Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How those saying Green 6 months before an election actually voted – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
    But not out, as so many here predicted. We aren't out of COVID by a long way
    No, I think it will be sticky until April.
  • Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    stodge said:

    MattW said:


    Too ideological?

    LDs are *very* pragmatic.

    I got my nuts roasted when after C&A I dared to suggest on LDV that local policy being entirely different to national policy was a problem.

    It wasn't a problem until 2010 - even then it didn't have to be a problem but Nick Clegg was trapped into a coalition by some brilliant politics from David Cameron and William Hague and made two catastrophic unforced errors.

    A more politically savvy LD leader would have realised from historical experience that supping with either of the two other major parties required the longest of spoons.
    Which bit of historical experience out of interest? Bear in mind how glittering the prize was compared to his realistic expectations when he became an MP

    His catastrophic error was accepting the booby prize position of DPM. Great office of state or I walk, he should v said.
    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.
    Free REIN please - means letting a horse do what it likes.

    Alexander looked more substantial than clegg precisely because of having a proper job.
    I thought it was reign as in leadership, like a monarch.

    The PM doesn't have a "proper job" of doing an actual department because he has his finger in every pie. Clegg did too. If he'd limited himself to one department could he have kept as close an eye on all the others?
    Rein like the horse thing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
    But not out, as so many here predicted. We aren't out of COVID by a long way
    It depends upon how you define out.

    If you mean out of needing legal restrictions, we've been out since July.

    If you mean out as in having no more deaths, then we'll never be out. That's like saying being out of flu, or out of common cold.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    HYUFD said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Death rates are still far below January. The remaining rise in cases is mainly amongst under 30s and especially under 18s most of whom have not yet been fully vaccinated.

    Otherwise if we do not accept vaccinations are the way out and just rely on masks and lockdowns again as soon as we get a rise in cases, especially as we head into winter, we will never get out. Masks and lockdowns will be with us for the rest of our lives
    This indeed is the conundrum. If we buckle now, we are effectively saying that masks and restrictions on mixing are a valid countermeasure to respiratory pathogens, even when we have substantial levels of immunity. That ends… never.
  • There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    Antisemitism was real and not pathetic pointscoring false equivalence. That's the difference.

    Being against Islamic extremism is no more racism than being against Christian extremism is.
  • Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
    But not out, as so many here predicted. We aren't out of COVID by a long way
    No, I think it will be sticky until April.
    I think we will have to live with covid as we do with flu

    Yearly covid and flu vaccinations seem a certainty
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    We were out of COVID in July. Who got out before us?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    I do remember the general hilarity, even among LibDem MPs, when Harriet Harman politely asked Clegg if he could give an update on progress towards abolition.
    Yep, it did for the LDs what Iraq did for New Labour. A self inflicted blow that knocked them out for a couple of decades.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 618
    It has been very hard to predict the course of this pandemic and I have been wrong several times, although right on occasions too. I am firmly of the belief that within the next 2 weeks cases will be declining. My logic is:
    • Something strange has been happening with testing in the SW causing an artificial peak which will start to wind out
    • Half term is just starting and many parts of the country are off for 2 weeks
    • There are very few school kids left to infect. This one I'm less certain of than the others but anecdotally I have heard Covid has just gone completely through so many schools.
    I will hold my hand up in 2 weeks if I am wrong (again).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
  • Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    Antisemitism was real and not pathetic pointscoring false equivalence. That's the difference.

    Being against Islamic extremism is no more racism than being against Christian extremism is.
    Islamophobia is real and distressing to many Muslims, you voted for a party that tolerates it.

    If you want to attack Mike and I for supporting a party that tolerated anti-Semitism, the best you could do is apologise for supporting a party that did the same for Islamophobia.

    It's not false equivalence at all, it's pointing out hypocrisy from people that claim to be "anti racists".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,484
    Foxy said:

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    I do remember the general hilarity, even among LibDem MPs, when Harriet Harman politely asked Clegg if he could give an update on progress towards abolition.
    Yep, it did for the LDs what Iraq did for New Labour. A self inflicted blow that knocked them out for a couple of decades.
    Not exactly, New Labour was re elected in 2005 after Iraq under Blair even with a smaller majority, it only lost power in 2010 under Brown.

    The LDs however were near wiped out in 2015 after backing higher tuition fees, not only losing power as the Conservatives won a majority but also losing over 80% of their MPs
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    Antisemitism was real and not pathetic pointscoring false equivalence. That's the difference.

    Being against Islamic extremism is no more racism than being against Christian extremism is.
    Islamophobia is real and distressing to many Muslims, you voted for a party that tolerates it.

    If you want to attack Mike and I for supporting a party that tolerated anti-Semitism, the best you could do is apologise for supporting a party that did the same for Islamophobia.

    It's not false equivalence at all, it's pointing out hypocrisy from people that claim to be "anti racists".
    Oh bullshit is it real.

    What evidence of 'Islamophobia' do you have? And attacking the misogynistic burqa isn't Islamophobia.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,992
    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Presumably over 10 million voters who went for Labour should be ashamed of themselves too, in your thoroughly objective view? How patronising.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    No, gonna have to stop you there. You are too intelligent not to know what rubbish that equivalence is.

    And let's not make it easy for you with mealy mouthed nonsense about Corbyn tolerating anything. He is patently anti semitic himself.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,992

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Vaccines are the way out though. But even against the original Covid the vaccines weren’t 100%. And a lot of those dying are unvaccinated fools. It’s been complicated, but we are in a massively better position now than we’ve been since feb 2020.
    But not out, as so many here predicted. We aren't out of COVID by a long way
    No, I think it will be sticky until April.
    Which year? :)
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 15,215
    edited October 22
    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    No, gonna have to stop you there. You are too intelligent not to know what rubbish that equivalence is.

    And let's not make it easy for you with mealy mouthed nonsense about Corbyn tolerating anything. He is patently anti semitic himself.
    I already said Corbyn was anti-Semitic previously - and happy to do so again.

    If you believe in anti-racism then to vote for either party in GE19 was a disgrace, that's the truth of it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    The turbulence of recent years has killed off most of the fear of the SNP - the pandemic and Brexit are such big things that Scotland having another vote on whether to go their own way feels quite second order. And it's not as though Sturgeon was especially terrifying in either personality or policies. As for the "coalition of chaos", if the Tories try that one again people will just laugh.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    edited October 22
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    I do remember the general hilarity, even among LibDem MPs, when Harriet Harman politely asked Clegg if he could give an update on progress towards abolition.
    Yep, it did for the LDs what Iraq did for New Labour. A self inflicted blow that knocked them out for a couple of decades.
    Not exactly, New Labour was re elected in 2005 after Iraq under Blair even with a smaller majority, it only lost power in 2010 under Brown.

    The LDs however were near wiped out in 2015 after backing higher tuition fees, not only losing power as the Conservatives won a majority but also losing over 80% of their MPs
    Sure, the loss of credibility over Iraq is the root of why Labour is so divided, but it took more than one election to demolish that majority. The Left know that the New Labour Centrists cannot be trusted.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    I remember Professor Sir John Bell saying several months ago - and posting on here - that people were living on another planet if they thought zerocovid was possible.

    I note there are still adherents to that credo. “Out of covid” indeed. Really?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    No, gonna have to stop you there. You are too intelligent not to know what rubbish that equivalence is.

    And let's not make it easy for you with mealy mouthed nonsense about Corbyn tolerating anything. He is patently anti semitic himself.
    I already said Corbyn was anti-Semitic previously - and happy to do so again.

    If you believe in anti-racism then to vote for either party in GE19 was a disgrace, that's the truth of it.
    Nonsense.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    'William Hague recounts the story of how — after a day negotiating the coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010 — his wife Ffion asked how he had got on. “I think I’ve killed the Liberal Democrats,” he replied.'

    https://www.ft.com/content/45f73818-d17e-11e4-ad3a-00144feab7de
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    We were out of COVID in July. Who got out before us?
    Don't forget CHB thinks ending restrictions is a bad thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,484
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Somebody can explain how the Lib Dems went from scrapping tuition fees to voting to increase them

    I do remember the general hilarity, even among LibDem MPs, when Harriet Harman politely asked Clegg if he could give an update on progress towards abolition.
    Yep, it did for the LDs what Iraq did for New Labour. A self inflicted blow that knocked them out for a couple of decades.
    Not exactly, New Labour was re elected in 2005 after Iraq under Blair even with a smaller majority, it only lost power in 2010 under Brown.

    The LDs however were near wiped out in 2015 after backing higher tuition fees, not only losing power as the Conservatives won a majority but also losing over 80% of their MPs
    Sure, the loss of credibility over Iraq is the root of why Labour is so divided, but it took more than one election to demolish that majority. The Left know that the New Labour Centrists cannot be trusted.
    However New Labour Centrists are the only ones who can get them into power, certainly in England
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
    And the longer dosing regimen provides enhanced and longer-lasting protection, so those on the 3-week dosing strategy should be boosting earlier.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,484

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    The turbulence of recent years has killed off most of the fear of the SNP - the pandemic and Brexit are such big things that Scotland having another vote on whether to go their own way feels quite second order. And it's not as though Sturgeon was especially terrifying in either personality or policies. As for the "coalition of chaos", if the Tories try that one again people will just laugh.
    I do accept an indyref2 is likely if Starmer forms a minority government with SNP confidence and supply, with Starmer probably offering devomax as an incentive to vote against independence
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    No, gonna have to stop you there. You are too intelligent not to know what rubbish that equivalence is.

    And let's not make it easy for you with mealy mouthed nonsense about Corbyn tolerating anything. He is patently anti semitic himself.
    I already said Corbyn was anti-Semitic previously - and happy to do so again.

    If you believe in anti-racism then to vote for either party in GE19 was a disgrace, that's the truth of it.
    Nonsense.
    I don't think it is nonsense, I think it's very true.

    We can debate to the degree to which party was worse - and I think it was Labour, albeit I say that in hindsight after viewing the EHRC report - but both parties clearly had/have issues with racism that were very present.

    Starmer is dealing with Labour's, Johnson is not dealing with his. I stand by what I said, if you voted for either party in GE19 on anti-racist credentials that should have been disgraceful.

    I apologised for supporting Corbyn and for supporting Labour - I would have abstained or voted Lib Dem if I had my time again - but I am honest enough to do that. Others on the Tory side - with a few exceptions - are not.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    We were out of COVID in July. Who got out before us?
    Don't forget CHB thinks ending restrictions is a bad thing.
    He probably believes that "even a single death is a tragedy" meally-mouthed bullshit that people spout and is expecting us to go down to zero deaths.

    We've had zero restrictions and flattish deaths for months now. No exponential growth. That is out. This is real life with an endemic disease.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    HYUFD said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Death rates are still far below January. The remaining rise in cases is mainly amongst under 30s and especially under 18s most of whom have not yet been fully vaccinated.

    Otherwise if we do not accept vaccinations are the way out and just rely on masks and lockdowns again as soon as we get a rise in cases, especially as we head into winter, we will never get out. Masks and lockdowns will be with us for the rest of our lives
    This indeed is the conundrum. If we buckle now, we are effectively saying that masks and restrictions on mixing are a valid countermeasure to respiratory pathogens, even when we have substantial levels of immunity. That ends… never.
    Its why demands for more restrictions are getting louder from authoritarians.

    If they don't have them before vaccinations complete the job then they might never get another chance.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    HYUFD said:

    Agree re any nuance being lost in the debate.

    But I think some should accept that predictions that deaths would have been eliminated by now and that cases would have fallen through the floor, that vaccines were the total way out of this, have surely been proved wrong

    Death rates are still far below January. The remaining rise in cases is mainly amongst under 30s and especially under 18s most of whom have not yet been fully vaccinated.

    Otherwise if we do not accept vaccinations are the way out and just rely on masks and lockdowns again as soon as we get a rise in cases, especially as we head into winter, we will never get out. Masks and lockdowns will be with us for the rest of our lives
    This indeed is the conundrum. If we buckle now, we are effectively saying that masks and restrictions on mixing are a valid countermeasure to respiratory pathogens, even when we have substantial levels of immunity. That ends… never.
    Its why demands for more restrictions are getting louder from authoritarians.

    If they don't have them before vaccinations complete the job then they might never get another chance.
    Although it was kind of cool to see virtually no flu deaths though, I do agree that the cost/disruption is too much to justify on a long-term basis.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    MattW said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    FPT for @Richard_Tyndall

    Given it's Friday evening, thought I'd have a look at booze (from Middle English bousen, to drink, which came from Middle Dutch buysen, to drink heavily, and before that from Proto-Germanic beuzą, one of their terms for beer)

    I'll start with beer, which joined us - unsurprisingly - from German bier. The origin for bier is apparently much disputed, and hard to trace as it's been used for about 1400 years. I'm happy to go with the quite common idea that it was borrowed by West Germanic 6C monks from Vulgar Latin biber, a drink, from Latin bibere to drink.

    If you fancy a lager, you might want to give it a while. Again from German, but not at all disputed, lagerbier is literally storehouse beer, or beer to be laid down. Lager for storehouse, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root that we get the verb 'to lay' from.

    Ale, guess what, comes from Germany! Much longer ago, as ealu the Old English word shows. It is derived from Proto-Germanic aluth another word for beer. This may have a more interesting root , as it might be from Proto-Indo-European alu- which indicates magic, sorcery and intoxication.

    Prost!

    Evening Blanche

    Love the etymology posts.

    So here is one I was hoping you could help me with.

    Looking at wikipedia and various other sources, the word Constable is said to derive from he Latin "comes stabuli" (attendant to the stables).

    Wiki also mentions that in France there was a title of 'Connétable de France' or Constable of France.

    This latter ties in with what I was originally taught at University which is that Constable derives from Conné Table - or 'Known at the table' and it referred to the highest ranking commoner, usually the Steward of a castle, was known at (permitted to sit at) the table of the Lord.

    Have you come across this? I can't seem to find any other references to it.
    Hi Richard, I'm glad you're enjoying them!

    I only know of the Latin comes stabuli etymology for Constable, but am intrigued by the Conné Table idea. Sadly I haven't been able to find anything to support it either.

    The fact that the verb connaître has past participle connu, and doesn't conjugate to conné anywhere, makes me slightly sceptical of it, but that's not necessarily a problem - the Latin etymology changes m to nn and drops the s!

    I noticed from my quick searches that Connétable seems to still be an official position (elected parish head) in the Channel Islands, and a Brittany brand of sardines.
    OTOH comes tabulae would work if we think tabula may have supplanted mensa at some stage, and comes (s)tabulae/I are hardly distinguishable.
    Evening both.

    "Constable" is still an office in certain parts of the Church of England, with the position going back nearly 1000 years. CofE tradition often acts as a lens onto older offices and language, often for example parish boundaries still follow medieval boundaries.

    There are several Cathedrals (eg York Minster) that have Cathedral Constabularies, who are responsible for security in the Cathedral and its precincts (another similar word), and specifically night watch. In York Minster it dates back to 1109.

    I also know of one Cathedral with a (hopefully unused now) prison cell - Durham. But there must be others.

    The Churchwarden of a normal parish church is also a constable (not sure how formal the title is) in that they have an extant power of arrest for offences committed in the church / churhyard. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act iirc.

    One more. In one British translation of the Bible - I think the New English Bible from around 1950-60 - the word "Constable" is used in a parable about settling disputes. Also one American version from the 1970s - the New American Standard Bible, Luke 12:58:

    For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, in order that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.


    To me in an English context, that has a feel of the Constable being the official responsible for the local prison cell in the village centre. Other version use "Officer".

    OF course we also used to have the "Parish Constable" in the parish tier of local government, and before that when ecclesiastical parishes had a role in government.

    Refs:
    https://pathways.churchofengland.org/job/pathways/2354/cathedral-constable-liverpool-cathedral
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_constable
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Minster_Police
    https://biblehub.com/luke/12-58.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Bible

    York Minster Police:

    Your post took me down a rabbit hole that led me to discover that there is an office of state called the Chief Butler of England.

    It is currently in abeyance as 3 people disputed who had the right to serve King Edward VII at his coronation banquet and no decision was ever made…
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    No, gonna have to stop you there. You are too intelligent not to know what rubbish that equivalence is.

    And let's not make it easy for you with mealy mouthed nonsense about Corbyn tolerating anything. He is patently anti semitic himself.
    I already said Corbyn was anti-Semitic previously - and happy to do so again.

    If you believe in anti-racism then to vote for either party in GE19 was a disgrace, that's the truth of it.
    Nonsense.
    I don't think it is nonsense, I think it's very true.

    We can debate to the degree to which party was worse - and I think it was Labour, albeit I say that in hindsight after viewing the EHRC report - but both parties clearly had/have issues with racism that were very present.

    Starmer is dealing with Labour's, Johnson is not dealing with his. I stand by what I said, if you voted for either party in GE19 on anti-racist credentials that should have been disgraceful.

    I apologised for supporting Corbyn and for supporting Labour - I would have abstained or voted Lib Dem if I had my time again - but I am honest enough to do that. Others on the Tory side - with a few exceptions - are not.
    Because there's nothing to apologise for.

    Quite the opposite, you should be prepared to do more to call out people engaging in vile misogyny, homophobia, violence or other extremism in the name of a wicked religion. Instead people defend the burqa etc rather than call it out for the anti-female misogynistic evil that it is.

    For moderate mainstream Muslims who don't get involved in any of that bullshit because they're not misognyistic arseholes trying to oppress their women or kill them to maintain honour, then you lumping the burqa which has nothing to do with Islam and is entirely cultural as "Islamophobia" is offensive.
  • whoisz_whoisz_ Posts: 3

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    Tolerated anti-Semitism is false narrative just pushed by these Zionists. Give me a break, mate
    You should be ashed of yourself.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    AlistairM said:

    It has been very hard to predict the course of this pandemic and I have been wrong several times, although right on occasions too. I am firmly of the belief that within the next 2 weeks cases will be declining. My logic is:

    • Something strange has been happening with testing in the SW causing an artificial peak which will start to wind out
    • Half term is just starting and many parts of the country are off for 2 weeks
    • There are very few school kids left to infect. This one I'm less certain of than the others but anecdotally I have heard Covid has just gone completely through so many schools.
    I will hold my hand up in 2 weeks if I am wrong (again).
    You can add:

    There will be millions more booster doses in the next few weeks.
    The anti-vaxxers are steadily being burnt through.
  • My comments on Johnson tolerating Islamophobia go far deeper than his moronic comments about the burqa. Islamophobia in the Tory Party is well documented and understood. I trust the views of people like Sayeeda Warsi who say the Tories have a problem with it.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 276
    edited October 22
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour lead by the end of this year, must almost be nailed on at this point, surely?

    And does anyone think we are not headed for total chaos with COVID? How has this happened again.

    A Labour lead on seats and votes even if Starmer becomes PM is unlikely. Absent a big recovery in Scotland it will be the SNP Labour needs to put Starmer in No 10 if he gets a hung parliament
    Starmer will just dare the SNP to vote him down.

    People aren't getting it, he spends so much time attacking Sturgeon specifically because he's seen the coming attacks on him of being in Nicola's pocket. He needs that image gone quickly as that will be his undoing.

    I think any idea the Cons will be governing with the DUP will be also unpopular. I keep saying it but it is really in Labour's interest for the Lib Dems to take lots of Southern seats, it should stay out of these places like Guildford and Winchester completely.

    I think NOM is value and I think in time this will become clearer.
    That's not how it works. Almost certainly he'll need SNP support.
    Are they going to join the Tories in the division lobbies then, if he doesn't do deal with them?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    Meanwhile, I’m just back from the pub. Where life is … normal. Had a good dinner, several pints of ale and an enjoyable chat. I suppose I’m in some sort of dovish London bubble where complacency reigns. Perhaps so. But I like normality too much to question it much.
  • Is Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitic. Yes I think he is.

    Was/is Labour institutionally anti-Semitic. Yes.

    Does the Tory Party have an Islamophobia problem and has Johnson not dealt with it and tolerated it. Yes.

    That is my view on the matter. Sayeeda Warsi has said as much.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    My comments on Johnson tolerating Islamophobia go far deeper than his moronic comments about the burqa. Islamophobia in the Tory Party is well documented and understood. I trust the views of people like Sayeeda Warsi who say the Tories have a problem with it.

    Whether the Conservatives have a problem with Islamaphobia or not it didn't stop Sayeeda Warsi from reaching the cabinet without managing to get elected to anything.
  • I am utterly ashamed of supporting Labour in GE19, I hope people here will understand and acknowledge that I have said that on many occasions and happy to say so again. I am not proud of myself for what I said or did around that period and if I could change time I would have voted for Burnham in 2015.

    But I am willing to hold my hands up, others are not. And yet these same people attack me, that's for them.

    I am off to bed :)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435

    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I'm not that bothered by compulsory vaccinations, because they've been shown to be so effective.
    If we have to have compulsion involved then it should be of something which is most effective and which is refused by the fewest number of people.
    I approve of vaccination like anyone sane, but I'd draw the line at making it actually compulsory, in the sense of "three strong men hold you down while they do it". Banning people who haven't had a vaccine from anywhere crowded, sure. It ought to be a bloody nuisance to be unvaccinated (genuine conditions excepted), and I'm fine with shops, stations, schools and restaurants requiring evidence.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    The SNP will never back a Tory government.

    As a result the SNP will never demand IndyRef2 as a precondition of supporting a minority Labour government because Starmer would say "No IndyRef, what you gonna do, let the Tories in?" and that would be that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    My comments on Johnson tolerating Islamophobia go far deeper than his moronic comments about the burqa. Islamophobia in the Tory Party is well documented and understood. I trust the views of people like Sayeeda Warsi who say the Tories have a problem with it.

    Whether the Conservatives have a problem with Islamaphobia or not it didn't stop Sayeeda Warsi from reaching the cabinet without managing to get elected to anything.
    She should have been expelled from the party years ago for her links to extremists: https://www.thejc.com/news/features/puzzle-of-baroness-sayeeda-warsi-s-links-with-islamist-group-1.463152

    There is a reason why she is the go-to critic of the Conservative Party for so-called "Islamophobia" which is that when actually dig beneath the surface merely standing up to extremists is getting called Islamophobic; it is absolutely disgusting.

    Anyone saying that is either an Islamic extremist, has an incredibly low regard of Muslims thinking extremists are mainstream and not to be criticised, or is a point scoring buffoon.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    rcs1000 said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    Agreed. There's no reason to vote tactically in a safe seat. So even the 26% who went Labour in 2015 may have been significantly more in marginals.

    I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the fact that the Greens are overtaking the LibDems in some polls. Insofar as the LibDem vote is a "plague on both your houses" vote rather than a vote for their policies, they may be at risk of being displaced as the third party nationally. They could really do with a deal giving them a clear run in Blue Wall seats in exchange for some middle-class lomdon seats where the Greens could do very well.

    I wonder what would happen if Corbyn was denied a Labour seat and joined the Greens?
    The Green share is definitely on the way up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election), but mostly the LibDems are on 8-10%, and the Greens (except YouGov and "Number Cruncher Politics") are mostly on 5-7%.

    One would think that the Greens would eclipse the LibDems, as has happened in other European countries.

    The problem is that to achieve that - IMHO - they need to start winning real elections: councils, byelections, etc. And that's not really happening.

    Let's look at the four byelections that have happened this parliament.

    In the Hartlepool byelection, they got just 1.2%.
    They didn't stand in Airdrie & Shots (?! why ?!)
    They lost their deposit and went backwards in Chesham & Amersham
    They didn't stand in Batley & Spen

    That's not the performance of a political party that is interested in winning and exercising power. They should be fighting every byelection and beating the LibDems there, and in council elections, etc.

    Otherwise they're a pressure group, not a political party.
    The Greens don't seem to have the capability to do the intense campaigning that wins seats.
    Nor the organisation. I volunteered to help in one of their top targets last time, where supposedly they had sent a full-time organiser. But there was no organisation. The liberals in the 1970s were better campaigners.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771
    whoisz_ said:

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Who did you vote for? If it was Boris Johnson you voted for somebody who tolerates Islamophobia - but that racism is acceptable for some reason
    Tolerated anti-Semitism is false narrative just pushed by these Zionists. Give me a break, mate
    You should be ashed of yourself.
    Valid point, I suspect CHB has Rothschild money behind him. Saturdays by appointment only, if you get my drift.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    Meanwhile, I’m just back from the pub. Where life is … normal. Had a good dinner, several pints of ale and an enjoyable chat. I suppose I’m in some sort of dovish London bubble where complacency reigns. Perhaps so. But I like normality too much to question it much.

    I think its like that everywhere for those who want to participate.

    Sadly there are some who are cowering in their own homes and others who resent that people are enjoying themselves.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 9,364


    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.

    Certainly, Clegg, Alexander and Cameron blocked Osborne's tax plans immediately before the 2012 Budget when he wanted to raise the personal allowance level for the higher level of tax.

    As to the last paragraph, the collapse in LD poll ratings from 2011 offered the Conservatives the opportunity to regain the seats they had lost from 1997 (and before) and the Conservatives were actively campaigning in seats like Cheltenham, Carshalton & Wallington and St Ives from 2012. The depleted and weakened LDs were in no position to respond and unfortunately deluded themselves pace Denis Norden "it would be all right on the night". It wasn't.

    The Conservatives worked out their GE plan - take enough seats off the LDs while convincing the English in particular any Labour minority Government would be in the pocket of Salmond's SNP.

    The Coalition was only going to be one term - that was the deal from the start. Had there been a Coalition 2.0, it would have required an electoral pact which neither party would have accepted and in any case the beneficiaries of such a seat might have been Labour.

    Unfortunately for Cameron, he had committed to a referendum on the EU in the event of winning a majority - he thought it would be on a re-negotiated membership deal which he could sell to a sceptical electorate but instead it ended up being an In-Out vote which has brought us to where we are now.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 276
    edited October 22
    Alistair said:

    The SNP will never back a Tory government.

    As a result the SNP will never demand IndyRef2 as a precondition of supporting a minority Labour government because Starmer would say "No IndyRef, what you gonna do, let the Tories in?" and that would be that.

    I think what matters is crucially is whether Labour get more seats than the Tories.
    If Labour do, then the SNP would have to go in the same division lobby as the Tories to prevent a Labour minority government getting its legislation through. Can't see it.
    If Labour don't, then the SNP simply have to abstain and Starmer won't be able to get any of his policies through the Commons. After all, when it comes to legislation which is devolved in Scotland, the SNP could just claim that as a matter of principle they don't think they should get involved in English only matters.
    Labour wouldn't need to do a deal if they are in the former situation, but the latter might be a different story.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    If you compare the data from the UK and Germany, we currently have around 1000 hospital admissions per day to their 700, so the real differential in the number of cases must be much smaller than the statistics suggest.

    https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-infizierte-genesene-tote-alle-live-daten-a-242d71d5-554b-47b6-969a-cd920e8821f1

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
    And the longer dosing regimen provides enhanced and longer-lasting protection, so those on the 3-week dosing strategy should be boosting earlier.
    That's a really good point.

    Could that explain why countries like Germany and others are seeing a much higher CFR than the UK is right now?

    I've put it down to our much higher testing rates meaning we're probably catching more of our cases, but if the vaccine has faded their more (because they double-doses their vulnerable 3 weeks apart) and are running behind on boosters, then that could explain some of the difference.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    Pubs don't exist any more. Their essence was that they were places for very drunk people to smoke tobacco and fight each other, and if you don't recognise this description you are either very young or memory impaired. Legislation has put paid to those USPs, and what is left is inferior restaurants posing as pubs.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,893

    Charles said:

    MrEd said:

    Re Mike’s charts, one interpretation might be that Greens will switch to Labour when they see a Labour leader is radical eg Corbyn but won’t when they see an insipid Labour Labour eg Milliband.

    It also seems like that is a stronger driving factor than whether an election is close. For example, in 2015, which was thought to be close, Greens stuck with the Greens. In 2017, when people thought May would win a big majority, they went to Labour regardless.

    If point 1 is right, then I don’t think Mike’s assumption at the end of right. Starmer is unlikely to enthuse the Greens to switch to Labour.

    Everything depends on how things look in a particular seat. I voted for Corbyn's party last time in my super marginal because to me impeding Boris was the overwhelming priority.
    So you voted for someone who tolerated - at best - anti-semitism.

    You should be ashamed of yourself
    Presumably over 10 million voters who went for Labour should be ashamed of themselves too, in your thoroughly objective view? How patronising.
    You're trying to argue with a guy who thinks it's ok for Johnson to take a free holiday from someone he gave a peerage to because Johnson's wife works for said lord's half-brother... or something. All perfectly transparent and above-board.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    stodge said:


    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.

    Certainly, Clegg, Alexander and Cameron blocked Osborne's tax plans immediately before the 2012 Budget when he wanted to raise the personal allowance level for the higher level of tax.

    As to the last paragraph, the collapse in LD poll ratings from 2011 offered the Conservatives the opportunity to regain the seats they had lost from 1997 (and before) and the Conservatives were actively campaigning in seats like Cheltenham, Carshalton & Wallington and St Ives from 2012. The depleted and weakened LDs were in no position to respond and unfortunately deluded themselves pace Denis Norden "it would be all right on the night". It wasn't.

    The Conservatives worked out their GE plan - take enough seats off the LDs while convincing the English in particular any Labour minority Government would be in the pocket of Salmond's SNP.

    The Coalition was only going to be one term - that was the deal from the start. Had there been a Coalition 2.0, it would have required an electoral pact which neither party would have accepted and in any case the beneficiaries of such a seat might have been Labour.

    Unfortunately for Cameron, he had committed to a referendum on the EU in the event of winning a majority - he thought it would be on a re-negotiated membership deal which he could sell to a sceptical electorate but instead it ended up being an In-Out vote which has brought us to where we are now.
    Tbh I suspect Cameron didn’t expect to get a majority, and may not himself even have wanted one.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    Having a vaccine takes a few seconds. Wearing masks is something you have to do for a long period of time. That's why I don't mind vaccines but do mind mask wearing.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    IshmaelZ said:

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    Pubs don't exist any more. Their essence was that they were places for very drunk people to smoke tobacco and fight each other, and if you don't recognise this description you are either very young or memory impaired. Legislation has put paid to those USPs, and what is left is inferior restaurants posing as pubs.
    The usual effing trolling garbage from you.

    Lots of great, lovely pubs in London, and across England far and wide.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    Having a vaccine takes a few seconds. Wearing masks is something you have to do for a long period of time. That's why I don't mind vaccines but do mind mask wearing.
    Fine, but being compelled to have something injected into your body is a big deal nevertheless. Brave New World stuff.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 940

    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Here is a question for all those in favour of compulsory mask wearing.

    Would you be in favour of compulsory vaccination? Given it would affect only around 10% of the population (as opposed to everyone not exempt*) and be about a thousand times more effective at reducing transmission.

    And if not, why not?

    *Again your reminder that it is unlawful to demand proof of exemption from mask wearing so in practice nobody has to wear one.

    So...

    In Los Angeles, if you want to go to a public school (and are aged 12 and up), Covid vaccinations are compulsory. And they do this, because they'd rather have everyone jabbed than to have schooling be interrupted by constant people testing positive, and then them having to have homeschooling, and that disruption.

    It's a fine balance.
    I'm not that bothered by compulsory vaccinations, because they've been shown to be so effective.
    If we have to have compulsion involved then it should be of something which is most effective and which is refused by the fewest number of people.
    I approve of vaccination like anyone sane, but I'd draw the line at making it actually compulsory, in the sense of "three strong men hold you down while they do it". Banning people who haven't had a vaccine from anywhere crowded, sure. It ought to be a bloody nuisance to be unvaccinated (genuine conditions excepted), and I'm fine with shops, stations, schools and restaurants requiring evidence.
    This is another reason to vote conservative; these are the type of visions that they stop from becoming reality, either by design or just incompetence.

    We may end up with a half arsed vaccine passport scheme that works about as well as the app they tried to build last year. No harm done.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    edited October 22

    Alistair said:

    The SNP will never back a Tory government.

    As a result the SNP will never demand IndyRef2 as a precondition of supporting a minority Labour government because Starmer would say "No IndyRef, what you gonna do, let the Tories in?" and that would be that.

    I think what matters is crucially is whether Labour get more seats than the Tories.
    If Labour do, then the SNP would have to go in the same division lobby as the Tories to prevent a Labour minority government getting its legislation through. Can't see it.
    If Labour don't, then the SNP simply have to abstain and Starmer won't be able to get any of his policies through the Commons. After all, when it comes to legislation which is devolved in Scotland, the SNP could just claim that as a matter of principle they don't think they should get involved in English only matters.
    Labour wouldn't need to do a deal if they are in the former situation, but the latter might be a different story.
    Then we would need a second election. Labour would be in a strong position with the sitting PM, who stood up to the Scots, and, presumably, the Tories with either a defeated leader, a brand new untried leader or in an election.
    And the SNP might have a bit of explaining to do as to why they were risking another Tory government, having brought down a second Labour PM.
    The minor parties would be broke.
    Indeed, this is my number 1 scenario for a route to a Labour majority.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    Having a vaccine takes a few seconds. Wearing masks is something you have to do for a long period of time. That's why I don't mind vaccines but do mind mask wearing.
    Fine, but being compelled to have something injected into your body is a big deal nevertheless. Brave New World stuff.
    Being compelled to cover your face is also oppressive! That was why it was a clever question!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,893
    edited October 22

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
    And the longer dosing regimen provides enhanced and longer-lasting protection, so those on the 3-week dosing strategy should be boosting earlier.
    That's a really good point.

    Could that explain why countries like Germany and others are seeing a much higher CFR than the UK is right now?

    I've put it down to our much higher testing rates meaning we're probably catching more of our cases, but if the vaccine has faded their more (because they double-doses their vulnerable 3 weeks apart) and are running behind on boosters, then that could explain some of the difference.
    Why then are their current covid fatality numbers so much lower than ours?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    Aslan said:

    My comments on Johnson tolerating Islamophobia go far deeper than his moronic comments about the burqa. Islamophobia in the Tory Party is well documented and understood. I trust the views of people like Sayeeda Warsi who say the Tories have a problem with it.

    Sayeeda Warsi is too often on the side of Islamic extremists and takes any criticism of extremists as "Islamophobia".

    There is nothing "phobic" about criticising either a religion or extremists.
    The game people like Warsi play is to redefine "extremism" to mean "supportive of terrorism". If you think gays and adulterers should be stoned, women should only show a few square inches of flesh and white girls are promiscuous harlots that have it coming, then criticism of you is "Islamophobic".
    Absolutely. I've criticised Catholic and Protestant zealots all my life, and Islamic zealots can be as bad or even worse than they are. Yet for some people its OK to criticise Christian zealots, and if organisations like the Westboro Baptist Church with equally vile views were getting criticised I have no need to wonder if certain people would be so quick to call that "racism". 🤦‍♂️
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    IanB2 said:

    stodge said:


    On a personal level for him was DPM really that bad a prize?

    He was possibly the most substantial DPM ever. As part of the Quad, Clegg and Alexander basically had a veto and great input over almost every policy across the whole of government not just a small part of it.

    The great mistake was having supped on one side of the fence trying to reposition themselves immediately back to the middle which pleased nobody. Centre Lefties didn't forgive them for going into office, while Centre Righties saw them rejecting everything they'd done and the Tories were given free reign to claim all the credit and be the continuation.

    Certainly, Clegg, Alexander and Cameron blocked Osborne's tax plans immediately before the 2012 Budget when he wanted to raise the personal allowance level for the higher level of tax.

    As to the last paragraph, the collapse in LD poll ratings from 2011 offered the Conservatives the opportunity to regain the seats they had lost from 1997 (and before) and the Conservatives were actively campaigning in seats like Cheltenham, Carshalton & Wallington and St Ives from 2012. The depleted and weakened LDs were in no position to respond and unfortunately deluded themselves pace Denis Norden "it would be all right on the night". It wasn't.

    The Conservatives worked out their GE plan - take enough seats off the LDs while convincing the English in particular any Labour minority Government would be in the pocket of Salmond's SNP.

    The Coalition was only going to be one term - that was the deal from the start. Had there been a Coalition 2.0, it would have required an electoral pact which neither party would have accepted and in any case the beneficiaries of such a seat might have been Labour.

    Unfortunately for Cameron, he had committed to a referendum on the EU in the event of winning a majority - he thought it would be on a re-negotiated membership deal which he could sell to a sceptical electorate but instead it ended up being an In-Out vote which has brought us to where we are now.
    Tbh I suspect Cameron didn’t expect to get a majority, and may not himself even have wanted one.
    The manifesto was stuffed with things to be traded away. Including the referendum.
    And there was a swing to Labour in E+W.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited October 22

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    And that’s fine. I have no quarrel whatsoever with that.

    But if you would compel masks on all you should at least consider whether you should compel vaccines on the selfish minority who are not getting them merely to be awkward.

    (Edit - not you personally Bob, although you and I don’t get on on a political or personal level you’ve been absolutely consistent on this. ‘You’ means those who want masks or lockdown back.)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,266

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    IshmaelZ said:

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    Pubs don't exist any more. Their essence was that they were places for very drunk people to smoke tobacco and fight each other, and if you don't recognise this description you are either very young or memory impaired. Legislation has put paid to those USPs, and what is left is inferior restaurants posing as pubs.
    You're obviously going to the wrong pubs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    Mask wearing does a lot of harm. For a start it makes it fucking impossible for deaf people to communicate.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
    And the longer dosing regimen provides enhanced and longer-lasting protection, so those on the 3-week dosing strategy should be boosting earlier.
    That's a really good point.

    Could that explain why countries like Germany and others are seeing a much higher CFR than the UK is right now?

    I've put it down to our much higher testing rates meaning we're probably catching more of our cases, but if the vaccine has faded their more (because they double-doses their vulnerable 3 weeks apart) and are running behind on boosters, then that could explain some of the difference.
    Why then are their current covid fatality numbers so much lower than ours?
    Because they're well behind us in lifting restrictions. Its a sign of their failure not success, we had lower death rates in June when we still had restrictions but that's not a good thing.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,266
    Andy_JS said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    Having a vaccine takes a few seconds. Wearing masks is something you have to do for a long period of time. That's why I don't mind vaccines but do mind mask wearing.
    Driving somewhere under the speed limit also takes time.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,771

    IshmaelZ said:

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    Pubs don't exist any more. Their essence was that they were places for very drunk people to smoke tobacco and fight each other, and if you don't recognise this description you are either very young or memory impaired. Legislation has put paid to those USPs, and what is left is inferior restaurants posing as pubs.
    The usual effing trolling garbage from you.

    Lots of great, lovely pubs in London, and across England far and wide.
    Tell us again as you did every day last December that there would be no trouble from Trump between then and Biden's inauguration, and anyone expecting different was a "bedwetter." We always laugh at that one, and it hasn't had an outing since early January. Inexplicably.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.

    I said for a lot of people. I simply find it unpleasant, which I assume most people do? I mean, would you choose to wear masks and have your friends and everyone you meet wear them, were COVID not a thing?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    I thought something similar when, last month, I saw at a pub my first live music since before covid.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    I missed the original question, but the better comparison is masks and vaccine passports.

    At no point has it been compulsory to wear masks at all times in all settings (which is the closest equivalent to compulsory vaccination). If you really didn't want to wear a mask, it was conceivable (some employers apart, education for kids too?) to limit activities to avoid mask wearing. Same with vaccine passports - you could have a very strict vaccine passport regime and it would still be possible to limit activities and avoid a vaccine.

    I don't favour compulsory vaccinations. As others have posted, that's very dark path.

    I'm fairly ambivalent on compulsory mask wearing. It's one of the least bad restrictions that could be brought in for a short period, but I'm not presently of the view that we need more restrictions. I'm also not wearing a mask myself anywhere except when asked to do so. The last time I wore a mask, other than at work,* was on the tube around six weeks ago. On the other hand, I'm not in the least bit bothered by others wearing masks.

    *We're required/strongly asked to wear them in the communal areas only. I don't have to wear one in my office.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,266

    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.

    I said for a lot of people. I simply find it unpleasant, which I assume most people do? I mean, would you choose to wear masks and have your friends and everyone you meet wear them, were COVID not a thing?
    Personally, the discomfort is so mild that after 40 minutes in the supermarket I've usually forgotten I'm wearing it.
    Been a few times I'm halfway home in the car before I remember I've still got my mask on.
    Other opinions are available, and I acknowledge the discomfort must be worse for some people, given the complaining I hear from some.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,893
    edited October 22

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    But @ydoethur's question (would those who want mask wearing to be compulsory favour making vaccination compulsory?) wasn't really a fair one.

    I've not heard of anybody who wants mask wearing per se compulsory, only those who want to make mask wearing in certain situations compulsory.

    That is akin to wanting to make vaccination compulsory in certain situations - i.e: "Not vaccinated? Then don't expect to use a restaurant/pub/public transport/theatre/cinema."

    The failure of HMG to show some balls on this is going to serious damage the economy long-term as Covid drags on and on, aided and abetted by the antivaxxers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.

    I said for a lot of people. I simply find it unpleasant, which I assume most people do? I mean, would you choose to wear masks and have your friends and everyone you meet wear them, were COVID not a thing?
    I don’t enjoy wearing them, but I can just about manage it. I will do it if I think it will help. Which mostly it won’t.

    What was a nightmare was teaching in them. Trying to hear what was being said. Trying to work out which child was talking, or swearing. Trying to communicate with the several deaf children I teach. I was reduced to enforcing silence and having them write things on whiteboards to communicate at one point - a last desperate measure by the school to help me communicate. Exhausting, frustrating, miserable, for me and for the children.

    I didn’t go into teaching to do that. It’s one reason why I was so incredibly negative about everything in the spring. And still am, to an extent.

    If masks come back in classrooms, I’m straight out. Particularly since I could actually earn more driving lorries and have the necessary paperwork.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524
    The difference between the next GE and the last two is that Green VI is made up of people who despise the Labour leader
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    One thing I did notice about the polling someone posted above (might have been @HYUFD ?) is that now only 22% support the closure of pubs and restaurants. Given that 22% of the population probably never visit pubs and restaurants, that’s a control 0%.

    Good. When pubs reopened in May, I said that pubs must never again be shuttered in this country. Pubs are an absolutely fundamental part of England. In some ways, they are England.

    Pubs don't exist any more. Their essence was that they were places for very drunk people to smoke tobacco and fight each other, and if you don't recognise this description you are either very young or memory impaired. Legislation has put paid to those USPs, and what is left is inferior restaurants posing as pubs.
    The usual effing trolling garbage from you.

    Lots of great, lovely pubs in London, and across England far and wide.
    Tell us again as you did every day last December that there would be no trouble from Trump between then and Biden's inauguration, and anyone expecting different was a "bedwetter." We always laugh at that one, and it hasn't had an outing since early January. Inexplicably.
    Firstly, what has that got to do with anything we are discussing? A completely irrelevant piece of trolling from you this time.

    But, I’ll bite, in fact, my posts at the time were criticising those who suggested that Trump would steal the election. That was never possible. That there was a rumpus did not affect my central -often advanced, and complete accurate - point that Biden’s victory was guaranteed as soon as he surpassed 270.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    But @ydoethur's question (would those who want mask wearing to be compulsory favour making vaccination compulsory?) wasn't really a fair one.

    I've not heard of anybody who wants mask wearing per se compulsory, only those who want to make mask wearing in certain situations compulsory.

    That is akin to wanting to make vaccination compulsory in certain situations - i.e: "Not vaccinated? Then don't expect to use a restaurant/pub/public transport/theatre/cinema."

    The failure of HMG to show some balls on this is going to serious damage the economy long-term as Covid drags on and on, aided and abetted by the antivaxxers.
    Your experience is different from mine then. I meet several mask obsessives. I had to pull my own Union up over them, for a start.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,244

    I remember Professor Sir John Bell saying several months ago - and posting on here - that people were living on another planet if they thought zerocovid was possible.

    I note there are still adherents to that credo. “Out of covid” indeed. Really?

    We are out of the Covid Emergency certainly.

    During the Emergency phase we faced the real prospect of the health system collapsing, and people dying unnecessarily, because of a lack of capacity to treat them. To some extent because of the peculiarities of the virus - in particular presymptomatic transmission - and in part because of a lack of organisational will, we were unable to control the spread of the disease by isolating those known to be, or suspected of being, infectious. So our only option was to isolate everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, to prevent exponential transmission.

    The vaccines take us out of this emergency. The virus no longer poses a systemic risk. It's just another illness that our health system can treat. Thus the justification for emergency powers no longer applies. Mandatory wearing of facemasks is an example of an emergency measure. It's not something people can be expected to do indefinitely.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,893
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    There should be acknowledgement that we do seem to have completely squandered the head start we had on the vaccines.

    I recall many saying we were going to be the first out of COVID, the UK was leading the way and it would be over by now. We are now at best, in line with everyone else and in many metrics now behind.

    The Government should receive great deals of credit for the initial vaccine rollout but besides that, everything else they have done has been very poor indeed. And they're being complacent yet again.

    Actually, the situation is quite similar to earlier in the year with the UK being well ahead of its peers in terms of booster take-up.
    In fact the UK is doing better than that.

    Remember that the UK quickly switched to a 12 week gap between the first and second doses whereas most European countries and the USA kept at 3 weeks.

    Which means that the European countries and the USA should have been doing more booster doses than the UK.

    It was only in April that the UK's big lead in fully vaccinated opened up.
    And the longer dosing regimen provides enhanced and longer-lasting protection, so those on the 3-week dosing strategy should be boosting earlier.
    That's a really good point.

    Could that explain why countries like Germany and others are seeing a much higher CFR than the UK is right now?

    I've put it down to our much higher testing rates meaning we're probably catching more of our cases, but if the vaccine has faded their more (because they double-doses their vulnerable 3 weeks apart) and are running behind on boosters, then that could explain some of the difference.
    Why then are their current covid fatality number so much lower than ours?
    Germany's CFR is higher than ours. But I think that's mostly because so many cases in the UK are children.

    If you looked at adult Covid deaths vs adult cases, I'm not sure you'd see a big difference.

    Right now, we have a lot of cases, a reasonable amount of hospitalisations, and quite a few deaths (although nowhere near previous peaks).

    (See https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/)

    If you scan the table, the UK is second by case count (behind the US), but has massively fewer deaths than the US due to much better vaccination take up. Germany has slightly more proportional deaths than us, but off a much lower case rate.

    My gut is that four things are behind the differences:

    1. Europe got lucky with being late with vaccines, and Pfizer is more effective (especially if only given recently)
    2. There simply weren't the same number of cases of Delta seeded in Europe.
    3. There are more residual restrictions in Europe than in the UK.
    4. Kids were able to be vaccinated earlier in Europe, meaning schools have been less hotbeds for transmission
    I suspect you're right on those four points. 2. 3. and 4. were all of course avoidable by HMG.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493
    If anyone in is any doubt we have reached a top, Richard Lister's stats show it:
    https://coviddatashare.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/TableCumulative_Rate_20211022.html

    The interesting thing to look at is the comparison of two days ago with nine days ago. Two days ago is necessarily incomplete, but typically represents about 85%+ of the total. Basically, where 2 days ago is equal to or greater than nine days ago cases are increasing, where it is signiifcantly less cases are decreasing. As you can see, in most locations, it is decreasing. Still increasing in south east region, but decreasing in most places. In a few days, most of those reds will be greens.

    This is shown more crudely on this image, if you have a twitter sign-in:
    https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1451614469122035713/photo/1

    Two days ago is significantly lower than nine days ago everywhere but the south east and north east. Again, most of those reds will be greens in a few days.

    Significant that the peak has happened before half term kicked in.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,478
    edited October 22
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    I used to think that. But one of my very best friends, who I see eye to eye with on most Covid and other related stuff, recently confessed she found them "menacing".
    She's a smart lady with three degrees.
    And a clinical psych who has worked the wards of some of the most disturbed hospitals.
    So, not easily menaced by a long chalk.
    Therefore, I concluded it isn't something I feel. Masks, or the absence of them, has never bothered me, either on myself or others.
    But I may not be the average one.
    Folk feel how they feel.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    But @ydoethur's question (would those who want mask wearing to be compulsory favour making vaccination compulsory?) wasn't really a fair one.

    I've not heard of anybody who wants mask wearing per se compulsory, only those who want to make mask wearing in certain situations compulsory.

    That is akin to wanting to make vaccination compulsory in certain situations - i.e: "Not vaccinated? Then don't expect to use a restaurant/pub/public transport/theatre/cinema."

    The failure of HMG to show some balls on this is going to serious damage the economy long-term as Covid drags on and on, aided and abetted by the antivaxxers.
    Lots of people seem to want compulsory mask wearing in many/most/all public settings. That is a very significant imposition that would have been considered illiberal and oppressive in the extreme as recently as 20 months ago.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873
    Selebian said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    I missed the original question, but the better comparison is masks and vaccine passports.

    At no point has it been compulsory to wear masks at all times in all settings (which is the closest equivalent to compulsory vaccination). If you really didn't want to wear a mask, it was conceivable (some employers apart, education for kids too?) to limit activities to avoid mask wearing. Same with vaccine passports - you could have a very strict vaccine passport regime and it would still be possible to limit activities and avoid a vaccine.

    I don't favour compulsory vaccinations. As others have posted, that's very dark path.

    I'm fairly ambivalent on compulsory mask wearing. It's one of the least bad restrictions that could be brought in for a short period, but I'm not presently of the view that we need more restrictions. I'm also not wearing a mask myself anywhere except when asked to do so. The last time I wore a mask, other than at work,* was on the tube around six weeks ago. On the other hand, I'm not in the least bit bothered by others wearing masks.

    *We're required/strongly asked to wear them in the communal areas only. I don't have to wear one in my office.
    Mask wearing is pointless given that so few actually wear an effective mask.

    Not to mention the people who wear a mask which doesn't cover their nose and/or mouth.

    And then there's the further issue of what a fully vaccinated individual is trying to protect another fully vaccinated individual from.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited October 22
    isam said:

    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.

    I said for a lot of people. I simply find it unpleasant, which I assume most people do? I mean, would you choose to wear masks and have your friends and everyone you meet wear them, were COVID not a thing?
    I never really wear one for more than five minutes, working from home and only really popping into local shops, but today my girlfriend had our second son and I sat in a hospital waiting room for nearly 5 hours in one. Afterwards I went downstairs to get some food, and realised I felt like absolute shit. Went outside to ring my mum, took off the mask and instantly felt a million times better. Fair play to people who wear the day in day out for long spells, I couldn’t do that.

    Funnily enough, in the room you go to after the birth they didn’t seem bothered about us wearing our masks, nor on the ward really. Some people waiting for scans weren’t wearing them at all
    Many congratulations. Hope Ms ISam and ISam junior II are doing well.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,155
    edited October 22
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.
    Farooq said:

    IanB2 said:

    It was a very clever question posed by @ydoethur earlier to those who want mask wearing to be compulsory, asking whether they favoured making vaccination compulsory. It was very clever because of course vaccination is a much more effective countermeasure, and compulsion would affect a far smaller proportion of the population.

    (For the record, in the least surprising news of the day, I favour compulsion for neither measure)

    Except that vaccination does possibly have negative consequences for the individual, and a degree of uncertainty, which makes compulsion rather a big deal. Aside from those with a limited range of medical conditions (and even here I am rather sceptical), putting a bit of cloth over your mouth and nose isn’t likely to do you any harm.
    It’s quite distressing to wear a mask and see people in masks for many people, and is damaging to the way humans naturally communicate - which is face to face.

    What are the risks of vaccination in mathematical terms, and how do these compare to risks we face every day?

    As I say, I support compulsion for neither measure, but just thought it was a clever question posed by the OP.
    I can't tell you that you're wrong to feel "distress" at wearing a mask or seeing others in one, but I do find it strange.

    I said for a lot of people. I simply find it unpleasant, which I assume most people do? I mean, would you choose to wear masks and have your friends and everyone you meet wear them, were COVID not a thing?
    Personally, the discomfort is so mild that after 40 minutes in the supermarket I've usually forgotten I'm wearing it.
    Been a few times I'm halfway home in the car before I remember I've still got my mask on.
    Other opinions are available, and I acknowledge the discomfort must be worse for some people, given the complaining I hear from some.
    Do you wear them at parties, or at pubs, or when visiting friends? Or at weddings? Or in restaurants or in work meetings? If not, why not?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,893
    Cookie said:

    If anyone in is any doubt we have reached a top, Richard Lister's stats show it:
    https://coviddatashare.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/TableCumulative_Rate_20211022.html

    The interesting thing to look at is the comparison of two days ago with nine days ago. Two days ago is necessarily incomplete, but typically represents about 85%+ of the total. Basically, where 2 days ago is equal to or greater than nine days ago cases are increasing, where it is signiifcantly less cases are decreasing. As you can see, in most locations, it is decreasing. Still increasing in south east region, but decreasing in most places. In a few days, most of those reds will be greens.

    This is shown more crudely on this image, if you have a twitter sign-in:
    https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1451614469122035713/photo/1

    Two days ago is significantly lower than nine days ago everywhere but the south east and north east. Again, most of those reds will be greens in a few days.

    Significant that the peak has happened before half term kicked in.

    Hmmm... The signal and the noise springs to mind. I'm not convinced from those nine days of 'jumpy' numbers.
This discussion has been closed.