that people can follow and can be enforced, let people enjoy there lives within reason whilst respecting others.1
-
As a first piece of evidence -FrancisUrquhart said:
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.
this strongly suggests that measures longer than 2 weeks are required.1 -
Like the £110k Head of Diversity at the MoD?Mortimer said:
...for the public sector unions......until job cuts come.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sir Keir has played an absolute blinder.
https://order-order.com/2020/10/13/ministry-of-defence-hiring-20-diversity-officers/0 -
That’s an interesting list. Owned some of the phones on there.Sandpit said:
Best selling phone in each year - 1985-2015:ydoethur said:
My father had a BT phone that was about the size of a standard phone. Didn’t fit very comfortably in a pocket, he had to carry it on the front seat of his car.Sandpit said:Andy_JS said:I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/smartphones/116476-mobile-phones-1985-to-2015.html0 -
It takes two weeks to bring the R below 1 and then you need a few halving cycles so we're looking at 2 weeks plus another 4-6 weeks at R 0.7-0.9 which is what we achieved at the toughest lockdown point we had last time.Malmesbury said:
As a first piece of evidence -FrancisUrquhart said:
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.
this strongly suggests that measures longer than 2 weeks are required.0 -
Back in the day, I am fairly certain a number played online poker in my games, as there were a number of fish that appeared to keep the sort of hours you would expect a footballer to keep i.e. starting early afternoons sessions, while never playing Friday nights or Saturdays.Sandpit said:
Why don't the footballers bet on cricket, or horses? Or just go to the goddam casino like every other rich kid.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
I have a friend who was in the big live games in London and now owns a number of properties thank in part to footballer money. Bendtner springs to mind as one massive donator.1 -
I might have to seriously consider my vote in that case.isam said:0 -
There's at least some playing politics in this. Two weeks, as you say, won't work. Two months might. For once though I'm prepared to give Labour the slight benefit of the doubt. I'd hope that if it comes to another full scale lockdown they'll broadly support it. Under SKS they have been reasonably good (as in responsible) in this.Malmesbury said:
As a first piece of evidence -FrancisUrquhart said:
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.
this strongly suggests that measures longer than 2 weeks are required.
It seems quite likely that re-infection could be a bigger thing than we'd have guessed and the long-covid thing seems real. Jonny Boffin had better come up with something!
1 -
But if we design and police it right, we have a very high degree of certainty about its effects (on the spread of the virus, as opposed to economic and knock-on effects); it doesn't need to be regarded as a quasi-experiment. And the brevity is the point; it is baked in to the notion of a fire break (which is what the buffoon meant when he said circuit break).FrancisUrquhart said:
Due to the nature of COVID you won't be able to tell after 2 weeks. I am not calling lockdown an experiment, I am saying the scientific method is to propose an experiment and evaluate it. They are proposing a course of action that they know they won't be able to ascertain its effects, if it needs to be longer etc.IshmaelZ said:
Why do you call it an experiment, and does just doing it and seeing what happens, not count as evaluating it anyway?FrancisUrquhart said:
I really am starting to wonder about the quality of some of this advice. The 2 week circuit breaker, you can't measure its impact, what scientist suggests experiments that they can't evaluate.MaxPB said:
I really want to know who actually approves these reports. 3k to 107k is ridiculous.FrancisUrquhart said:
Between 3k and 100k....do these scientists want to be taken seriously, because that is just a nonsensical large range for a single action.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/10 -
I remember borrowing a brick called a Roamerphone, circa 1986/87. My first Motorola car phone hardwired into my new model Cavalier in 1989 was a similar shape to the flip phone in the picture- without the flip obviously. On returning from a sales call, the next half an hour was spent chasing missed calls.Sandpit said:Andy_JS said:I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
Happy days!1 -
Starmer has been along and called for this thread to be locked down....0
-
Why at no point have the UK Govt ever considered "quickie" tests as part of the equation? Just stubborness on the part of the scientists looking for "ideal" solutions (which they must have realised by now aren't going to come). Whether they be at airports, on entrance to high risk venues or whatever. Even the United States is using them.
Even if they are not perfect, you can reflect that in how you use them. But a false negative is no worse than no test for people without symptoms, and people with symptoms can be told to isolate anyway. And false positives is hardly a major problem since it results in a greater degree of caution than is necessary.2 -
Send him a link to PB!FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
1 -
That makes sense. Thankfully I managed to stay the hell away from online poker when it got big in the mid 2000s, I was savvy enough to know back then that it was both highly addictive and deceptive as to who was actually playing against you.FrancisUrquhart said:
Back in the day, I am fairly certain a number played online poker in my games, as there were a number of fish that appeared to keep the sort of hours you would expect a footballer to keep i.e. starting early afternoons sessions, while never playing Friday nights or Saturdays.Sandpit said:
Why don't the footballers bet on cricket, or horses? Or just go to the goddam casino like every other rich kid.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
I have a friend who was in the big live games in London and now owns a number of properties thank in part to footballer money. Bendtner springs to mind as one massive donator.0 -
You could use the hotels that are empty because tourism is dead.Stocky said:
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?LostPassword said:
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.MaxPB said:
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.CorrectHorseBattery said:PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
There was a story in March about the government block-booking hotels near Heathrow, and I had my hopes up that it was for mandatory quarantine for travellers, but nothing came of it. It could be done now for the infectious.
It's too hard for people to isolate at home for reasons of temptation and necessity.
The hard part is identifying who needs to be isolated before it's too late, but we should start with the easy bit with Covid isolation hotels, and speed up testing and tracing as well.1 -
Evening all
Just three weeks until Election Day in the US and four days before polling in New Zealand so I'll start there.
The latest 1 News/Colmar Brunton poll has Labour on 47%, National on 32%, ACT on 8% and the Greens on 6%.
In terms of seats, Labour would win 60, National 41, ACT 11 and Greens 8 so Labour can effectively govern alone but a continuation of the coalition with the Greens would have a comfortable majority.
Back to America and Trafalgar (everyone's favourite pollster) has Biden up just two in Pennsylvania. Other polls show Biden enjoying small but far from solid leads in Florida and North Carolina but we then have the WPA Intelligence poll for the Las Vegas Review Journal showing Biden leading Trump 44-42.
Adding some important detail, 3% are supporting Jorgensen, 1% are backing Don Blankenship, the IAPN candidate leaving 4% on "None of the Above" and 6% Undecided.
I've moved Nevada back to TCTC as with a large section of the Hispanic vote still to decide, it's very difficult to assume Biden has this in the bag. OTOH, I've moved North Carolina into the Blue camp - Trump hasn't led in a poll in the state for nearly a month and while the lead is well within Margin of Error, I think Biden will nick this state so at the moment I'm on 299-161 with 78 TCTC.
One state still very much in the Red camp is Missouri which Trump won by 18.5 points in 2016. The latest poll has Trump ahead 52-43 so a swing of 4.25% to Biden since 2016. Back in 2008, Obama got to within 4,000 votes of winning the state but that was then and this is now (as someone once said).1 -
A use for the Nightingales. Regular monitoring, but light on staff. PPE for staff. If someone sickens, then transfer to a proper hospital.Stocky said:
Such a person would possibly be infecting others in addition to his family by leaving the home - and who would volunteer to staff such a hotel? Plus - the numbers of rooms that would be needed. This strikes me as an unworkable idea unless new infections were really low.Sandpit said:
People who can't do that (because their house is more crowded than yours), be sent to an hotel for the duration of their isolation.Stocky said:
How would this actually work though? My household of four decided in March that if I, for instance, caught the virus I would isolate in a room of our house with a bathroom until I was better plus a few days. What do you mean by "isolating the infectious"?LostPassword said:
I might change my mind tomorrow, but I think I agree that isolating everyone is a distraction from working out how to isolate the infectious.MaxPB said:
Ok think this through for more than two seconds then. What will another lockdown achieve, given that we know there still won't be a properr track, trace and isolate system in place afterwards.CorrectHorseBattery said:PB Tories will deny it but the only thing that has worked in the UK was a lockdown. The mistake was coming out too quickly without a proper track and trace system. We can only blame Johnson for that.
We've had nearly seven months now of arguing in exhaustive detail over restrictions that apply to the whole population, and government funding for compensation for the same. We'd be in a better place now if we'd had that attention on working out how to isolate the infectious.
I don't want a whole winter of arguing over lockdown restrictions and still not having a system for isolating the infectious.
Edit: and, of course, who would monitor the ongoing health status of the room occupiers to determine whether medical assistance /hospitalisation was needed? Each person would have to be on 24 hour watch.
The numbers are beginning to get scary again, particularly in the purple wall, but I don't think the country can bear another total shutdown, either economically or socially.
Its going to be bloody horrible for the next six weeks and will shred our recovery plan.
The government is yet to drop fines on Trusts for not meeting waiting list targets, inflicting financial penalties on the most overstretched.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1315765390799237120?s=090 -
If you believe it will only be 3 weeks.bigjohnowls said:
1m jobs for a 3 week lockdown with businesses financially supported.Flatlander said:
Or 3k with the loss of 1m jobs.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
No wonder the government is dithering.
Don't think so
Perhaps the rise in numbers will help compliance with the current rules, who knows. I think the government is just hoping against hope that it will.0 -
I am not wedded to a circuit break lockdown and it is sensible to match interventions to the circumstances on the ground. However:Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.- Cases are on the rise everywhere and not just in the North of England
- Johnson is not currently proposing measures sufficient to keep the numbers in check
0 - Cases are on the rise everywhere and not just in the North of England
-
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Breaking
WHO have said to all leaders to stop using lockdowns
We've never really had a proper lockdown here in the way Spain, Italy or India has.Big_G_NorthWales said:Breaking
WHO have said to all leaders to stop using lockdowns
I'd have the whole country in something like tier 2 personally but yes looks like Boris is on the middle ground politically speaking. Can't fault him doesn't really apply but strategically we're probably about right if poorly messaged and implemented.isam said:
As Centrists love to say regarding the BBC, if you're upsetting both extremes you must be doing something rightcontrarian said:
So Johnson has MPs GOING THE OTHER WAY to starmerdixiedean said:Chris Green resigns over lockdown.
Suddenly, I am starting to feel a little sorry for him.0 -
It won't be two weeks though. It takes two weeks to get the R below 1 and then you need a few cycles of halving which at R of 0.7 to 0.9 (which is what we had last time) which means another 6-8 weeks at least before we get cases down to fewer than 1k per day and deaths to fewer than 10 per day as we did earlier in the summer.FF43 said:
I am not wedded to a circuit break lockdown and it is sensible to match interventions to the circumstances on the ground. However:Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.- Cases are on the rise everywhere and not just in the North of England
- Johnson is not currently proposing measures sufficient to keep the numbers in check
The idea of a two week lockdown makes no sense and the scientific evidence of saving between 3k and 107k lives is actually laughable. Legitimately laughable.0 - Cases are on the rise everywhere and not just in the North of England
-
On the contrary, mid 2000s were the best time for online poker ! I think the highlight of my career was being asked if I was Tony G whilst I was playing on his account at EPT Dublin.Sandpit said:
That makes sense. Thankfully I managed to stay the hell away from online poker when it got big in the mid 2000s, I was savvy enough to know back then that it was both highly addictive and deceptive as to who was actually playing against you.FrancisUrquhart said:
Back in the day, I am fairly certain a number played online poker in my games, as there were a number of fish that appeared to keep the sort of hours you would expect a footballer to keep i.e. starting early afternoons sessions, while never playing Friday nights or Saturdays.Sandpit said:
Why don't the footballers bet on cricket, or horses? Or just go to the goddam casino like every other rich kid.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
I have a friend who was in the big live games in London and now owns a number of properties thank in part to footballer money. Bendtner springs to mind as one massive donator.0 -
Perhaps not quite as far as you might imagine. Under the terms of the FTPA the next election is due on 2nd May 2024. We are now as near to that date as to the last week of March 2017 - just 3 weeks before May's shock election announcement.Pulpstar said:
I'd hope Gov't popularity/giving Starmer a boost would be the least of Boris' concerns at this point. We're miles away from the next GE anyway.Scott_xP said:0 -
Long periods are clearly better than shorter. If everyone didn't meet anyone else for a couple of months it'd be over. Unfortunately that means we'd have all starved.Flatlander said:
If you believe it will only be 3 weeks.bigjohnowls said:
1m jobs for a 3 week lockdown with businesses financially supported.Flatlander said:
Or 3k with the loss of 1m jobs.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
No wonder the government is dithering.
Don't think so
Perhaps the rise in numbers will help compliance with the current rules, who knows. I think the government is just hoping against hope that it will.
I wonder if things like locking down weekends might help. Weekly circuit breakers - as seems to be the vernacular. (I am just thinking aloud here - in no way at all is this a good idea)
0 -
A PPS is not a member of the Government.Andy_JS said:
MP for Bolton West.Beibheirli_C said:
Who?dixiedean said:Chris Green resigns over lockdown.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/13160598114280816640 -
A much sadder day than the day she passed away.isam said:0 -
Indeed - in the early days there was easy money to be made simply playing good cards and sticking with good hands. Until the losers drifted away and everyone else bought a book or signed up for online tuition. Then, with the site rakes, profits dried up for everyone but the experts.Pulpstar said:
On the contrary, mid 2000s were the best time for online poker ! I think the highlight of my career was being asked if I was Tony G whilst I was playing on his account at EPT Dublin.Sandpit said:
That makes sense. Thankfully I managed to stay the hell away from online poker when it got big in the mid 2000s, I was savvy enough to know back then that it was both highly addictive and deceptive as to who was actually playing against you.FrancisUrquhart said:
Back in the day, I am fairly certain a number played online poker in my games, as there were a number of fish that appeared to keep the sort of hours you would expect a footballer to keep i.e. starting early afternoons sessions, while never playing Friday nights or Saturdays.Sandpit said:
Why don't the footballers bet on cricket, or horses? Or just go to the goddam casino like every other rich kid.FrancisUrquhart said:Apparently Trippier got ejected from England squad as he faces bettting charges.....how hard can it be not to get involved in any betting on football. If you like the thrill of gambling and a multimillionaire footballer, there are loads of other outlets for this.
I have a friend who was in the big live games in London and now owns a number of properties thank in part to footballer money. Bendtner springs to mind as one massive donator.0 -
****0
-
Our office had one of theseSandpit said:Andy_JS said:I remember using a mobile phone in about 1988 or 1989, a Vodafone. It was small enough to fit in a coat pocket. They'd become a lot smaller around that time compared to a couple of years earlier when they were massive. The keys would light up and make a beeping sound when you pressed them.
0 -
Downloading an app and being an active user of an app are not remotely the same thing.HYUFD said:
Well alternatively I suppose we could have automatic 6 month jail sentences for not downloading the NHS app and not wearing a facemask in a public place or breaching the rule of 6Beibheirli_C said:
Which means that more than 50 million have not downloaded it so far...HYUFD said:
More than 10 million have downloaded it so farGallowgate said:
You do realise that we need to have much higher usage of the app in order for it to be useful? Do we have official numbers on how many million active users it has?
twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1310564220140953600?s=20
0 -
So 1.5 - 2 months?MaxPB said:
It takes two weeks to bring the R below 1 and then you need a few halving cycles so we're looking at 2 weeks plus another 4-6 weeks at R 0.7-0.9 which is what we achieved at the toughest lockdown point we had last time.Malmesbury said:
As a first piece of evidence -FrancisUrquhart said:
Anybody who thinks it would end up just being 2 weeks, I have a bridge to sell you.Malmesbury said:
To have serious effect on numbers, I think, from what we saw earlier in the epidemic, you need much more than 2 weeks.Mortimer said:
Nationwide lockdown (however short, and 2 weeks wouldn't be enough IMO) is a nonsense when large parts of the country have almost no cases....FF43 said:
Unfortunately, and I think it is unfortunate, Starmer is right on the epidemic facts, that doesn't pay any attention to political Left or Right. If we don't take belated and rigorous action now we will see mass death and the economy will be shut down harder. Johnson may be weak and feckless, but he is reasonably intelligent. He knows this.Mortimer said:
LOL. Spoke to a self employed lifetime Labour voter today.CorrectHorseBattery said:Tories are totally rattled, well done Sir Keir
He is appalled at the left's lockdown solution. Applauds the Tory right for accepting that we're going to have to live with this virus, and not shutdown the economy.
In all the countries, around the world, that used lockdowns, what is the shortest period of time before a serious dent was made in the rising numbers? I am talking about seen, after the fact - forget about lagging indicators.
If Starmer had said actually I think we need 2 months, I would have more respect for that opinion.
this strongly suggests that measures longer than 2 weeks are required.
I would tend to agree with that estimate.0 -
I can't see there being the public being willing to lock down just at weekends...although that's probably when most avoidable transmission is occurring.Omnium said:
Long periods are clearly better than shorter. If everyone didn't meet anyone else for a couple of months it'd be over. Unfortunately that means we'd have all starved.Flatlander said:
If you believe it will only be 3 weeks.bigjohnowls said:
1m jobs for a 3 week lockdown with businesses financially supported.Flatlander said:
Or 3k with the loss of 1m jobs.bigjohnowls said:SKS save 107k lives
https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1316068907778748416/photo/1
No wonder the government is dithering.
Don't think so
Perhaps the rise in numbers will help compliance with the current rules, who knows. I think the government is just hoping against hope that it will.
I wonder if things like locking down weekends might help. Weekly circuit breakers - as seems to be the vernacular. (I am just thinking aloud here - in no way at all is this a good idea)
If people isolated when asked we'd probably be OK as we are, but how do we encourage that?0 -
Maybe - the streets were lined with well-wishers at her funeral. The arseholes who thought they'd make a point were nowhere to be seen.justin124 said:
A much sadder day than the day she passed away.isam said:
Margaret Thatcher is the Greatest Person of our times in the UK. She was of course not without faults.0
This discussion has been closed.