Let’s stop this faux outrage over Boris being seen cycling 7 miles from Downing Street – politicalbe

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

Foxy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Great news on the vaccines, maybe this is what everyone should be talking about.

4th in the world on vaccines per capita, behind two small nations and one tiny one, and well ahead of all the G20 and EU27 nations.

Sadly, good news doesn’t generate clicks or sell papers.

The cycle-wank is BECAUSE of this good news on vaccines. There are some whose minds are so swimming in hatred, they just cannot bear the idea of our PM being seen to do a great job on something, for once. Especially when that something is the biggest challenge facing our nation.

So there must be chaff thrown out, to hide the positive. Even at the cost of being made to look total pillocks. Retaining ther reputation doesn't matter. Trashing the PM's does.

They are going to totally lose their shit when the voters mark his Covid scorecard: "Good start, lousy middle, strong finish."

I think that you will find that voters are infamously ungrateful.

The UK is doing well on vaccines because we do have an NHS that is specifically designed for such purposes.

Government vaccine policy has been far from perfect though, and in particular the single dose gambit could come very unstuck if it fails to suppress the disease.

It's mad that we are not doing a trial comparing the single and double dose approach.
Genuinely a decision that could save hundreds of thousands of lives.

We basically are, so long as we're collecting sufficient data.

Again, the issue was raised on the last How to Vaccinate the World podcast.

We are not. No one is. We should be.

Dura_Ace said:

Mary_Batty said:

I'm trying to work out whether a man could have a pee without getting off his bike, and it's hurting my brain.

Not unknown in the pro peleton. You need a dom pushing to keep the speed up.


It's better if it's raining then you just piss yourself. Done it many times.

On a bike?

Anabobazina said:

kjh said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, as someone who has taken up cycling (mostly indoor cycling on a Roger Black and a Peloton, sorry Dura Ace) I can understand the bug Mike talks about.

That said, I still wouldn't like to cycle on the roads, I've seen too many idiotic drivers in action.

I once stood on the corner of Park Lane and Upper Grosvenor St in London for a bit, just watching the traffic (hugely busy road and intersection). There are traffic lights. But the number of near misses involving cyclists (90% cyclists' fault) was enormous.

I cycle *a lot* in London (or used to!) - up to 2hrs a day through the busiest parts. But I am/was on a Boris bike and I was the idiot who stopped at all the red lights. I would say around 5% of cyclists stop at red lights. Does my head in and I wish I had had special constable powers on my rides as I would have given out fines right, left, and Chelsea all day.

When I did one of my French cycle trips I had to ride from Waterloo to the Eurostar early in the morning on a workday. It was a protected cycle lane more or less all the way, yet I was terrified, not by the cars but by the other cyclists. They were mad.

Re Boris - his main crime re this cycling trip was making himself a hostage to fortune. Did it not cross his mind this nonsense might crop up. Not a good political antenna.

His only crime was assuming that people have more sense than to obsess about such trivialities.

Well that was a pretty stupid thing for him to do then because all the evidence is that they do just that, particularly the media.

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1348906184053555202

Madness

SandraMc said:

Roger said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1348908734345588736

Names are much underestimated in a child's future prospects. Early branding with a catchy name is one of the greatest gifts a parent can give. Who would have heard of Stirling Moss all these years later if he'd been a Chitwetel Ejiofor?

She might not be a great policewoman but how many other policewomen can anyone name?

Did you see the edition of the TV game show "Pointless" when a contestant identified a photo of Cressida Dick as Caressa Dick?

That's very funny!

Scott_xP said:

Anabobazina said:

Boris biking around the Olympic Park will make zero difference to infection rates. Just like my mountain bike ride with my son on Saturday will make zero difference. Just like the two blondes drinking tea in Derbyshire will make zero difference.

One day, we will look back on this collective madness and think: “What happened to us all?”

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1348930787580801024

It is interesting to measure this against the insurrection stuff in the US.

Apart from the ranting there is a raft calm, dispassionate, apparently measured bollocks being written. By apparently intelligent people. As you read it and pick apart the nonsense, you realise that these people have created a model of reality. All incoming data is seen in the light of this model.

It does make you wonder - was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty a liar, or had he created such a mind state that he could not see the starving people in front of him?

The most extreme version - I read a book which revolved around studying the letters from German soldiers home in WWII.

In Russia, as they were describing their own atrocities, they condemned the Russians for being atrocious. Not for committing acts as they (the German soldiers) were, but being guilty of being "lower people".

They had created a world in which their own actions (utter evil) were of no account, yet living in a hut without a bath was a crime for which torture murder was righteous act.

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Of more concern to me is why the government is not insisting on a negative Covid test for travellers from Ireland, given the very high rates of infection there.

Also why are the courts still insisting that lawyers have to attend courts for hearings which are perfectly doable remotely? There have been a number of cases of people catching Covid as a result.

I don't trust the police to understand or enforce the rules fairly. But some people are certainly taking the piss. Common-sense is what is needed. I could easily walk for 3 hours outside my front door well beyond 7 miles without seeing a living soul. In London it is that much harder to go for exercise without being close to people.

The key message must surely be this: when you absolutely have to go out wear a mask and try and stay as far away as possible from other people.

Cycling 7 miles in London is nothing. That was my daily one way commute when I cycled to work regularly. But driving somewhere to cycle seems a bit off when there are plenty of parks nearby where the PM could run, walk or cycle (though some of the Royal Parks can be a bit sniffy about cyclists so that might explain it).

Anyway it is a gorgeous day here so I am off to the hills.

There was a time (no idea if that's still the case) where you could theoretically get fined for biking in the Royal Parks. Of course, most cyclists completely ignore that moronic rule and nothing bad happens to them. However, a mate once somehow manage to get fined – he remains to this day the only person I have ever known to actually be fined. He is the sort of bloke that is forever an outlier!

Has any cyclist ever been fined for breaking the speed limit? It's 20mph in most London Boroughs. Cyclists regularly exceed this but never seen one done for it.

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

If he cycled to the Olympic Park, there's no issue at all. If he was driven there and then had a bike around, it's poor stuff, but hardly the biggest deal in the world.

However, if I were a Tory today I'd much rather the focus was on Johnson's cycling than on the disgraceful £5 food packages private contractors are sending out to vulnerable kids at a cost of £30 per package to the taxpayer. That is a genuine scandal.

Yes it is. Apart from the rip off pricing, it is hard to see how to make much of an edible meal from the Chartwell package.

https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/1348747916563918849?s=19

Lock them up! Would a lawyer please explain to a layman why that is not fraud?

Not to excuse it at all but I would imagine that logistics/admin plays a big part. Hence a voucher would make more sense although that would leave it open to vouchers for vodka charges.

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

He was stupid to do anything that could create any sense of ambiguity about the stay at home message or add to the sense that there is one rule for the elite and another for everyone else. It's not a resigning matter but it's another example of why Johnson is such a poor PM.

I've not commented on this up to now as I don't think that targeting individuals (even the PM) is usually helpeful, but since Mike raises it, I think OLB's argument is the point, not the 7 miles itself. The policy is ambiguous (originally it was announced with a time limit which disappeared in the detailed guidance), there is no definition of local, and advice on whether you can drive to a spot where you'd like to walk and how far that can be is missing. To highlight an ambiguous policy with the PM's behaviour pushing at the boundary, and then refuse to give details simply adds to the confusion.

If the rule was "You can exercise on foot or by bike for N hours" or "at a distance of X", then I'm absolutely in favour of Johnson being able to do exactly that without anyone hassling him. But the position is unclear and the PM and his spokespeople are evasive about it, which absolurtely encourages people to do the sort of dodgy compromise with the semi-formulated rules that is perpetuating the pandemic longer than necessary.

Personally I favour a limit of say 4 miles, and if you want to exercise more, you can go round again. That's boring, someone might say? Don't waste our time with piffle - people are putting up with much worse. But any reasonable, clear rule would also be fine.

People should use their judgement

Derbyshire police were idiots

Boris has behaved reasonably in the context

The problem with the 4m limit is I can imagine that in central London there are parts where you would be forcing everyone to a very limited amount of open space

Exactly right, you would then be limiting people to parkland which would become very busy. If you live in, say, Wood Green, it would be far safer for you (and far more enjoyable) to sling the bike in the car and spend a few hours biking around Epping Forest.

TOPPING said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, as someone who has taken up cycling (mostly indoor cycling on a Roger Black and a Peloton, sorry Dura Ace) I can understand the bug Mike talks about.

That said, I still wouldn't like to cycle on the roads, I've seen too many idiotic drivers in action.

I can go up and down virtual mountains from the comfort of my pain cave without getting cold or wet nor having to risk idiot drivers while watching Netflix...no brainer for me

Odd. There are plenty of mountain biking areas which are free of roads, and where you can enjoy the countryside and fresh air without resorting to yet another sterile, screen-based simulation of real life.

Real life, sounds terrible...

I say this genuinely, because you are a poster on here who I always read and I respect. But that response, together with your "pain cave" (tmi?) situation does explain much of your attitude to lockdown = lock us down long and hard.

For people on the 12th floor of a council tower block, their basement pain cave is their downstairs neighbour's sitting room.

Is a fair point / criticism. I am lucky that lockdown doesn't hugely effect me. I already work from home, i have a decent sized garden and live rurally so I can head out without worrying about bumping into other people. I am fully aware that if the above isn't the case, it going to be a lot shitter...

However, I have never seriously suggested we should go like China, or even France / Spain, where lockdown really did mean not going outside at all, except for food / medicine. I thought the government policy on outside exercise is perfectly sensible, and also that we should allow things like golf, cycling i.e. activities where you aren't going to be in close contact with other people.

What I have advocated is normally get the lockdown in place quickly and for enough time...which can come off as being an lockdown absolutist.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

If he cycled to the Olympic Park, there's no issue at all. If he was driven there and then had a bike around, it's poor stuff, but hardly the biggest deal in the world.

However, if I were a Tory today I'd much rather the focus was on Johnson's cycling than on the disgraceful £5 food packages private contractors are sending out to vulnerable kids at a cost of £30 per package to the taxpayer. That is a genuine scandal.

Yes it is. Apart from the rip off pricing, it is hard to see how to make much of an edible meal from the Chartwell package.

https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/1348747916563918849?s=19

Lock them up! Would a lawyer please explain to a layman why that is not fraud?

Not to excuse it at all but I would imagine that logistics/admin plays a big part. Hence a voucher would make more sense although that would leave it open to vouchers for vodka charges.

Err what logistics are we talking about? The department for dividing a £30 box of food into 8 separate boxes?

Andy_JS said:

Andrea on the VoteUK forum says the Italian government may collapse at any moment.

Is it a tuesday?

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

Andy_JS said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

Stocky said:

Why are we even discussing this? Transmitting Covid whilst riding a bike would be quite a challenge, whether it be 5, 7 or 20 miles. Who cares?

Shouldn`t we focus on basement parties and covert bars - you know, those indoor groupy things?

I would have thought, given the depth and regularity of breathing involved, plus 5e energetic expulsion of air from lungs, that it would actually be rather easy to spread Covid while riding a bike.

I don't know either way, and I'm not suggesting that we should create unnecessary problems for cyclists - if cycling is thought by scientists to be pretty safe from spreading infection, then let's include an exemption in the rules - "You can cycle as far as you like so long as you don't ghet off and walk around in another area" or whatever. Perhaps, if it's safe, we can use the opportunity to promote cycling. But don't make up an ambiguous rule and then appear to flout it.

Then we are down the rabbit hole of what about skateboards, what about....etc etc etc.

You just can't legislate or provide guidance for every possible situation in life.

What about walking? We sometimes go on 10 or 15 mile walks. Are they okay, This is getting silly.

Walking *for exercise* is fine, as is cycling. They should both be encouraged.

Note that neither of these activities involve stopping to meet friends in the park for an hour with a picnic, nor getting in the car to find a beauty spot - which is the behaviour being noted, and clamped down on, by authorities.

The aim is to encourage exercise. Surely you want the conditions for taking that exercise then to be as good as possible. Especially in this weather. Why the fuck not drive to a beauty spot and take along a coffee. Leave the hair shirt indoors.

Because giving people an inch has consistently led to them taking a mile, and the last thing we need is tens of thousands of people travelling large distances to all be in the same place.

Makes no sense. You have a central London park and have thousands of people congregating there from likely a few hundred yards away (take a look at Hyde Park during the first lockdown). Or you have some random AONB which attracts a similar number but is likely an order of magnitude bigger.

No one is saying relax the social distancing requirements in either place.

Unfortunately random AONBs don't work like that. Mountain paths are usually narrow with a bog on one side and a rocky precipice on the other. Walkers grope their way in both directions along the Pyg Track or Miners' Track in search of the great outdoors and when they reach the top the crowd on the summit cairn looks suspiciously like a rave. When millions of people simultaneously decide to look for a little peace and quiet they tend to select from a rather limited menu.

And don't even mention SSSIs.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

stjohn said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Stocky said:

Mary_Batty said:

There is no world in which Johnson, 56, is in his "early 50s".

Fuck off. I`m 56 and I am.

I'm 60 in 12 days, and I still consider myself in my early 50s.

I'm a day older than you. We are "The Tiswas" generation. Where were you born and will you be celebrating your birthday? if so, how?

24th is my bd. We live in Pembrokeshire now, luckily very quiet and relatively safer. We shall prolly just have a steak meal or something. Tiswas was brilliant, I watched it from when it was only a local ATV programme in staffs. I went to a grammar school and started off watching swap shop, but it was nice to slum it with Tiswas with the sec mod crowd..

Do you live anywhere near Slebech? There's a brilliant hotel there which we visited regularly before lockdown.

Can't wait to get back.

Tiwas was a superb programme with extraordinarily talented presented - Chris Tarrant, Lenny Henry, Frank Carson, Bob Carolgees and Spit the Dog. CT tried an adult version later (Over The Top) but it died at birth, largely through political correctness, I think.

Pembrokeshire is a place I want to go to soon, too. We have some shares in the organisation which owns the St Brides Castle, not far from Marloes. We had an excellent holiday there a few years ago and want to get back. There are a number of sites not far away, too, which are 'significant' in my family history, and which I'd like to visit.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1348936156222783489

She can have a view on it, she cant unilaterally decide her view is the law. It is perfectly legal to exercise by running:

from work to home
from support bubble to work
from shops to home
from education location to any of the above

etc. If I was being petulant I would also point out there are some who need to exercise their eyes by travelling 350 miles.

Mary_Batty said:

Sandpit said:

Mary_Batty said:

MarqueeMark said:

anothernick said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

In all this 'chaff' about rule making/keeping/breaking one thing stands out. Every morning I have a look at the BBC's 'The Papers' and once upon a time the Star had a nonsense headline just about every day. Now it's relentlessly mocking the PM.
Yes, I know the Star has a minuscule readership, but it's still there, and, when (if) it's readers vote, the idea of being led by a clown might not appeal. To most anyway.
I also note that the once unqualified support for the Tories from the Mail's headline writers seems to be evaporating.

Mail under Remain supporting editor have been one of the most critical of the government covid handling. Even Monday, when basically every other paper had fairly good headline for government over vaccine roll out, they had Betrayal.....care home residents not been vaccinated quickly enough.

Another example of ascribing motivation to the Remain/Leave divide where there is no obvious reason to do so.

The Mail's stance on Covid is much more likely to be motivated by the fact that everyone, even Mail Tory loyalists, can see that Johnson's performance has been dire, perhaps the worst of any world leader aside from Trump. Remain/leave has nothing to do with it.

For some (disproportionately in the media), Boris is Leave. Leave was Very Bad, so Boris is Very Bad. All stories must point to Boris being Very Bad. These people can only see Boris' performance on Covid as having been Very Bad. Despite us now having one of the better news stories over battling Covid with the vaccines.

So when you say "everyone, even Mail Tory loyalists, can see that Johnson's performance has been dire" - count me out your certainty of that totality. With the foresight of the vaccine-buying programme, he's overseeing a way out of the Covid maze. He had A Plan. And that is what I ask of a Prime Minister.

For some (disproportionately in the media), Boris is Leave. Leave was Very Good, so Boris is Very Good. All stories must point to Boris being Very Good. These people can only see Boris' performance on Covid as having been Very Good. Despite us now having one of the bitter news stories over Covid numbers.

For many others in the media, Brexit is terrible and racist, Boris is terrible, useless and racist, and everything he does is not just bad but malicious and evil.

Yes, you're just restating the point I was parodying.

Eye of the beholder, really. A reasonable person would conclude that there have been both successes and failures in the government handling of Covid-19. They've got some things right straight off the bat, but also failed to correct the same errors they've been making from the start.

But the problem is, that many in the media, especially the political commentariat, have beeen driven totally nuts by Brexit, and their opinion on this subject clouds their judgement on anything else the government does. They don’t believe that the government are capable of doing anything right, and don’t want to discuss anything that might show the government in a good light.

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1348906184053555202

Madness

The authorities must be stupid to allow this to happen.

Well said Mike, though the 'one hour' notion was never the case in law. I think it was Michael Gove answer on an interview?

Andy_JS said:

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1348906184053555202

Madness

The authorities must be stupid to allow this to happen.

It's Alabama. So.... yes.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

If he cycled to the Olympic Park, there's no issue at all. If he was driven there and then had a bike around, it's poor stuff, but hardly the biggest deal in the world.

However, if I were a Tory today I'd much rather the focus was on Johnson's cycling than on the disgraceful £5 food packages private contractors are sending out to vulnerable kids at a cost of £30 per package to the taxpayer. That is a genuine scandal.

Yes it is. Apart from the rip off pricing, it is hard to see how to make much of an edible meal from the Chartwell package.

https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/1348747916563918849?s=19

Lock them up! Would a lawyer please explain to a layman why that is not fraud?

Not to excuse it at all but I would imagine that logistics/admin plays a big part. Hence a voucher would make more sense although that would leave it open to vouchers for vodka charges.

Have had this pointed out to me:

https://www.chartwellscanhelp.com/

Whilst the fortnightly food parcel there is less shabby than the one under discussion, it still doesn't look like great value for money.

But that's what happens when the government spends taxpayer money on other people- value for money goes out the window. That's the Thatcherite script, isn't it? (In many cases, that script is correct.)

Anabobazina said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Anabobazina said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Worth pointing out that the London Borough of Newham, where the Olympic Park is located, has recorded more Covid cases than anywhere else in London, had the highest mortality rate from Covid in the first wave of anywhere in the UK, and is currently recording the second highest rate of new infections of anywhere in London, while London itself is facing an unprecedented medical emergency. Newham is also, not coincidentally, one of the most deprived areas of London. There are plenty of parks and cycle paths in Westminster, K&C etc for Johnson to cycle in. It pains me to say it, but I think OGH is wrong on this.

As I said previously, perhaps the image of hoity toity Boris in St. James's Park is not the one they thought would be useful.

I think, as others have said, to see our PM on a bike taking exercise is a good thing.

Do you think it is good to encourage people to travel to one of the worst Covid hot-spots in the UK and potentially spread a lethal illness among a community that has already seen the worst wave of death in the country? In my opinion, nothing expresses "hoity toity" Johnson's absurd life of self-absorbed privilege more than choosing to cycle round Newham when there are any number of locations closer to his home available.

Yeah, he's a dick over details. But he's in a park cycling. He is likely no closer or further away than he would be anywhere else, including St. James's Park. Olympic Park is 10x the size of St. James's.

Olympic Park is big but it was quite crowded the last time I went (pre 2020). If Johnson wanted a long cycle ride he could have done several circuits locally. If he was driven there then the choice to ride his bike in the worst Covid hot-spot in the country is frankly bizarre.

He has already had covid and recovered hasn't he?

The risk is that he will encourage others to do the same thing. Anyone who cycles to Olympic Park from anywhere else in London can now expect a free pass.

Well I was considering heading down there last Saturday (they have a good all-weather MTB circuit). If I bike to the Olympic Park from my house and back again, are you saying that is immoral?

If it's not in your local area, yes. Why would you do anything that could potentially increase the risk of infection in an area that has already seen more than its share of illness and death?
We should all be doing our best to protect each other. I have gone on bike rides in recent days but never more than a mile or two from home, which in my view is what is clearly meant by "local area" in an area of high population density like London.
I think that pushing the rules to the very edge of interpretation just because one likes riding one's bike is extremely selfish behaviour. Johnson has set a bad example.

Maybe Marriott and Citigroup think they can get away with a bit of virtue signalling now that Trump has lost his power (having got the tax breaks they wanted), but this just reminds people that these rotten corporations are quite happy donating to the likes of Hawley, while at the same time annoying the Trump cultists when they tell everyone they are stopping.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/us-companies-political-funding-republicans-capitol-riot

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Following the discussion last night on "why can't we let down all restrictions after the under-70s/under-60s/under-50s/under-40s are vaccinated?"

I took a look at that ONS page with the terrible data visualisation between infections, hospitalisations, and deaths, and translated the hospitalisations into raw numbers.

(Warning: up to date info on the age category numbers was only available for the UK as a whole and the data was for hospitalisations in England; I used it as an approximation as England's population is such a big proportion of the whole (82%) and it is likely that the age breakdown of hospitalisations won't be hugely different over the whole UK).

Conclusion: between the last week in November and the start of January:

The number of under-44 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was greater than the number of 85+ year olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November

The number of 45-64 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was larger than the number of 85+ year olds and 75-84-year-olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November put together.

This. Completely uncontrolled, COVID would overwhelm hospitals, even for "lower risk" groups.

I find people dying in the street untidy. Especially if it is me.

You might need to show your working. Remember that thousands of younger people will be vaccinated as part of the priority groups, as part of Group 6. By the time run through the priority vaccinations, the only people who remain are under 50s with no comorbidities – a group for whom the risk from Covid is very low indeed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-care-home-and-healthcare-settings-posters/covid-19-vaccination-first-phase-priority-groups

What's the IFR for those groups without hospital assistance (the "natural" IFR)?
I mean, they're not in hospital for fun.

I make it that the approximate risk of hospitalisation for a 47-year-old (which I do look at, because I'm 47) is around 2.0%, compared to a death rate of under 0.2%.
Assuming that hospitalisation occurs because it is needed to protect life (otherwise, why hospitalise them?), the natural IFR for someone in their late forties would be considerably closer to 2% than 0.2%.

We often quote the "about 1%" IFR for the virus as a whole and then say "but that's heavily skewed by the elderly"
The hospitalisation rate looks to go past 1% at around age 37.
Hospitalisation rates are a lot less subject to co-morbidities. They seem to be more likely to what will push you over the edge into death even when hospitalised.

If hospitals get overwhelmed, we will find out first hand what the natural IFR (without medical intervention) actually is. And it is nowhere near as low as it is with medical intervention, and the difference is overwhelmingly likely to be greatest for the young and those without co-morbidities (age and co-morbidities are what makes medical intervention less likely to help).

Here's a graphic to show the difference in hospitalisation by age and how it changed between the end of November and the start of January.

IshmaelZ said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Of more concern to me is why the government is not insisting on a negative Covid test for travellers from Ireland, given the very high rates of infection there.

Also why are the courts still insisting that lawyers have to attend courts for hearings which are perfectly doable remotely? There have been a number of cases of people catching Covid as a result.

I don't trust the police to understand or enforce the rules fairly. But some people are certainly taking the piss. Common-sense is what is needed. I could easily walk for 3 hours outside my front door well beyond 7 miles without seeing a living soul. In London it is that much harder to go for exercise without being close to people.

The key message must surely be this: when you absolutely have to go out wear a mask and try and stay as far away as possible from other people.

Cycling 7 miles in London is nothing. That was my daily one way commute when I cycled to work regularly. But driving somewhere to cycle seems a bit off when there are plenty of parks nearby where the PM could run, walk or cycle (though some of the Royal Parks can be a bit sniffy about cyclists so that might explain it).

Anyway it is a gorgeous day here so I am off to the hills.

There was a time (no idea if that's still the case) where you could theoretically get fined for biking in the Royal Parks. Of course, most cyclists completely ignore that moronic rule and nothing bad happens to them. However, a mate once somehow manage to get fined – he remains to this day the only person I have ever known to actually be fined. He is the sort of bloke that is forever an outlier!

Has any cyclist ever been fined for breaking the speed limit? It's 20mph in most London Boroughs. Cyclists regularly exceed this but never seen one done for it.

I believe the speed limit applies only to powered vehicles

Many cycles are powered, at least partly, nowadays

Fairliered said:

Both Derbyshire Police, with their overzealousness, and the UK media, with their enthusiasm to undermine the stay at home message in order to conjure up a headline, are endangering our health by muddying the message. It’s time someone in authority has a serious word with them. I wonder whether anywhere in the world has such an irresponsible media as the UK.

I can think of one very obvious example across the pond.

NerysHughes said:

Mexicanpete said:

I do understand Boris is gorgeous and beyond reproach, but why is he cycling 7 miles from home in his suit? The suit must be honking! NutNuts will be furious at the dry cleaning bill.

Thats a picture from July last year, look at the clothes the other cyclists are wearing, no coat, no gloves

Leaves on the trees.

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

If he cycled to the Olympic Park, there's no issue at all. If he was driven there and then had a bike around, it's poor stuff, but hardly the biggest deal in the world.

However, if I were a Tory today I'd much rather the focus was on Johnson's cycling than on the disgraceful £5 food packages private contractors are sending out to vulnerable kids at a cost of £30 per package to the taxpayer. That is a genuine scandal.

Yes it is. Apart from the rip off pricing, it is hard to see how to make much of an edible meal from the Chartwell package.

https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/1348747916563918849?s=19

Lock them up! Would a lawyer please explain to a layman why that is not fraud?

Not to excuse it at all but I would imagine that logistics/admin plays a big part. Hence a voucher would make more sense although that would leave it open to vouchers for vodka charges.

Err what logistics are we talking about? The department for dividing a £30 box of food into 8 separate boxes?

No idea. Buying it, delivering it, sorting it? No idea what's involved but it's different from you or I going out to buy it all at Asda (for a fiver, obvs).

Anyone know any more?

This is a £20 box from Morrison's that they have miraculously managed to prepare without logistical problems, contains at least 5x as much and better quality.

https://www.morrisons.com/food-boxes/box/cupboard-essentials-box

Rather than worrying about the definition of exercise the met should be interviewing the directors of Chartwell this morning (imo!).

TOPPING said:

noneoftheabove said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

If he cycled to the Olympic Park, there's no issue at all. If he was driven there and then had a bike around, it's poor stuff, but hardly the biggest deal in the world.

However, if I were a Tory today I'd much rather the focus was on Johnson's cycling than on the disgraceful £5 food packages private contractors are sending out to vulnerable kids at a cost of £30 per package to the taxpayer. That is a genuine scandal.

Yes it is. Apart from the rip off pricing, it is hard to see how to make much of an edible meal from the Chartwell package.

https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/1348747916563918849?s=19

Lock them up! Would a lawyer please explain to a layman why that is not fraud?

Not to excuse it at all but I would imagine that logistics/admin plays a big part. Hence a voucher would make more sense although that would leave it open to vouchers for vodka charges.

A voucher against a limited number of food items. Supermarkets would have to do some systems works, but they get the kudos of supporting a well regarded social cause as well as a captive customer.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Of more concern to me is why the government is not insisting on a negative Covid test for travellers from Ireland, given the very high rates of infection there.

Also why are the courts still insisting that lawyers have to attend courts for hearings which are perfectly doable remotely? There have been a number of cases of people catching Covid as a result.

I don't trust the police to understand or enforce the rules fairly. But some people are certainly taking the piss. Common-sense is what is needed. I could easily walk for 3 hours outside my front door well beyond 7 miles without seeing a living soul. In London it is that much harder to go for exercise without being close to people.

The key message must surely be this: when you absolutely have to go out wear a mask and try and stay as far away as possible from other people.

Cycling 7 miles in London is nothing. That was my daily one way commute when I cycled to work regularly. But driving somewhere to cycle seems a bit off when there are plenty of parks nearby where the PM could run, walk or cycle (though some of the Royal Parks can be a bit sniffy about cyclists so that might explain it).

Anyway it is a gorgeous day here so I am off to the hills.

There was a time (no idea if that's still the case) where you could theoretically get fined for biking in the Royal Parks. Of course, most cyclists completely ignore that moronic rule and nothing bad happens to them. However, a mate once somehow manage to get fined – he remains to this day the only person I have ever known to actually be fined. He is the sort of bloke that is forever an outlier!

Has any cyclist ever been fined for breaking the speed limit? It's 20mph in most London Boroughs. Cyclists regularly exceed this but never seen one done for it.

I've triggered a speed camera in a 30 limit but that was a bit of a cheat as it was at the bottom of a hill. Strangely no ticket arrived in the post.

I recall someone being pulled over in Scotland for doing 70mph (Sorry, 112km/h, rules is rules).

I'm not sure the speed limit applies to cyclists but you can definitely be done for 'furious' cycling.

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1348936156222783489

She can have a view on it, she cant unilaterally decide her view is the law. It is perfectly legal to exercise by running:

from work to home
from support bubble to work
from shops to home
from education location to any of the above

etc. If I was being petulant I would also point out there are some who need to exercise their eyes by travelling 350 miles.

It is also entirely lawful (and reasonable) to exercise by running:

from somewhere you've driven to that is appropriate to exercise in and back to your car again.

CarlottaVance said:

Well, quite:

https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1348940147811872769?s=20

As somebody once said....I got 99 problems, but Boris on a bike ain't one of them.....

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

He was stupid to do anything that could create any sense of ambiguity about the stay at home message or add to the sense that there is one rule for the elite and another for everyone else. It's not a resigning matter but it's another example of why Johnson is such a poor PM.

I've not commented on this up to now as I don't think that targeting individuals (even the PM) is usually helpeful, but since Mike raises it, I think OLB's argument is the point, not the 7 miles itself. The policy is ambiguous (originally it was announced with a time limit which disappeared in the detailed guidance), there is no definition of local, and advice on whether you can drive to a spot where you'd like to walk and how far that can be is missing. To highlight an ambiguous policy with the PM's behaviour pushing at the boundary, and then refuse to give details simply adds to the confusion.

If the rule was "You can exercise on foot or by bike for N hours" or "at a distance of X", then I'm absolutely in favour of Johnson being able to do exactly that without anyone hassling him. But the position is unclear and the PM and his spokespeople are evasive about it, which absolurtely encourages people to do the sort of dodgy compromise with the semi-formulated rules that is perpetuating the pandemic longer than necessary.

Personally I favour a limit of say 4 miles, and if you want to exercise more, you can go round again. That's boring, someone might say? Don't waste our time with piffle - people are putting up with much worse. But any reasonable, clear rule would also be fine.

People should use their judgement

Derbyshire police were idiots

Boris has behaved reasonably in the context

The problem with the 4m limit is I can imagine that in central London there are parts where you would be forcing everyone to a very limited amount of open space

Part of the problem as I see it is the London media objecting to 7m as if it is some mad distance.

7m isn't really that long a walk in the shires, let alone a long cycle.

I think the law is drafted very well. Restrictions on individual liberty are already onerous (and in my view, go overboard), there is no need to tighten.

In the context of an infectious disease pandemic there is a big difference between a seven mile walk in the countryside and the same distance in an urban conurbation. Show me where in the Shires a seven mile walk would take you within a short distance on millions of homes?

Maybe but it's too complicated to have one law for city dwellers and another for everyone else.

Andy_Cooke said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Following the discussion last night on "why can't we let down all restrictions after the under-70s/under-60s/under-50s/under-40s are vaccinated?"

I took a look at that ONS page with the terrible data visualisation between infections, hospitalisations, and deaths, and translated the hospitalisations into raw numbers.

(Warning: up to date info on the age category numbers was only available for the UK as a whole and the data was for hospitalisations in England; I used it as an approximation as England's population is such a big proportion of the whole (82%) and it is likely that the age breakdown of hospitalisations won't be hugely different over the whole UK).

Conclusion: between the last week in November and the start of January:

The number of under-44 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was greater than the number of 85+ year olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November

The number of 45-64 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was larger than the number of 85+ year olds and 75-84-year-olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November put together.

This. Completely uncontrolled, COVID would overwhelm hospitals, even for "lower risk" groups.

I find people dying in the street untidy. Especially if it is me.

You might need to show your working. Remember that thousands of younger people will be vaccinated as part of the priority groups, as part of Group 6. By the time run through the priority vaccinations, the only people who remain are under 50s with no comorbidities – a group for whom the risk from Covid is very low indeed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-care-home-and-healthcare-settings-posters/covid-19-vaccination-first-phase-priority-groups

What's the IFR for those groups without hospital assistance (the "natural" IFR)?
I mean, they're not in hospital for fun.

I make it that the approximate risk of hospitalisation for a 47-year-old (which I do look at, because I'm 47) is around 2.0%, compared to a death rate of under 0.2%.
Assuming that hospitalisation occurs because it is needed to protect life (otherwise, why hospitalise them?), the natural IFR for someone in their late forties would be considerably closer to 2% than 0.2%.

We often quote the "about 1%" IFR for the virus as a whole and then say "but that's heavily skewed by the elderly"
The hospitalisation rate looks to go past 1% at around age 37.
Hospitalisation rates are a lot less subject to co-morbidities. They seem to be more likely to what will push you over the edge into death even when hospitalised.

If hospitals get overwhelmed, we will find out first hand what the natural IFR (without medical intervention) actually is. And it is nowhere near as low as it is with medical intervention, and the difference is overwhelmingly likely to be greatest for the young and those without co-morbidities (age and co-morbidities are what makes medical intervention less likely to help).

Here's a graphic to show the difference in hospitalisation by age and how it changed between the end of November and the start of January.

Your graph isn't a great deal of use for this discussion, because yet again it captures everyone in those age groups, rather than just those without underlying health conditions.

How many people under 40/under 50, nationwide, without comorbidities, have

a) died and
b) been hospitalised

by Covid 19?

I have a good idea on a), as the NHS publishes this data (it's a remarkably low number). But we need to know b) – and I'm not sure there is an official source for it?

IanB2 said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

He was stupid to do anything that could create any sense of ambiguity about the stay at home message or add to the sense that there is one rule for the elite and another for everyone else. It's not a resigning matter but it's another example of why Johnson is such a poor PM.

I've not commented on this up to now as I don't think that targeting individuals (even the PM) is usually helpeful, but since Mike raises it, I think OLB's argument is the point, not the 7 miles itself. The policy is ambiguous (originally it was announced with a time limit which disappeared in the detailed guidance), there is no definition of local, and advice on whether you can drive to a spot where you'd like to walk and how far that can be is missing. To highlight an ambiguous policy with the PM's behaviour pushing at the boundary, and then refuse to give details simply adds to the confusion.

If the rule was "You can exercise on foot or by bike for N hours" or "at a distance of X", then I'm absolutely in favour of Johnson being able to do exactly that without anyone hassling him. But the position is unclear and the PM and his spokespeople are evasive about it, which absolurtely encourages people to do the sort of dodgy compromise with the semi-formulated rules that is perpetuating the pandemic longer than necessary.

Personally I favour a limit of say 4 miles, and if you want to exercise more, you can go round again. That's boring, someone might say? Don't waste our time with piffle - people are putting up with much worse. But any reasonable, clear rule would also be fine.

People should use their judgement

Derbyshire police were idiots

Boris has behaved reasonably in the context

The problem with the 4m limit is I can imagine that in central London there are parts where you would be forcing everyone to a very limited amount of open space

Part of the problem as I see it is the London media objecting to 7m as if it is some mad distance.

7m isn't really that long a walk in the shires, let alone a long cycle.

I think the law is drafted very well. Restrictions on individual liberty are already onerous (and in my view, go overboard), there is no need to tighten.

Seven miles from home is, at best, half of a fourteen mile trip.

That's absolutely nothing on a bike. I used to cycle 13 miles to work in the summer months. It took me less than an hour.

IanB2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Of more concern to me is why the government is not insisting on a negative Covid test for travellers from Ireland, given the very high rates of infection there.

Also why are the courts still insisting that lawyers have to attend courts for hearings which are perfectly doable remotely? There have been a number of cases of people catching Covid as a result.

I don't trust the police to understand or enforce the rules fairly. But some people are certainly taking the piss. Common-sense is what is needed. I could easily walk for 3 hours outside my front door well beyond 7 miles without seeing a living soul. In London it is that much harder to go for exercise without being close to people.

The key message must surely be this: when you absolutely have to go out wear a mask and try and stay as far away as possible from other people.

Cycling 7 miles in London is nothing. That was my daily one way commute when I cycled to work regularly. But driving somewhere to cycle seems a bit off when there are plenty of parks nearby where the PM could run, walk or cycle (though some of the Royal Parks can be a bit sniffy about cyclists so that might explain it).

Anyway it is a gorgeous day here so I am off to the hills.

There was a time (no idea if that's still the case) where you could theoretically get fined for biking in the Royal Parks. Of course, most cyclists completely ignore that moronic rule and nothing bad happens to them. However, a mate once somehow manage to get fined – he remains to this day the only person I have ever known to actually be fined. He is the sort of bloke that is forever an outlier!

Has any cyclist ever been fined for breaking the speed limit? It's 20mph in most London Boroughs. Cyclists regularly exceed this but never seen one done for it.

I believe the speed limit applies only to powered vehicles

Many cycles are powered, at least partly, nowadays

Maybe in some parts of the country but not round here.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TOPPING said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, as someone who has taken up cycling (mostly indoor cycling on a Roger Black and a Peloton, sorry Dura Ace) I can understand the bug Mike talks about.

That said, I still wouldn't like to cycle on the roads, I've seen too many idiotic drivers in action.

I can go up and down virtual mountains from the comfort of my pain cave without getting cold or wet nor having to risk idiot drivers while watching Netflix...no brainer for me

Odd. There are plenty of mountain biking areas which are free of roads, and where you can enjoy the countryside and fresh air without resorting to yet another sterile, screen-based simulation of real life.

Real life, sounds terrible...

I say this genuinely, because you are a poster on here who I always read and I respect. But that response, together with your "pain cave" (tmi?) situation does explain much of your attitude to lockdown = lock us down long and hard.

For people on the 12th floor of a council tower block, their basement pain cave is their downstairs neighbour's sitting room.

Is a fair point / criticism. I am lucky that lockdown doesn't hugely effect me. I already work from home, i have a decent sized garden and live rurally so I can head out without worrying about bumping into other people. I am fully aware that if the above isn't the case, it going to be a lot shitter...

However, I have never seriously suggested we should go like China, or even France / Spain, where lockdown really did mean not going outside at all, except for food / medicine. I thought the government policy on outside exercise is perfectly sensible, and also that we should allow things like golf, cycling i.e. activities where you aren't going to be in close contact with other people.

What I have advocated is normally get the lockdown in place quickly and for enough time...which can come off as being an lockdown absolutist.

Thank you for the answer. I absolutely understand.

IanB2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Anabobazina said:

Cyclefree said:

Of more concern to me is why the government is not insisting on a negative Covid test for travellers from Ireland, given the very high rates of infection there.

Also why are the courts still insisting that lawyers have to attend courts for hearings which are perfectly doable remotely? There have been a number of cases of people catching Covid as a result.

I don't trust the police to understand or enforce the rules fairly. But some people are certainly taking the piss. Common-sense is what is needed. I could easily walk for 3 hours outside my front door well beyond 7 miles without seeing a living soul. In London it is that much harder to go for exercise without being close to people.

The key message must surely be this: when you absolutely have to go out wear a mask and try and stay as far away as possible from other people.

Cycling 7 miles in London is nothing. That was my daily one way commute when I cycled to work regularly. But driving somewhere to cycle seems a bit off when there are plenty of parks nearby where the PM could run, walk or cycle (though some of the Royal Parks can be a bit sniffy about cyclists so that might explain it).

Anyway it is a gorgeous day here so I am off to the hills.

There was a time (no idea if that's still the case) where you could theoretically get fined for biking in the Royal Parks. Of course, most cyclists completely ignore that moronic rule and nothing bad happens to them. However, a mate once somehow manage to get fined – he remains to this day the only person I have ever known to actually be fined. He is the sort of bloke that is forever an outlier!

Has any cyclist ever been fined for breaking the speed limit? It's 20mph in most London Boroughs. Cyclists regularly exceed this but never seen one done for it.

I believe the speed limit applies only to powered vehicles

Many cycles are powered, at least partly, nowadays

and the power cuts out at 15.5mph otherwise it is no longer legally a bicycle.

Tougher measures will simply penalise more people who are trying to get by, while persistent rule breakers - lookig at your Piers, no, both of you - will likely not change their behaviour anyway.

OT. There is a woman on Death Row in the US about to be executed. The last time a woman was executed in the US was 1953. Ruth Ellis* the last woman executed in the UK was in 1955. This is surprising. I always though the US could out barbaric the UK any day even with a Tory government.

(*I photographed her daughter Georgie)

... and all that is before we recognise that the rules themselves are less strict in some key ways.

*support bubbles did not exist
*little exemption for working

for a start

be brave to get rid of those two.

Make more effort in praising good behaviour and finding ways to support safe behaviour within the rules.

BannedinnParis said:

Tougher measures will simply penalise more people who are trying to get by, while persistent rule breakers - lookig at your Piers, no, both of you - will likely not change their behaviour anyway.

Without going full China, I don't think any further tinkering will make much difference. We know that one of the biggest problems is people bending / breaking the rules on key things like isolation. They do x days, feel fine and decide to pop to Tescos to get something nice to eat.

Arguing over 3m vs 2m, its total irrelevance. Really it all comes down to frequency / length in presence of others and when you know you have it to make sure you don't come into contact with anybody else.

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1348936156222783489

She can have a view on it, she cant unilaterally decide her view is the law. It is perfectly legal to exercise by running:

from work to home
from support bubble to work
from shops to home
from education location to any of the above

etc. If I was being petulant I would also point out there are some who need to exercise their eyes by travelling 350 miles.

It is also entirely lawful (and reasonable) to exercise by running:

from somewhere you've driven to that is appropriate to exercise in and back to your car again.

In Lockdown I I had a copy of the SI on my phone in my back pocket so that if plod decided to stop me on any of my three bike rides, I could point to the legislation. I frequently posted on here the nuances between the law and the guidance.

Now? I really can't be bothered to see what are the rules, the guidance, the law, the regulations, or whatever.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Andy_JS said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Mortimer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

He was stupid to do anything that could create any sense of ambiguity about the stay at home message or add to the sense that there is one rule for the elite and another for everyone else. It's not a resigning matter but it's another example of why Johnson is such a poor PM.

I've not commented on this up to now as I don't think that targeting individuals (even the PM) is usually helpeful, but since Mike raises it, I think OLB's argument is the point, not the 7 miles itself. The policy is ambiguous (originally it was announced with a time limit which disappeared in the detailed guidance), there is no definition of local, and advice on whether you can drive to a spot where you'd like to walk and how far that can be is missing. To highlight an ambiguous policy with the PM's behaviour pushing at the boundary, and then refuse to give details simply adds to the confusion.

If the rule was "You can exercise on foot or by bike for N hours" or "at a distance of X", then I'm absolutely in favour of Johnson being able to do exactly that without anyone hassling him. But the position is unclear and the PM and his spokespeople are evasive about it, which absolurtely encourages people to do the sort of dodgy compromise with the semi-formulated rules that is perpetuating the pandemic longer than necessary.

Personally I favour a limit of say 4 miles, and if you want to exercise more, you can go round again. That's boring, someone might say? Don't waste our time with piffle - people are putting up with much worse. But any reasonable, clear rule would also be fine.

People should use their judgement

Derbyshire police were idiots

Boris has behaved reasonably in the context

The problem with the 4m limit is I can imagine that in central London there are parts where you would be forcing everyone to a very limited amount of open space

Part of the problem as I see it is the London media objecting to 7m as if it is some mad distance.

7m isn't really that long a walk in the shires, let alone a long cycle.

I think the law is drafted very well. Restrictions on individual liberty are already onerous (and in my view, go overboard), there is no need to tighten.

In the context of an infectious disease pandemic there is a big difference between a seven mile walk in the countryside and the same distance in an urban conurbation. Show me where in the Shires a seven mile walk would take you within a short distance on millions of homes?

Maybe but it's too complicated to have one law for city dwellers and another for everyone else.

There isn't a different law though. The rules say you should stay in your local area. Clearly Newham and Westminster are not in the same area (otherwise they could not have such different Covid infection rates and wouldn't be different London boroughs), whereas two hamlets in a sparsely populated shire seven miles apart might be. I think the rules are fairly clear and Johnson has at the very least pushed them to their limit. Add the fact that he chose to travel to the Borough with one of the highest number of Covid cases in the UK and I think it looks like a really poor choice. Not a resigning matter, but not unimportant.

Newham and Westminster are the same area, they're both London. They have the same Mayor. They're segments of the same city. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Anabobazina said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_Cooke said:

Following the discussion last night on "why can't we let down all restrictions after the under-70s/under-60s/under-50s/under-40s are vaccinated?"

I took a look at that ONS page with the terrible data visualisation between infections, hospitalisations, and deaths, and translated the hospitalisations into raw numbers.

(Warning: up to date info on the age category numbers was only available for the UK as a whole and the data was for hospitalisations in England; I used it as an approximation as England's population is such a big proportion of the whole (82%) and it is likely that the age breakdown of hospitalisations won't be hugely different over the whole UK).

Conclusion: between the last week in November and the start of January:

The number of under-44 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was greater than the number of 85+ year olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November

The number of 45-64 year olds hospitalised in w/e 3rd January was larger than the number of 85+ year olds and 75-84-year-olds hospitalised in w/e 29 November put together.

This. Completely uncontrolled, COVID would overwhelm hospitals, even for "lower risk" groups.

I find people dying in the street untidy. Especially if it is me.

You might need to show your working. Remember that thousands of younger people will be vaccinated as part of the priority groups, as part of Group 6. By the time run through the priority vaccinations, the only people who remain are under 50s with no comorbidities – a group for whom the risk from Covid is very low indeed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-care-home-and-healthcare-settings-posters/covid-19-vaccination-first-phase-priority-groups

What's the IFR for those groups without hospital assistance (the "natural" IFR)?
I mean, they're not in hospital for fun.

I make it that the approximate risk of hospitalisation for a 47-year-old (which I do look at, because I'm 47) is around 2.0%, compared to a death rate of under 0.2%.
Assuming that hospitalisation occurs because it is needed to protect life (otherwise, why hospitalise them?), the natural IFR for someone in their late forties would be considerably closer to 2% than 0.2%.

We often quote the "about 1%" IFR for the virus as a whole and then say "but that's heavily skewed by the elderly"
The hospitalisation rate looks to go past 1% at around age 37.
Hospitalisation rates are a lot less subject to co-morbidities. They seem to be more likely to what will push you over the edge into death even when hospitalised.

If hospitals get overwhelmed, we will find out first hand what the natural IFR (without medical intervention) actually is. And it is nowhere near as low as it is with medical intervention, and the difference is overwhelmingly likely to be greatest for the young and those without co-morbidities (age and co-morbidities are what makes medical intervention less likely to help).

Here's a graphic to show the difference in hospitalisation by age and how it changed between the end of November and the start of January.

Your graph isn't a great deal of use for this discussion, because yet again it captures everyone in those age groups, rather than just those without underlying health conditions.

How many people under 40/under 50, nationwide, without comorbidities, have

a) died and
b) been hospitalised

by Covid 19?

I have a good idea on a), as the NHS publishes this data (it's a remarkably low number). But we need to know b) – and I'm not sure there is an official source for it?

Here's a data point from early in the first wave. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.20076042v1

47% of those in hospital had no comorbidities. Not stratified by age, but of course elderly people are *unlikely* to have no comorbidities at all, so I suspect that a majority of young patients in hospital have none.

I think you are mistaken in believing that patients under 50, and even under 40, with no comorbidities are rarely in hospital. They rarely die, if they receive good treatment, but they need that treatment.

--AS

On Topic: Disagree with the Header completely. In fact I think it's flat out wrong. "Boris" Johnson is not in his early fifties. He's 56.

Roger said:

OT. There is a woman on Death Row in the US about to be executed. The last time a woman was executed in the US was 1953. Ruth Ellis* the last woman executed in the UK was in 1955. This is surprising. I always though the US could out barbaric the UK any day even with a Tory government.

(*I photographed her daughter Georgie)

Why do you think it is more barbarous to judicially execute a woman than a man? Isn't that "Women and Children First!' style sexism?

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

noneoftheabove said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1348936156222783489

She can have a view on it, she cant unilaterally decide her view is the law. It is perfectly legal to exercise by running:

from work to home
from support bubble to work
from shops to home
from education location to any of the above

etc. If I was being petulant I would also point out there are some who need to exercise their eyes by travelling 350 miles.

It is also entirely lawful (and reasonable) to exercise by running:

from somewhere you've driven to that is appropriate to exercise in and back to your car again.

Yes and no. The real world problem police like in Derbyshire are trying to prevent is large numbers of people choosing the same location. The longer the distance allowed and the looser the guidelines, the more likely it is that everyone will congregate on the same small number of beauty spots.

Admittedly we are probably safe in today's miserable weather

Beautiful weather outside now. Looking forward to getting out at lunchtime.

And surely using the gravity model of exercise (?!), the further away a place, the fewer people are likely to congregate there?