Today’s top tip – Don’t make an enemy of Dom Cummings – politicalbetting.com

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

It's starting to smell pretty bad, isn't it?

Iraqi WMD bad?

I suspect if the government had been more honest and said we need four more weeks to vaccinate the young because the delta variant needs two jabs to be properly effective they would have saved them from a world of pain.

Especially if later down the line there's a vaccine evading variant, that needs a booster.

Candy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

GSK just not catching a break with its vaccine deals...

CureVac’s mRNA vaccine reaches an efficacy level of just 47 percent in a clinical trial
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/16/world/covid-vaccine-coronavirus-mask#curevac-vaccine

I wonder what is different about their compared to Pfizer and Moderna, that are absolutely dog bollocks against COVID?

It's a small dose of mRNA.

Curevac uses a 12ug dose which is really low compared to BioNTech 30ug and moderna 100ug.

Moderna is the most expensive vaccine because they're not skimping.

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic.

I'm desperately trying to work out a headline for the day Hancock is sacked/moved to another job.


HanCock Out and Cummings.

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Nigel_Foremain said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, the cabinet only has one person who has any scientific training and she is the Work and Pensions bod. They really don't understand. They all are "totally fucking hopeless".

However if there is ever a crisis where there is a requirement for an understanding of Politics Philosophy and Economics, particularly if it involves an understanding of Ancient Greek we will be very well managed.

moonshine said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

It's starting to smell pretty bad, isn't it?

Iraqi WMD bad?

I suspect if the government had been more honest and said we need four more weeks to vaccinate the young because the delta variant needs two jabs to be properly effective they would have saved them from a world of pain.

Especially if later down the line there's a vaccine evading variant, that needs a booster.

Why did this knobhead of a pm and his cabinet spend the last few weeks telling everyone “there is nothing in the data to suggest a delay”?

There’s no coherence to anything they say or do. The only thing they’ve got right from the start from both directions of the argument is vaccine procurement, and that was outsourced to the private sector.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

It's starting to smell pretty bad, isn't it?

Iraqi WMD bad?

I suspect if the government had been more honest and said we need four more weeks to vaccinate the young because the delta variant needs two jabs to be properly effective they would have saved them from a world of pain.

Especially if later down the line there's a vaccine evading variant, that needs a booster.

The problem with that argument is the government and scientists have framed lockdown measures as necessary to stop the NHS from toppling under the pressure of COVID patients. It's a fair argument that hits home with the majority of the country. In fact it's why I changed my own position on lockdown in November despite loathing the idea of another one.

Young people aren't going to cause the NHS to fall down, trying to reframe the reason for lockdown measures as protecting individuals rather than the NHS would get called out as an unnecessary delay because individuals have agency to stay at home.

It would also have worked better if we'd ordered more Pfizer and Moderna doses for May and June delivery. As it stands we're waiting until mid July for Pfizer to increase their delivery of vaccines to us so until then we're using up existing stock from the 40m order (about 5m left I think) and the 17m Moderna order. If we're waiting for young people to be double jabbed then just on a delivery schedule that puts us at the first week of August plus 10 days for distribution.

No, the only way to keep the lockdown measures was the route the scientists picked. Present a bunch of dodgy data models to unscientific and data illiterate politicians and scare them with big numbers. If the argument falls apart afterwards it doesn't matter because they've already got their extension.

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ursula von der Leyen now has no constitutional role in my country.

She never did

Oh really?

Do you think Biden has no constitutional role in Texas?

Oh dear, award for this years False Comparison Prize. What next, comparing the EU to the Nazis, or perhaps comparing Bozo to Winston Churchill?

How is it a false comparison?

The European Union laws and courts are supreme over its member states and UVDL is President of that.

If you want to compare the EU to Nazis then you can do that, but to deny that the President of the European Union has any constitutional role in EU member states is just dishonest pure and simple.

I need to do some work, but I will answer you as best and politely as I can. The sovereignty argument as put forward by those in favour of Brexit was always specious. The reality is that all nation states of the EU have sovereign supremacy over the EU because they can unilaterally choose to leave and because of our 2016 referendum we chose to do that. I do not believe that is the case with Texas, nor, as another example is it the case with Scotland within the UK.
The POTUS has significant (though not unrestricted) executive power in the US that not even the most integrationist of EU zealots would dream of for the President of the European Commission (she is not President of the European Union ). The Commission gains it's power from the Council of Ministers, which as I am sure you know, is the leaders of the 27, which are independent and sovereign. They choose to pool their sovereignty on certain matters.

Therefore POTUS=President of EU Commission is a ludicrous comparison.

Saying you are sovereign because you can leave is only meaningful if you do leave. Otherwise its meaningless.

Its perversely like saying that someone in a bad relationship is OK because they can leave, but then saying they shouldn't leave and using the fact they can leave as a reason why they shouldn't.

Either the relationship is good, in which case argue that on its merits and explain why the loss of sovereignty is worthwhile and why we shouldn't leave, or the relationship is not good in which case we should and did correctly exercise our right to leave and reclaim our sovereignty and choose our own future.

We have chosen not to pool our sovereignty. That is a perfectly valid choice. Choosing to pool it is valid too, but if you want that then don't pretend it isn't pooled and there's no sovereignty issue from doing so - explain why it is worth doing despite the sovereignty issue that pooling entails.

Logic fail here. If being able to leave a relationship is meaningless, it follows that a relationship where you can't leave is no more captive than one where you can. Which is a clear nonsense. Being able to leave is fundamentally different to being unable to leave, whether you choose to leave or not.

Being able to leave is an important theoretical right, but unless you exercise it, it isn't very meaningful.

Saying that UvdL had no constitutional role in the UK, since we could leave, is like saying that your boss at work has no role in your worklife since you can quit if you want to do so.

It's not a theoretical right it's an actual right. This is the case whether you exercise it or not. And having this right is different to not having it. This is specifically the point I needed to clarify.

The right is meaningless unless you're prepared to exercise it. If you're not willing to do so, then its only theoretical.

If you work for an employer where you are in your own eyes the hardest working employee there, but you are paid less than your colleagues, you don't feel like you are treated with respect, and if you bring concerns to your employer they say "yes but you need the job don't you?" and then adds mockingly "You know where the door is" - then do you think "oh well, I can leave if I want to, so everything's fine I should stay in this job" or do you think "screw this, I'm off"

The fact you can leave is not a reason to stay. The reason to stay should be that it is worth staying.

I'm not saying it's a reason to stay. I'm simply debunking your assertion that an option to do something is meaningless unless you do it. The correct assertion is that it's meaningless if you can't do it. The convoluted workplace analogy isn't helpful. In EU terms, we have left and others haven't. We decided as a free sovereign nation that the cons of membership outweighed the pros. Others haven't reached this conclusion as yet, but they could do in the future. They have the option. The meaningful option. Their right to leave isn't meaningless just because they haven't left. That's a clear nonsense.

You're missing the point.

Absolutely they have the right to leave, but unless or until they exercise that right, the EU and UvdL or her successors is part of their constitutional setup.

Just as Westminster and Boris or his successors is part of Northern Ireland or Scotland's constitutional setup even though we explicitly recognise Northern Ireland's right to self-determination and to leave via a United Ireland if they ever choose to exercise that right.

I can't be missing the point since I'm merely debunking your nonsense assertion that an option is meaningless unless you exercise it. It was a low bar and I've hopped over it quite comfortably. The rest - eg to what extent Brussels rather than Westminster was our effective government when we were in the EU - would require another tumble entirely. And nobody wants to see that right now. Not today of all days.

You have missed the point.

The claim, mady by Scott, was that the EU President never had a constitutional role in the UK.

The fact we could leave was meaningless to that claim.

It was true, it was meaningful in the fact that we did leave, but until we left it didn't change the fact that she did have a role.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I must admit growing up in the 90s I did find the Secret Seven and Famous Five at times hard to read.

Not because of any -isms, but because some of the language used and the world it depicts was quite alien to me.

I knew what neither "ginger beer" was nor what a "lashing" was, for example, but also the portrayal of figures like Quentin's complete indifference to his own child, nieces and nephews.

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

Gove and Johnson are journalists, they don't get numbers, I'm not dissing Classics or PPE as Aaron read PPE but he ended working for companies that required highly numerate people.

That will be Aaron Bell late of this parish who understands Maths.

Yup, statistics and probabilities in particular.

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

Gove and Johnson are journalists, they don't get numbers, I'm not dissing Classics or PPE as Aaron read PPE but he ended working for companies that required highly numerate people.

That will be Aaron Bell late of this parish who understands Maths.

Yup, statistics and probabilities in particular.

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

I wonder if this is happening because the people doing this modelling aren't used to dealing with real world data at the speed we are getting it.

In previous pandemics nobody has had the genetic sequence of half the cases a few days after they were sampled. The amount of information we are getting is utterly unprecedented.

The academics have spent years cooking up models based on theoretical modelling of previous pandemics and using theoretical inputs because they haven't got real ones. The models are thus designed to produce scientific papers and discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult to switch to the culture of real-time analysis? Where pet theories go out the window faster then you can say hmmm, that doesn't look right?

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

I wonder if this is happening because the people doing this modelling aren't used to dealing with real world data at the speed we are getting it.

In previous pandemics nobody has had the genetic sequence of half the cases a few days after they were sampled. The amount of information we are getting is utterly unprecedented.

The academics have spent years cooking up models based on theoretical modelling of previous pandemics and using theoretical inputs because they haven't got real ones. The models are thus designed to produce scientific papers and discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult to switch to the culture of real-time analysis? Where pet theories go out the window faster then you can say hmmm, that doesn't look right?

OllyT said:

isam said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_xP said:

Number of EU citizens seeking work in UK falls 36% since Brexit, study shows https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/number-of-eu-citizens-seeking-work-in-uk-falls-36-since-brexit-study-shows

'businesses in some sectors say the lack of EU migrants is leading them to put up pay to attract British workers in their place.'https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/17/number-of-eu-citizens-seeking-work-in-uk-falls-36-since-brexit-study-shows

Who would have thought it?

Hand on a mo, I thought you Brexiteers were telling us a couple of days ago that current labour shortages were nothing to do with Brexit.

This, I suspect, will be the new leaver manta - if it's good it's because of Brexit, if it's bad it's because of Covid.

ping said:

Ukraine steamrollering Macedonia

Can’t stay 0-0 for long

TheScreamingEagles said:

ping said:

Ukraine steamrollering Macedonia

Can’t stay 0-0 for long

North Macedonia.

You're going to start an international incident if you keep on calling them just Macedonia.

CarlottaVance said:

430,399 vaccinations in Flag of United Kingdom yesterday

England 170,367 1st doses / 180,627 2nd doses
Scotland 19,987 / 22,708
Wales 3,218 / 21,863
NI 1,993 / 9,636

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1405513477217832962?s=20

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

I wonder if this is happening because the people doing this modelling aren't used to dealing with real world data at the speed we are getting it.

In previous pandemics nobody has had the genetic sequence of half the cases a few days after they were sampled. The amount of information we are getting is utterly unprecedented.

The academics have spent years cooking up models based on theoretical modelling of previous pandemics and using theoretical inputs because they haven't got real ones. The models are thus designed to produce scientific papers and discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult to switch to the culture of real-time analysis? Where pet theories go out the window faster then you can say hmmm, that doesn't look right?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Lee Hurst has broken twitter, or at least got Black Death trending.

Has anyone got any pictures of people receiving vaccinations during the Black Death?
Surely everyone must have been vaccinated back then or else how did we survive as a species?
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1405423188297797633

Malmesbury said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

I wonder if this is happening because the people doing this modelling aren't used to dealing with real world data at the speed we are getting it.

In previous pandemics nobody has had the genetic sequence of half the cases a few days after they were sampled. The amount of information we are getting is utterly unprecedented.

The academics have spent years cooking up models based on theoretical modelling of previous pandemics and using theoretical inputs because they haven't got real ones. The models are thus designed to produce scientific papers and discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult to switch to the culture of real-time analysis? Where pet theories go out the window faster then you can say hmmm, that doesn't look right?

Partly yes.

My theory is that they have been conditioned that there are three categories of data

1) Peer reviewed, published - TRUTH
2) Modelled guesswork - WORKING HYPOTHESIS
3) Pre-publication, real world, numbers - which almost DO NOT EXIST

What they are unaccustomed to is huge, real world datasets, whose conclusions are so clear that they don't need peer review to go from 1 -> 3 in quality.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Lee Hurst has broken twitter, or at least got Black Death trending.

Has anyone got any pictures of people receiving vaccinations during the Black Death?
Surely everyone must have been vaccinated back then or else how did we survive as a species?
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1405423188297797633

He's turning into a bigger bellend that Matt Le Tissier, who spread the antivaxxer nonsense that Christian Eriksen had his cardiac arrest because he had his Covid-19 vaccine.

https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1404351111490854914

Spoiler Alert: Eriksen has yet to be vaccinated.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Lee Hurst has broken twitter, or at least got Black Death trending.

Has anyone got any pictures of people receiving vaccinations during the Black Death?
Surely everyone must have been vaccinated back then or else how did we survive as a species?
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1405423188297797633

He's turning into a bigger bellend that Matt Le Tissier, who spread the antivaxxer nonsense that Christian Eriksen had his cardiac arrest because he had his Covid-19 vaccine.

https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1404351111490854914

Spoiler Alert: Eriksen has yet to be vaccinated.

I can't believe how many sportsmen haven't been vaccinated. If you get long covid that could be career over. Even losing say 5% output in lots of sports e.g. cycling, that is probably career over.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Lee Hurst has broken twitter, or at least got Black Death trending.

Has anyone got any pictures of people receiving vaccinations during the Black Death?
Surely everyone must have been vaccinated back then or else how did we survive as a species?
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1405423188297797633

He's turning into a bigger bellend that Matt Le Tissier, who spread the antivaxxer nonsense that Christian Eriksen had his cardiac arrest because he had his Covid-19 vaccine.

https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1404351111490854914

Spoiler Alert: Eriksen has yet to be vaccinated.

I can't believe how many sportsmen haven't been vaccinated. If you get long covid that could be career over. Even losing say 5% output in lots of sports e.g. cycling, that is probably career over, compared to us plebs who just won't be quite as competitive in a zwift race.

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

Sounds like you need to change schools.

I am delighted with the absence of “conspicuous woke” at my daughter’s school so far (she is 6) but concede that it may be more obvious as she gets older.

Stocky said:

ping said:

On Ukraine -1.5 @ 3.73

I've gone for 0-0 at 11.5

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

rottenborough said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

Sounds like you need to change schools.

I am delighted with the absence of “conspicuous woke” at my daughter’s school so far (she is 6) but concede that it may be more obvious as she gets older.

Alfred the Great did a lot of community work in what is now known as England.

So I suggest the daughter presses on with her original intent.

rottenborough said:

Be interesting to see the covid numbers in next week or two. Some very high profile zero coviders have lashed themselves very tightly to the delta mast.

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

Gove and Johnson are journalists, they don't get numbers, I'm not dissing Classics or PPE as Aaron read PPE but he ended working for companies that required highly numerate people.

That will be Aaron Bell late of this parish who understands Maths.

Yup, statistics and probabilities in particular.

They can't do basic 101 stats.... probability, I mean that way out of their league....and don't get started on Bayesian approaches.

Although obviously Prof Peston is an expert.

Yup, although Peter Hitchens did amuse us all as he proved how thick innumerate he really is when he decided to educate us on all things ‘stochastic’.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1258679760902934528

Lol, I forgot about that one...

rottenborough said:

Gardenwalker said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

Sounds like you need to change schools.

I am delighted with the absence of “conspicuous woke” at my daughter’s school so far (she is 6) but concede that it may be more obvious as she gets older.

Alfred the Great did a lot of community work in what is now known as England.

So I suggest the daughter presses on with her original intent.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Lee Hurst has broken twitter, or at least got Black Death trending.

Has anyone got any pictures of people receiving vaccinations during the Black Death?
Surely everyone must have been vaccinated back then or else how did we survive as a species?
https://twitter.com/LeeHurstComic/status/1405423188297797633

He's turning into a bigger bellend that Matt Le Tissier, who spread the antivaxxer nonsense that Christian Eriksen had his cardiac arrest because he had his Covid-19 vaccine.

https://twitter.com/mattletiss7/status/1404351111490854914

Spoiler Alert: Eriksen has yet to be vaccinated.

AnExileinD4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

AnExileinD4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Chant in a Scottish pub during Scotland v Czech Republic 'if you hate the f***ing English clap your hands'
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/1405469773698416641?s=20

Are you new to the concept of banter?

You could get the same in a Liverpool pub about Manchester if they were about to face each other in the Champions League. Or FA Cup. Or its a Saturday.

Banter is rarely anything other than cover for racism, sexism and bigotry.

beentheredonethat said:

OldKingCole said:

beentheredonethat said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Cookie said:

CarlottaVance said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

For anyone who missed it: Andrew Neil’s 30 minute interview with the Chancellor.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Yk7PY07BNg

Regardless of any other merit, the Sunak interview got GB News into the papers, which was probably its main aim.

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
8h
This is the most uncomfortable I’ve seen Rishi Sunak in quite a while.


Sunak fans ould pause and watch the clip Dan Hodges has there. Looking well under pressure over £10K bill for new boilers for every family.

As Sunak says, what £10k bill? He rightly pointed out that (a) "costs" always get balanced against "opportunity" and whatever the cost is now won't be the cost by the time they are rolling it out.

Isn't the problem with retrofitting heat pumps that the radiators need to be replaced by bigger ones too, because of the lower operating temperature of the system?

So, opportunity - British design and manufacturing of all these new pumps and radiators, British installation of them. Which will generate a bucket load of money for the economy.

Neil is a dinosaur, asking the tired "how much will it cost" question not interested in "how much will it save" and "how much will doing nothing cost".

The majority of voters, especially the working classes and the Red Wall, care very much about the cost.

It’s also fair to ask why the British consumer is being asked to contribute so much, when the same isn’t true of much larger countries such as the US and China.

Having spent 15 years in a red wall WC town I am aware of this. "We can't afford it" has been drilled into them by opportunistic Tories to destroy Labour as the party who wastes money. Job done, the red wall is blue. Now then, we need to hose the blue wall with money. But "we can't afford it" and "how much will it cost".

I've had punters arguing on Facebook against spending money regenerating their own high street. The more the regen progresses and the more it gets lauded by experts as the model for other towns the more they shriek about the costs.

We either invest in stuff or we stay broken and crap. There is no £10k per household bill and the people asking the question know this. As for "why us and not China" we don't live in China. Our kids don't go to school in China. People have benefited massively from various clean air measures yet so many of our kids still go to schools where they breathe polluted air. Time to do more for their sake and let China do their own thing.

I do sometimes wonder whether a form of self-hatred or Stockholm syndrome has taken over with elements of the English working class. It's like they don't think they deserve any better. Even Brexit - touted as the second peasants' revolt by folk on here, seems to be more about hurting other people (foreigners, Londoners, the 'metropolitan elite') than anything else.

I suspect a lot of them want "higher wages" and by removing a pool of cheap accessible labour from the market they may very well get them.

And people think they're thick....

Yes, indeed they ARE getting them. Wages for the C2s and Ds have risen in a way not seen in the last 20 years.

It's so simple, and has happened time and time again in British history. When there are fewer people to do the skilled labour and/or the grunt work, the wages commanded for that work increase and the lot of those workers improves.

There has been a lot of magical thinking in my lifetime that immigration makes us richer and to say otherwise is somehow taboo. It increases our GDP, sure, because there are more of us. And if you're trying to employ someone you can do it more cheaply. I remember a geography GCSE question in which I was invited to discuss the benefits to the UK of immigration - the drawbacks weren't to be mentioned. But in reality it doesn't do a lot for most individual Britons.

Wages are higher in certain sectors because of a shortage of labour. Thats only partially due to "forriners go home" Brexit effects - the logistics industry is suffering because of IR35 just as much.

The harsh light of day for the British worker is that there are a stack of jobs they just don't want to do. We had to open the door to EU staff in the first place because locals don't want to clean offices or serve coffee or look after the elderly or work in a factory.

Now that some EU workers have left there is a shortage which is driving wages higher - but isn't filling the shortages because people still don't want those jobs.

Living on the backs of cheap EU labour is over, and in the end the pay will have to increase to attract the workers

I think the government will have to come up with immigration schemes for care workers. They have a delivery obligation. Wages will find their own levels elsewhere in the economy. ie GDP will contract in relative terms, to match. Some wages will go up and some will go down, but likely better terms for the low paid at the expense of fewer higher paid jobs. Which may be a desirable thing...

Or how about they just pay care workers more than minimum wage?

Care workers looking after the vulnerable for 12 hours a day, wiping people's bums and dealing with dementia, incontinence, and generally tough work . . . how is it that is a minimum wage job earning less than what eg a waiter earns? Since a waiter will get minimum wage plus tips.

Even pre-pandemic, pre-Brexit ~83% of care staff in the UK were British and half the non-British staff were not EU either so the notion we're reliant upon immigration to fill these roles has never been true. Pay a decent wage for these jobs and they'll get filled.

Many care workers are not actually paid by their employers, but by the state. By this I mean that there are quite a few care companies, whether residential or home care, which rely on contracts or similar from Government (including Local) contracts. So until we, the state, are prepared to pay more in taxes to fund such contracts, wages for the staff cannot rise.

Or, alternatively, the companies can take the higher wage costs out of director bonuses or corporate profits. Not everything has to lead to higher taxes.

Some could, indeed, but not all. And if you have 100 staff and your directors bonuses add up to 25k, that's not not going to make a big difference.

Any company that can’t pay the wages will go out of business. However the link below shows there is plenty of fat on some of the bones
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/03/22/revealed-the-pay-disparities-in-social-care/

Ah, the Byline Times. Socialist Worker for the Waitrose shopper.

Always read your name as an exile in Darfur. And think - crikey, what has he done to deserve that fate?

No thanks. I've been to Khartoum a few times though.

kinabalu said:

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

Didn't Alfred the Great do any community work in his local area?

Flatlander said:

Malmesbury said:

Flatlander said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

I wonder if this is happening because the people doing this modelling aren't used to dealing with real world data at the speed we are getting it.

In previous pandemics nobody has had the genetic sequence of half the cases a few days after they were sampled. The amount of information we are getting is utterly unprecedented.

The academics have spent years cooking up models based on theoretical modelling of previous pandemics and using theoretical inputs because they haven't got real ones. The models are thus designed to produce scientific papers and discussion.

Perhaps it is difficult to switch to the culture of real-time analysis? Where pet theories go out the window faster then you can say hmmm, that doesn't look right?

Partly yes.

My theory is that they have been conditioned that there are three categories of data

1) Peer reviewed, published - TRUTH
2) Modelled guesswork - WORKING HYPOTHESIS
3) Pre-publication, real world, numbers - which almost DO NOT EXIST

What they are unaccustomed to is huge, real world datasets, whose conclusions are so clear that they don't need peer review to go from 1 -> 3 in quality.

Most formal peer review doesn't check the numbers properly anyway. Does any reviewer write their own interpretation of a model to check there are no bugs in the output? Of course they don't...

Nigel_Foremain said:

maaarsh said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

Yikes. It gets even worse. Looks like the government might have known that the data was old and duff... @Tissue_Price MP is on it like a bonnet...

For Warwick University's models, that would mean their death estimates could fall from 72,400 to 17,100. While the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said there could be 33,200 deaths in an optimistic scenario.

On Wednesday, MPs on the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee grilled Dr Susan Hopkins about using out of date data in their modelling.

Committee chair Greg Clark, a former Tory science minister, said: 'Wouldn't it have been possible given the relatively new real world data, to say actually, in the light of this data, we need a few more days to assess it, before we decide what is going to be the right implications of public policy?'

He added that the UK's Covid crisis had been 'beset by uncertainties and difficulties with modelling evidence informing government policy decisions'.

Mr Clark called for the models to be redone as soon as possible 'so that, as the Prime Minister promised, a reappraisal can be made and a change made if it's justified'.

Dr Hopkins said she was in 'no doubt' that SAGE would plug the new figures into heir models.

But Tory MP Aaron Bell suggested it was too late and that the new data may have altered 'the case for the continuation of restrictions'.

He added: 'The models that we seem to be relying on to justify the extension of restrictions don't appear to be using [the PHE] numbers.

'This is really important because the number of deaths that those numbers ultimately forecast, are for people who have had both doses, so if they have been using numbers that are now superseded, doesn't that alter the case for the continuation of restrictions?'

'We are voting in the House of Commons on the basis of those models. And it's obviously very good news. These numbers are coming out so far ahead of even the optimistic scenarios that have been modelled.'

Fuck me - what a set of absolute bell ends. Why can we see the issues straight away but the effing cabinet can't?

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, the cabinet only has one person who has any scientific training and she is the Work and Pensions bod. They really don't understand. They all are "totally fucking hopeless".

However if there is ever a crisis where there is a requirement for an understanding of Politics Philosophy and Economics, particularly if it involves an understanding of Ancient Greek we will be very well managed.

Scientific training in this context is a bit over-rated. For modelling any good accountant in industry, or dare I say it, M&A banker, is perfectly capable of building something sensible themselves or interogating one presented to them - and there really shouldn't be a shortage of those in parliament, just perhaps not in the right roles at the moment.

Interesting comment, and true, up to a point. It would be useful if a few people in cabinet understood the scientific mindset in addition to understanding how to model numbers. Sadly it seems neither of these skillsets are present. If we needed the ability to write a polemic in half an hour, or the philosophy of right wing politics in the 21st century then that would be well within the cabinet's comfort zone.

Foxy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I must admit growing up in the 90s I did find the Secret Seven and Famous Five at times hard to read.

Not because of any -isms, but because some of the language used and the world it depicts was quite alien to me.

I knew what neither "ginger beer" was nor what a "lashing" was, for example, but also the portrayal of figures like Quentin's complete indifference to his own child, nieces and nephews.

I remember reading the Jennings books with similar bewilderment in the Seventies. I enjoyed the tales but couldn't really understand why the boys had to stay in school all the time. I was unclear what the difference between Boarding School and Borstal was.

Charles said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

English Heritage says Enid Blyton was shit, xenophobic and racist.

Is there any of our heritage these ideologues actually like?

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/enid-blyton-racist-english-heritage-b1867577.html

You're a Blyton fan then. So who's your favourite Fiver? Not sure who mine is. Certainly not Julian. What an entitled arrogant chap he is. He's the Patriarchy writ large.

Yes, as a child the Faraway Tree and the Enchanted Wood opened up my imagination. I absolutely loved those books, and got lost in them. I intend to buy them again for my daughter.

Kids don't care about the stuff The Guardian like to hand-wring about; they like good stories from any age and any period in history.

Of course the story and quality of the writing is the main thing. Stuff with great role models and diversity and excellent values is no good to anybody if it's also boring and turgid. But OTOH, you have a daughter, would you be happy with her reading loads of the "fairytale princess yearning for handsome prince to come get her" type classics material?

I bet you wouldn't. Why not? Because you recognize how toxic it can be. The assumption that girls are about grace and elegance and beauty, essentially passive, requiring a strong dynamic male to enable and deliver happiness and fulfillment. You can go OTT on this, and some do, but there are real issues here. The more we ditch these stereotypes the better imo. They can be comforting, but it's for the wrong reasons.

Oh bollocks. I read a load of this stuff when I was a girl. I wrote some as well as a child. It made absolutely no difference to my ambitions. What matters is having parents, especially a father, who believe in their daughter and give her the self-confidence to do and try whatever she wants. And fathers who teach their sons how to behave properly.

I have no doubt @CasinoRoyale will do that.

It is not stories which limit girls' opportunities but what men do and don't do. Focus on that rather than distractions which conveniently excuse men from looking at their own behaviour.

Role models (positive or negative) can be powerful, both in real life and fiction. Your individual personal history doesn't make this less true. And arguing against passive female stereotyping in fiction doesn't detract one iota from the push for gender equality in practice. That's a false either/or. It's like people saying if we didn't devote so much energy to taking the Knee and moaning about statues, we'd have racism licked by next Tuesday. Stuff like that, I submit, is the bollocks.

My daughter was told to write about someone who inspired her.

She proposed Alfred the Great… and was told that was unacceptable… was told it was more “appropriate” to write about someone who had done community work in their local area

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I must admit growing up in the 90s I did find the Secret Seven and Famous Five at times hard to read.

Not because of any -isms, but because some of the language used and the world it depicts was quite alien to me.

I knew what neither "ginger beer" was nor what a "lashing" was, for example, but also the portrayal of figures like Quentin's complete indifference to his own child, nieces and nephews.

I remember reading the Jennings books with similar bewilderment in the Seventies. I enjoyed the tales but couldn't really understand why the boys had to stay in school all the time. I was unclear what the difference between Boarding School and Borstal.

I did 2 years at boarding school. Not sure I worked that out either.