Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why the Tories could lose the North Shropshire by-election – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    No
  • ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England 147 all out in 51 overs.

    Can someone explain to the England team they're supposed to be playing Cricket, not Snooker?
    If you did that, you'd be black balled.

    But it all went to pot this morning.

    Have a good morning.
    Don't cricketers have protective equipment to prevent that eventuality?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,034
    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
  • IanB2 said:

    The other aspect of this story coming out now is that it makes another pre-Xmas wobble by the big jelly in the big chair, imposing another lockdown just before we meet family and friends, completely impossible. Which may well be a big part of the motivation for whoever had the scoop.

    Risky if that is the underlying motivation....if that leads to huge numbers of extra deaths.
    If that leads to deaths then whoever dies won't be putting the NHS under pressure anymore. They will have zero NHS demands going forwards.

    People dying is a pressure valve release for the NHS.

    No more lockdowns. We did it until vaccines, but now enough is more than enough.

    I don't care if thousands die from Covid on a daily basis. No restrictions ever again.
    Nice. Very classy.
    Its honesty.

    Do you care that millions have had their education disrupted?

    Do you care that millions have had their businesses disrupted?

    If a few thousand die on a daily basis that's nothing compared to millions having their education disrupted that day.

    Be honest about reality. Lockdown is more harmful than some sick people dying.
    You may as well equip yourself with a hunting rifle and start roaming the old people's homes. Start culling the excess! You wouldn't even need telescopic sights!!!

    If a virus kills people in old people's homes that's just nature, not hunting.

    Why should their great grandchildren's education be destroyed to try and defeat nature?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668

    Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.

    This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/boris-johnson-grabbing-more-power-amendments-to-oppressive-legislation-uk

    And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.

    This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
    In practice, it isn't going to be possible to imprison peaceful protestors. The numbers will simply be too huge when the next big protest comes
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,479

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    I just have a horrible feeling sks is going to blow it and Boris to bluster his way out

    Top tip if he is reading this: split it into 2 blocks of 3, with other questions in the middle. First 3 kabul and dogs, 2nd 3 parties
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,721
    Chris said:

    Up early as wife had a 6.30 start. Turns cricket on the radio to sound of blathering. Turns to internet. Regrets.
    Turns to pb. Lots of non experts wetting the bed about scary sounding reductions in neutralisation from one study, missing out the other, more optomistic study. Remembers that although. 41x reduction sounds huge, it still means lots of neutralising... And remembers the huge increase in antibodies from the booster.
    Decide that the evidence is coming that we will be mostly ok. It’s gonna be shit. But ok.

    If I read the preprint correctly, that factor of 41 is the geometric mean, but it's actually dominated by a couple of outliers (Fig 1B; two of the three big drops on the plot are apparently samples from the same participant).

    It looks like a drop by a factor of around 10 in 10 out of the 12 participants (both for Pfizer only and Pfizer+first-wave infection), and factors of around 100 and 1000 in the other two participants.

    I can't see anything about the medical history of the participants and I wonder if the outliers may have been HIV-positive.
    I hadn't seen the Swedish study that was discussed here previously. Apart from the two outliers in the South African study, the results of the two seem consistent. The immune escape would actually be similar to that seen for Beta, which suggests the huge growth rate is more to do with a bigger intrinsic transmissibility in Omicron, rather than immune escape.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175

    Don't cricketers have protective equipment to prevent that eventuality?

    Putting balls in the cup is golf, not cricket
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,221
    edited December 2021
    Foxy said:

    Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.

    This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/boris-johnson-grabbing-more-power-amendments-to-oppressive-legislation-uk

    And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.

    This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
    In practice, it isn't going to be possible to imprison peaceful protestors. The numbers will simply be too huge when the next big protest comes
    Indeed, but it's absolutely terrifying that the government has now inserted amendments that could potentially criminalise all public protest in any public place or road, that uses shared infrastructure, in the first place.

  • DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    The elderly are equal members of society, but never have we had a position where society is put on hold and children's education destroyed in order to prevent the spread of a natural virus that we've already distributed the vaccine for.

    Vaccines spread, its part of life. We need to accept that and we need to accept that we can not prevent people from getting sick and dying - certainly not at the expense of wrecking people's childhood.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,042

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    A dead pan, ‘I’d like to give the PM the opportunity to update the record. We know there was a party. Was the chancellor present?’.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,904

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Jonathan said:

    A dead pan, ‘I’d like to give the PM the opportunity to update the record. We know there was a party. Was the chancellor present?’.

    He certainly should not ask if there was a party. This a given, so his questions should be about who attended, or if BoZo will apologise
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    edited December 2021
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    I thought the same but the rules were very explicit - No organised meals or parties and holding a Secret Santa does show pre-planning / some organisation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    dangerous potential legacy of this No 10 party is it could leave govt zero authority - among Tory backbenchers if not voters - to impose any new restrictions needed against omicron. Charles Walker making the argument v clear on #r4today
    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1468489029335359488
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    edited December 2021

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466

    IanB2 said:

    The other aspect of this story coming out now is that it makes another pre-Xmas wobble by the big jelly in the big chair, imposing another lockdown just before we meet family and friends, completely impossible. Which may well be a big part of the motivation for whoever had the scoop.

    Risky if that is the underlying motivation....if that leads to huge numbers of extra deaths.
    If that leads to deaths then whoever dies won't be putting the NHS under pressure anymore. They will have zero NHS demands going forwards.

    People dying is a pressure valve release for the NHS.

    No more lockdowns. We did it until vaccines, but now enough is more than enough.

    I don't care if thousands die from Covid on a daily basis. No restrictions ever again.
    Nice. Very classy.
    Its honesty.

    Do you care that millions have had their education disrupted?

    Do you care that millions have had their businesses disrupted?

    If a few thousand die on a daily basis that's nothing compared to millions having their education disrupted that day.

    Be honest about reality. Lockdown is more harmful than some sick people dying.
    You may as well equip yourself with a hunting rifle and start roaming the old people's homes. Start culling the excess! You wouldn't even need telescopic sights!!!

    If a virus kills people in old people's homes that's just nature, not hunting.

    Why should their great grandchildren's education be destroyed to try and defeat nature?
    Why should plague-carrying rats be destroyed to defeat nature? Why should the old folk's dinner be cooked to make it nutritious and defeat nature?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    During Barnard Castle, Grant Shapps still turned up on TV to have his arse repeatedly handed to him with a fair amount of grace.

    This morning, they’re still saying “there was no party” but they can’t look anyone in the eye while they do so.

    https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1468489624863612931
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668
    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    Letting it rip is not a consequences free option, as we see in Brazil or some parts of the USA. A massive pandemic is massively disruptive to health but also economically.

    That's not to say that lessons couldn't be learned, but normal life was simply going to be impossible in a let it rip situation, particularly in a pre-vaccine one.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,034
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
    Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.

    Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    David, it was in *direct* contradiction of the Tier 3 rules. As confirmed by the government itself on Twitter. It isn't about "is it a risk". Its about "you can't do it but we can". The party and the lies are the same thing - dripping arrogance that it doesn't apply to them.

    And you're still providing them succour.
  • On the bright side when Boris gets slapped with the £10,000 fine he will have plenty of donors lined up ready to pay it.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    Scott_xP said:

    dangerous potential legacy of this No 10 party is it could leave govt zero authority - among Tory backbenchers if not voters - to impose any new restrictions needed against omicron. Charles Walker making the argument v clear on #r4today
    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1468489029335359488

    There is no could about it - No 10's moral authority to do anything regarding Covid disappeared last night.

    You only had to watch Dec in I'm a Celeb to see that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,668
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
    Unless you are going to leave covid patients to die, that is inevitable. Surge capacity comes from using staff doing planned work. The idea that cancer work etc could proceed normally in a pandemic is delusional.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,034
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
    That's exactly what Philip is saying. And the sick/vulnerable.

    I utterly agree with your second line: and I've mentioned an anecdote about a friend who was in exactly this situation. However, it would be worse if you 'let it rip' because the hospitals would be filled with the elderly, vulnerable and unlucky. Unless you're saying that people who get covid don't get treatment?
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    The elderly are equal members of society, but never have we had a position where society is put on hold and children's education destroyed in order to prevent the spread of a natural virus that we've already distributed the vaccine for.

    Vaccines spread, its part of life. We need to accept that and we need to accept that we can not prevent people from getting sick and dying - certainly not at the expense of wrecking people's childhood.
    Viruses spread, vaccines don't which is a large issue as if vaccines being passed to others would make reaching herd immunity so much easier.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    I am not sure this would work, but it might be their best shot

    I think the likely way out is PM films a short apology: I do want to apologise, regrettable incident, staff stayed late & socialised, shouldn’t have happened, I’m focused on omicron & boosters. Cab Sec disciplines junior staff. Cabinet message is keep in proportion & move on.
    https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1468490044142931971
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    After that shocking, mocking, Xmas party video, the Cabinet have gone on strike against Boris - every broadcaster reports that no minister is willing to be interviewed this morning. Even they can't parrot the No 10 line 'the guidance was followed' - when it's clearly a lie.
    https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1468491011701760000
    https://twitter.com/stigabell/status/1468479286688501761
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,221
    edited December 2021
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    dangerous potential legacy of this No 10 party is it could leave govt zero authority - among Tory backbenchers if not voters - to impose any new restrictions needed against omicron. Charles Walker making the argument v clear on #r4today
    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1468489029335359488

    There is no could about it - No 10's moral authority to do anything regarding Covid disappeared last night.

    You only had to watch Dec in I'm a Celeb to see that.
    I want them out now. Even an authentically libertarian, ultra-Thatcherite administration under Sunak starts to look preferable.

    I don't think he's fundamentally corrupt, and I don't think he has the same contempt for due process, or extremely dangerous dictatorial impulses, as Johnson.
  • DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    The objectives, set at the very start of the pandemic, were wrong. Not just in England, but throughout the planet*.

    The objective was: to minimise infections.

    The objective should have been: to minimise the long-term damage to society.

    (*possible exception: Sweden)

    Very easy to be wise after the facts are (largely) on the table. At the outset we had no idea that the mortality rate would be long under 1%.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    edited December 2021
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Bad example. It's pronounced scone.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    David, it was in *direct* contradiction of the Tier 3 rules. As confirmed by the government itself on Twitter. It isn't about "is it a risk". Its about "you can't do it but we can". The party and the lies are the same thing - dripping arrogance that it doesn't apply to them.

    And you're still providing them succour.
    Such a contrast with Scotland, where the equivalent excitement in the halls of power is Ms Sturgeon curling up on the sofa with the latest Booker winner.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,479
    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
    I say they are, actually. Anybody not insanely selfish starts to feel, certainly as soon as they have their own children, that it's not all about them. From a selfish point of view, *diagnosed* levels of severe depression are off the scale in old people's homes, and they are very poorly served for mental health so you can probably add as much again undiagnosed. I have enough trouble with depression anyway to be certain that I would be praying for Omicron if I were in a home.

    That boy murdered last week would be alive but for lockdown. That has gone a long way to changing my mind on this.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,034
    Eabhal said:

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
    Care to say how I've lost my 'perspective' ?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Stepping back, the problem facing No10 is who carries the can for all this.
    * Obviously Allegra Stratton and Ed Oldfield are now both in unsustainable positions. And indeed anyone else identified in the laughing video.
    BUT Stratton "went home". So...

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1468492144457523203
  • Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    David, it was in *direct* contradiction of the Tier 3 rules. As confirmed by the government itself on Twitter. It isn't about "is it a risk". Its about "you can't do it but we can". The party and the lies are the same thing - dripping arrogance that it doesn't apply to them.

    And you're still providing them succour.
    Such a contrast with Scotland, where the equivalent excitement in the halls of power is Ms Sturgeon curling up on the sofa with the latest Booker winner.
    No no, if you recall Sturgeon went to a funeral and was snapped talking to a couple of pensioners more than 2 metres away. Took her mark off because they couldn't hear her. Tories and especially Scottish Tories went mental, tweeting on party day about Sturgeon's outrageous behaviour.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Omega is a long o, as in pole. What the Greeks called a 'big o' i.e. o-mega. So it's pronounced with a long o.
    Omicron is a short o, as in pot. What the Greeks called a 'small o', i.e. o-micron. So it's pronounced with a short o.
    I know. I had to get something from my schooling and the correct way to pronounce the Ancient Greek alphabet is better than nothing
    I don't know ancient Greek. Or modern Greek for that mater. I did study Latin, that said - and what about eg caecutio. How did the Ancient Romans pronounce that.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Foxy said:

    Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.

    This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/boris-johnson-grabbing-more-power-amendments-to-oppressive-legislation-uk

    And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.

    This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
    In practice, it isn't going to be possible to imprison peaceful protestors. The numbers will simply be too huge when the next big protest comes
    Indeed, but it's absolutely terrifying that the government has now inserted amendments that could potentially criminalise all public protest in any public place or road, that uses shared infrastructure, in the first place.

    Sure, the issue is that you have people like XR who repeated break the law. I don’t know what the solution is, but the inconvenience they cause to the innocent and their lack of respect for the law needs to be addressed
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,175
    Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ...
    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    David, it was in *direct* contradiction of the Tier 3 rules. As confirmed by the government itself on Twitter. It isn't about "is it a risk". Its about "you can't do it but we can". The party and the lies are the same thing - dripping arrogance that it doesn't apply to them.

    And you're still providing them succour.
    Such a contrast with Scotland, where the equivalent excitement in the halls of power is Ms Sturgeon curling up on the sofa with the latest Booker winner.
    No no, if you recall Sturgeon went to a funeral and was snapped talking to a couple of pensioners more than 2 metres away. Took her mark off because they couldn't hear her. Tories and especially Scottish Tories went mental, tweeting on party day about Sturgeon's outrageous behaviour.
    I was thinking more about the snot being poured on here the other week about her liking for books. But I'd forgotten about that. Actually quite likely to have been lipreading her; at that age quite a few people use it as an auxiliary.
  • Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    Well said. Philip's point was made with passion and rhetoric (and a couple of glasses of wine, I believe, although that could have been anaesthetic for the cricket).

    But his central premise is absolutely valid. How much damage have we done in particular and from Philip's perspective to the young. Oh it's just masks...lockdown is fine we can all walk round our orchards...home schooling means no one should fall behind...

    The problem is that @contrarian foresaw this. Several of us on here (it's a real shame he is no longer posting) pointed out time and again the unseen (because it's not hooked up to a ventilator) damage of lockdowns and other restrictions.

    Sweden has been deemed by studies to be no better or worse than the rest of Europe (yes I know it's dreadful vs the other Scandi economies but so what). But it never closed the schools and for that it will be in years to come in a significantly better place than we will.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Bad example. It's pronounced scone.
    As I said. Scone.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    Eabhal said:

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
    What has 26 year old introvert's becoming more introverted got to do with what @JosiasJessop posted?

    I understand your comment (I've gone the same way and need to fix that next year) but Josias's comment is about someone looking clever and then a few posts reveals them to be an idiot.

    It's like just reading HYUFD polling posts and then suddenly seeing his posts on other topics.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 5,221
    edited December 2021
    Charles said:

    Foxy said:

    Excellent work by Monbiot again this morning. It really is astounding what the government is up to, out of sight, with the Policing Bill. Now it has added further, open-ended amendments that, subject to the right legal interpretation, could potentially criminalise any public protest in any public spaces. Absolutely astounding.

    This government has to go now. It's not only rotten to the core, but extremely dangerous.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/08/boris-johnson-grabbing-more-power-amendments-to-oppressive-legislation-uk

    And needless to say, there's no absolutely legislative imperative for this whatsoever. The government has already managed to jail a whole host of XR protestors under all the existing legislation.

    This pattern of brazen corruption and rottenness, and repeated, worrying power grabs with contempt for due process, suggests to me they're a threat to all of us, and we should all be protesting against this government.
    In practice, it isn't going to be possible to imprison peaceful protestors. The numbers will simply be too huge when the next big protest comes
    Indeed, but it's absolutely terrifying that the government has now inserted amendments that could potentially criminalise all public protest in any public place or road, that uses shared infrastructure, in the first place.

    Sure, the issue is that you have people like XR who repeated break the law. I don’t know what the solution is, but the inconvenience they cause to the innocent and their lack of respect for the law needs to be addressed
    This is absolute nonsense, and dangerous to boot. There are about to be scores of XR protestors jailed from different locations under existing legislation, which is not necessarily something I support, but certainly illustrates the adequacy of existing legislation.

    These new amendments particularly have vast scope. A protest on a piece of shared public infrastructure is anything. That is the road to Putin's Russia, and for once this is not hyperbole.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    edited December 2021
    Laura K "This is a BAD moment for this administration, there is no doubt about that"

    "Ministers are nowhere, this morning, because they don't want to defend this...right across the broadcast landscape, there is no member of the government to be seen or heard".

    "This kind of overt failure to be straight about what happened, for seven days now, is very corrosive"
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
    That's exactly what Philip is saying. And the sick/vulnerable.

    I utterly agree with your second line: and I've mentioned an anecdote about a friend who was in exactly this situation. However, it would be worse if you 'let it rip' because the hospitals would be filled with the elderly, vulnerable and unlucky. Unless you're saying that people who get covid don't get treatment?
    No one ever said "let it rip". Not on here at least. Not me specifically. Why there couldn't be a segmented approach however I have never known. Because fairness. So it is a collective punishment. The 80-yr old might die from it so let's prevent 18-25yr olds from socialising.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Bad example. It's pronounced scone.
    As I said. Scone.
    But is that the unleavened dough, or the Perthshire village?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,479
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Omega is a long o, as in pole. What the Greeks called a 'big o' i.e. o-mega. So it's pronounced with a long o.
    Omicron is a short o, as in pot. What the Greeks called a 'small o', i.e. o-micron. So it's pronounced with a short o.
    I know. I had to get something from my schooling and the correct way to pronounce the Ancient Greek alphabet is better than nothing
    I don't know ancient Greek. Or modern Greek for that mater. I did study Latin, that said - and what about eg caecutio. How did the Ancient Romans pronounce that.
    Bloody hell I had to look that up, and I used to get paid for knowing Latin.

    We aren't very good at preserving syllable length from ancient Greek anyway. If we were we would say Homer to rhyme with bomber and talk about Plateau and Soakrates
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,042
    edited December 2021
    Can someone get Allegra Stratton in front of a parliamentary committee and ask her when she left early, who was there?

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    Lying and then admitting it only after being caught out would also be unacceptable.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 6,487
    edited December 2021
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The Saj has reportedly withdrawn from a round of broadcast interviews this morning.

    Can’t blame him.

    Palace coup?

    I remain of the view that this "party" is an absolutely trivial affair. The lying, on the other hand....
    David, I have to ask how you manage to have your sound legal mind clouded like this. An "absolutely trivial affair" - people have had £10k fines handed out for the exact same. My mate gave birth alone and in pain because the hospital refused to allow her husband in. Following the rules. Others had loved ones die, alone, because of the rules. The Queen, sat by herself at the DofE's funeral.

    This is as far from trivial as it gets. A massive FUCK YOU to the entire country.

    Why are you still providing them succour? I'm not saying you should vote against them, just that your party used to have standards and it might be good to see them return. Get this lying idiot out and you can win the next election. Keep him and you're doomed.
    What we are talking about is a few people who have been working together all day and for many days having a drink in their place of work after work. I frankly don't know if this contradicted the rules in force in London at the time. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. It is very difficult to see how the "party" was any more of a risk to anyone than the work that preceded it.

    But the stupid lies denying it happened when it did is a repeat offence and has severely damaged Boris, possibly terminally this time.
    Terminally? Really? I just can’t see it.

    Rarely has English politics witnessed such a buffoon. Unlike May, Cameron and Brown, he seems to totally lack self-awareness and the human quality of shame. He is quite literally shameless. He ain’t going anywhere, and his party are such a bunch of cretins they haven’t the gumption to push him.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    Well said. Philip's point was made with passion and rhetoric (and a couple of glasses of wine, I believe, although that could have been anaesthetic for the cricket).

    But his central premise is absolutely valid. How much damage have we done in particular and from Philip's perspective to the young. Oh it's just masks...lockdown is fine we can all walk round our orchards...home schooling means no one should fall behind...

    The problem is that @contrarian foresaw this. Several of us on here (it's a real shame he is no longer posting) pointed out time and again the unseen (because it's not hooked up to a ventilator) damage of lockdowns and other restrictions.

    Sweden has been deemed by studies to be no better or worse than the rest of Europe (yes I know it's dreadful vs the other Scandi economies but so what). But it never closed the schools and for that it will be in years to come in a significantly better place than we will.
    Lord Sumption foresaw it as well.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    Stocky said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Bad example. It's pronounced scone.
    As I said. Scone.
    OMG

    It's scone before you've eaten it and then it's scon.
    And there's the DavidL kind of Scon, too.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    Scott_xP said:

    Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ...
    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337

    The line is that all rules were complied with. It has been used time and again. There will be a rule somewhere that allows it. How they then responded to the issue is a different matter but I would bet that the actual event(s) were "legit".

    But it throws a light over the absurdity of the laws. Why should they party when we can't. Everyone wants to party. If there are vulnerable people then sadly they can't join but everyone wants to party.
  • Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Eabhal said:

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
    Care to say how I've lost my 'perspective' ?
    Apols, was trying to refer to the anti-vaxx parent.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Bad example. It's pronounced scone.
    As I said. Scone.
    Charles please don't let's get into an argument about this. It's scone and frankly of all people I would have thought you would know better.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,034

    Eabhal said:

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
    Care to say how I've lost my 'perspective' ?
    Edit: apologies. I've misread Eabhal's comment.

    The guy in question is *not* an introvert, and his job involves travelling around the wider area for work. He meets lots of people, and business was booming early in lockdown.
  • LauraK on R4 - Cabinet conspicuous by their absence in the media this morning unwilling to defend Downing St - Health Secretary pulled out of R4 8.10 slot.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IshmaelZ said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    No-one says the old are expendable. Others are dying because they're not getting the treatment they need, such as cancer patients for example.
    I say they are, actually. Anybody not insanely selfish starts to feel, certainly as soon as they have their own children, that it's not all about them. From a selfish point of view, *diagnosed* levels of severe depression are off the scale in old people's homes, and they are very poorly served for mental health so you can probably add as much again undiagnosed. I have enough trouble with depression anyway to be certain that I would be praying for Omicron if I were in a home.

    That boy murdered last week would be alive but for lockdown. That has gone a long way to changing my mind on this.
    Re: Arthur, I don’t think you can be as definitive as that. It certainly created an opportunity, but in the face of sustained evil and let down by the structures society created to protect him, he was always in danger
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    Hahahaha. Not a chance.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,466
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ...
    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337

    The line is that all rules were complied with. It has been used time and again. There will be a rule somewhere that allows it. How they then responded to the issue is a different matter but I would bet that the actual event(s) were "legit".

    But it throws a light over the absurdity of the laws. Why should they party when we can't. Everyone wants to party. If there are vulnerable people then sadly they can't join but everyone wants to party.
    There was that revealing comment on the BBC websirte. Getting their excuse ready?

    "But there may have theoretically been a loophole for government buildings like 10 Downing Street because of the 1984 legislation used to bring in the tier system, according to Adam Wagner - a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and an expert on Covid regulations.

    Another barrister, Charles Holland from Trinity Chambers, tweeted that there would have needed to be an agreement with Westminster City Council for the regulations to apply in Downing Street."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59572149
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Omega is a long o, as in pole. What the Greeks called a 'big o' i.e. o-mega. So it's pronounced with a long o.
    Omicron is a short o, as in pot. What the Greeks called a 'small o', i.e. o-micron. So it's pronounced with a short o.
    I know. I had to get something from my schooling and the correct way to pronounce the Ancient Greek alphabet is better than nothing
    I don't know ancient Greek. Or modern Greek for that mater. I did study Latin, that said - and what about eg caecutio. How did the Ancient Romans pronounce that.
    Kai-cohosh-e-o IIRC
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    Roger Gale: PM must either come clean and apologise, or definitively deny that there was a party (in which case if he is subsequently proved wrong, he would have to resign). Paraphrased.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,821
    edited December 2021
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    People say omega and omega. Is there really a correct way to pronounce Omicron.

    Edit: same as chi and chi.

    Oh! you meant like scone and scone?
    Omega is a long o, as in pole. What the Greeks called a 'big o' i.e. o-mega. So it's pronounced with a long o.
    Omicron is a short o, as in pot. What the Greeks called a 'small o', i.e. o-micron. So it's pronounced with a short o.
    I know. I had to get something from my schooling and the correct way to pronounce the Ancient Greek alphabet is better than nothing
    I don't know ancient Greek. Or modern Greek for that mater. I did study Latin, that said - and what about eg caecutio. How did the Ancient Romans pronounce that.
    Kai-cohosh-e-o IIRC
    "IIRC"? As in down in the forum IIRC?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,479

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    Stratton is long gone anyway
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,709
    IanB2 said:

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    No
    If SKS can find something indubitably true he may be able to try that.

    We aren't there yet afaics - it is still all claims and shouting.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    IshmaelZ said:

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    Stratton is long gone anyway
    Indeed she never took up the role for which she was headhunted. One is perhaps beginning to see why.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,497
    edited December 2021

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    It will be a very interesting PMQs today

    I would just say it is generally accepted he was not there
  • Scott_xP said:

    dangerous potential legacy of this No 10 party is it could leave govt zero authority - among Tory backbenchers if not voters - to impose any new restrictions needed against omicron. Charles Walker making the argument v clear on #r4today
    https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1468489029335359488

    Is that really important?

    It's often seemed that the government has followed public opinion on lockdowns, rather than lead it. If the public form the opinion that Omnicron is sufficiently dangerous to merit a lockdown then many of them will self-lockdown before waiting for a government instruction. Fear will do that. It will then be up to the government as to whether they formalise the state of affairs, and/or provide financial support for the businesses affected.

    I'm fairly confident that, even if Omnicron is more deadly for the immune-naive, it's likely that those with immunity from prior infection and/or vaccination will still have sufficient protection from serious disease that we will avoid a repeat of the demand last winter's wave placed on the NHS, without a lockdown. A degree of caution from the self-lockdowners will help to flatten the curve.

    If it turns out to be worse than that, then there will be bitterness against the government, but most will comply out of self interest.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    Eabhal said:

    You get to know a lot of parents of your kid's class- and year-mates whilst waiting for them outside school. There's one guy I know, who is jovial and friendly with a nice son. The business he works for did quite well over the early months of lockdown.

    Someone has been posting anti-vax and anti-climate change nonsense on a local forum. I thought I recognised the name, so I checked, and it is that parent.

    It's that moment you go from thinking someone is quite a nice guy, to thinking that he's a dangerous idiot.

    I have two friends in their 20s who have completely lost perspective, like this guy, during lockdown.

    They have both been WFH the whole time, not met friends much, and are quite introverted. Lockdown and social media are a potent combo.

    I'm lucky to have PB as my online companion - and it's why having @londonpubman and @Philip_Thompson posting in the same . forum is so important.
    Care to say how I've lost my 'perspective' ?
    Edit: apologies. I've misread Eabhal's comment.

    The guy in question is *not* an introvert, and his job involves travelling around the wider area for work. He meets lots of people, and business was booming early in lockdown.
    Sorry for being unclear! Reckon his business has taken a big hit during the rear of lockdown?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    No
    If SKS can find something indubitably true he may be able to try that.

    We aren't there yet afaics - it is still all claims and shouting.
    Making his own behaviour the story, with lots of faux outrage from the Tories, is the wrong approach. If he wants to get coverage, he can call for the PM to resign - but that's a weapon that quickly dilutes if it is used too casually.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
    Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.

    Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
    No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.

    Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.

    Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
  • Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Interesting how when rehearsing/joking about answers to xmas party Q, no-one in that briefing room suggested bare-faced lying - flatly deny it even happened - which is the line that No10 have ended up with ...
    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1468492881233166337

    The line is that all rules were complied with. It has been used time and again. There will be a rule somewhere that allows it. How they then responded to the issue is a different matter but I would bet that the actual event(s) were "legit".

    But it throws a light over the absurdity of the laws. Why should they party when we can't. Everyone wants to party. If there are vulnerable people then sadly they can't join but everyone wants to party.
    There was that revealing comment on the BBC websirte. Getting their excuse ready?

    "But there may have theoretically been a loophole for government buildings like 10 Downing Street because of the 1984 legislation used to bring in the tier system, according to Adam Wagner - a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and an expert on Covid regulations.

    Another barrister, Charles Holland from Trinity Chambers, tweeted that there would have needed to be an agreement with Westminster City Council for the regulations to apply in Downing Street."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59572149
    “Loophole”?

    This Tory government has gone through the twilight zone and is now coming through on the other side. It won’t be pretty.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,042

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    It will be a very interesting PMQs today
    Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,947

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I suspect what you want to happen and what will happen are not the same thing.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    edited December 2021
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    Stratton is long gone anyway
    Indeed she never took up the role for which she was headhunted. One is perhaps beginning to see why.
    There are 2 reasons

    1) the job would require a lot of misrepresentation - simply because of the nature of the job. No reporter in the UK could do that and then return to being a journalist.
    2) given the fact Parliament needs to be told first, outside of the pandemic it was a waste of £2.6m because it had no actual purpose.

    It works in the US because the President is completely separate from Congress but that isn't how the UK works.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Immune escape for Omicron looks to a little worse than the existing Beta variant and we know that all of the vaccines protect against severe disease very well there.

    One of the reasons I've reserved judgement over what comes next is this, if Omicron presents mild symptoms in people who have been vaccinated or previously had COVID the same as Beta but presents the same severity in those with no immunity from vaccines or prior infection then I think the UK is in the clear.

    The best way to look at it is the 0-10 severity scale where 0 is no symptoms or no infection and 10 is death. Without vaccines the average severity of this was probably about a 4, enough to be ill for a bit but it was also extremely variable with older people experiencing much more severe disease and younger people on the lower side of it. With vaccines what's happened is that one dose reduces severity by about 2-3 notches, two doses by about 4-6 notches and 3 doses by 7-9 notches, natural immunity seems to reduce reinfection severity by about 6-8 notches.

    Now with Omicron in a largely immune population the average severity may only be a 2 plus a fairly narrow band of what people experience. We could be looking at three doses or two plus infection having the same or similar severity reduction as two doses and prior infection just below that level.

    My overall level of calm has increased a lot having seen that this is fairly similar to Beta in terms of immunity evasion. What's been puzzling until now is that Omicron has been able outcompete Delta for hosts rather than infect and exist alongside Delta. That alone meant there was going to be a high degree of cross immunity, now we know that to be the case.
  • Jonathan said:

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    It will be a very interesting PMQs today
    Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
    On this he has no option but to apologise
  • IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    IanB2 said:

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    No
    If SKS can find something indubitably true he may be able to try that.

    We aren't there yet afaics - it is still all claims and shouting.
    Making his own behaviour the story, with lots of faux outrage from the Tories, is the wrong approach. If he wants to get coverage, he can call for the PM to resign - but that's a weapon that quickly dilutes if it is used too casually.
    The reason I suggested it was that most normals understand right and wrong, and don't like the deference in parliament especially when it's misplaced. The Prime Minister and half the cabinet have been lying about this for a week. Calling a lie a lie is what normal people would do.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,947

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
    Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.

    Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
    No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.

    Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.

    Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
    Do you feel that your last 2 years have been 100% destroyed?
  • So this suggests a constituency MP (for a constituency with no apparent ties to Farthing) was able to assure Nowzad they would be evacuated before the MoD. That’s some power for a mere constituency MP

    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1468495477129818113?s=20
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,042

    Jonathan said:

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I have considered this. If he tries to do mea maxima culpa the story just gets worse. Because it isn't as if he has just found out that the party happened. He knew it happened (because he was there wasn't he...) and lied about it for a week.

    So if he does apologise for the party the furore moves straight onto the week of blatant lies. Perhaps he will try and bluster through as he always does and then offer Stratton's job as a sacrifice. That won't work either...
    It will be a very interesting PMQs today
    Are you still batting for Boris? Only the other day you were singing his praises giving thanks he was in no10 right now.
    On this he has no option but to apologise
    Indeed, but note that is not answering the question.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
    Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.

    Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
    No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.

    Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.

    Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
    Death is inevitable, but Covid greatly pulls that inevitable event forward to the immediate future. Again, you aren't proposing that you and yours should die in the immediate future, you are proposing that others should die in the immediate future.

    Someone else's premature death may be a sacrifice you are prepared to make for your "liberty", but it may not be one that the people to die and their loved ones may want to make.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,288
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    59,000 cases in France. Their second worst day ever, beaten only (I think) by one anomalous surge in the First Wave

    And this is BEFORE Omicron. And France has rigid vaxport rules and the rest?

    Europe is going into total lockdown, with mandatory jabs

    No it isn't, for Germany and Austria etc it is only vaccine passports and mandatory lockdown for the unvaccinated. Coupled with mandatory vaccinations from next year.

    For the double vaccinated and those who have had their booster it is little different to here
    Having spent three weeks in Germany this year, I can assure you that it is very different from here. France, not so much.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the whole raft of precautions only makes a difference at best around the margins. Each variant is more transmissible and we will probably find that all the mask wearing and the rest makes little difference. Perhaps we are catching it from air droplets into our eyes, who knows?
    I'm not sure what you mean by Germany is different. But living in Germany, I can say HYUFD is right (about Germany if not Austria), there is no "lockdown" here for the vaccinated or for children (at least not yet). Everything except nightclubs is open. You have to wear masks in shops and many other indoor settings. There are restrictions on numbers (eg in NRW public events maximum 5000 spectators inside, 15000 outside etc). And you have to show some kind of evidence of vaccination or recovery to get into many places (except children).

    There is no hard lockdown (as other countries have had) even for unvaccinated in the sense that there is no restriction on leaving your house with no reason - but you can't get into certain kinds of places unless vaccinated or recovered (museums, theatres, swimming pools, restaurants and bars - except takeaway, Christmas markets etc).

    This is true for NRW, but most Bundesländer are similar.

    Austria I think is a bit different, as they did have a kind of lockdown for everyone, which ends Sunday for the vaccinated.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 605

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    The arguments for Philip's point of view are numerous, even if I would not express it the way he did.

    Lockdown related policies have not achieved their objectives and, frankly, were never going to. We are all going to get this virus, quite probably more than once. Omicron has ensured this.

    OTOH, the consequences of such policies on the young in particular are egregious. My son, to take an example, had his last 2 years of schooling disrupted and was left with "results" that will always have a serious question mark hanging over them for the rest of his life. The socialisation, education and psychological problems that Philip described will scar millions of kids for a very long time, possibly for life.

    Tens of thousands are going to die prematurely because their healthcare has been deferred and disrupted. This was inevitable but our policies have dragged this out interminably greatly increasing the damage.

    All this to "protect" us against a virus with a mortality rate of less than 1%, very heavily weighted towards the very old and the very sick. And it hasn't worked.

    This current generation and the next will pay a very heavy price for the largesse of furlough and lockdowns. They will have a lower standard of living, poorer services and poorer healthcare. The interests of the gerontic mass that so dominates our politics have, once again, trumped all. And it hasn't even worked.

    So we have a situation where the main consequences of this have been borne by the young to protect the old. Again. Which would have been annoying enough if it had worked. But it didn't.

    That's all well and good. Except I missed the part where the elderly are no longer seen as being equal members of society, and instead are just expendable.

    I mean, if that's how society sees them, then we can do lots of things to improve the lot of the young at the expense of the elderly. I'm sure films have been made about such societies.

    As someone who is older than me, I'm sure you are looking forward to a rich old age.
    They are and should be equal members of society but their interests cannot continue to trump all.
    Philip's (and your) argument is that they are not equal members of society: they are expendable. And it's not just them: it's anyone who Phillip thinks is 'vulnerable' or 'sick'.

    Lockdown was an evil. Letting people die from Covid was an evil. It is a case of weighing up these evils: and I'd argue letting people die in vast numbers just so Philip can have his 'freedom' is by far the biggest evil.
    No I don't think anyone is expendable. What I do think is that death is inevitable for everyone and destroying people's education and years of life chances is not a price worth paying to postpone infections.

    Quite frankly on a pure mathematical basis since the virus, even without vaccines, had a fatality rate of below 1% a year of lockdown destroys more lifetime than having 1% of people die, unless remaining life expectancy for the dead was 100 more years, but it wasn't.

    Destroying people's opportunities and education etc is a far bigger evil than some people dying from natural causes.
    I don't entirely agree with your comments last night - old people are very often the parents or grandparents of the young, and the young don't wish to see them die early or suffer from this disease.

    OTOH, society has to place some sort of value on the lives of the old and vulnerable. We do this for pedestrians in the setting of speed limits, for example.

    How many lost educations are equivalent to one 85 year old dying a year early? A 40 year old anti-vaxxer? A runner with long Covid?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,824
    IanB2 said:

    Question - is it worth Starmer going all Max Verstappen at PMQs. "We know you lied, YOU know you lied". Get censured by the speaker. Withdraw "lied" and replace it with alternatives like "mis-spoke", "misdirected", "misremembered", said something that he knew not to be correct" etc etc

    No
    No, because it makes the story about Starmer - should he withdraw, was it inappropriate, etc. It's the job of a backbencher to do it and get suspended for 24 hours or whatever it is.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    I think No 10 pulled all interview requests as the very easy solution for Sajid was as John Bull states

    And he didn't even need to go that far - it could be if there was a party than it....

    John Bull
    @garius
    ·
    1m
    In seriousness, Sajid Javid has missed an absolute trick here.

    He was pre-booked on everything. He still wants to be PM.

    1) Show up to them all
    2) say the party was a disgrace and should, in his opinion, be investigated.

    Instead he's now associated with the silence.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 588

    Andy_JS said:

    Its funny how many lefties rage against Boris's lack of honesty but if I say that I don't care if some people die from Covid, that everyone dies eventually and we need to live our lives . . . then I'm attacked for not being "classy" etc

    If you want honesty, how about not insulting people when they give honest answers you dislike? 🤔

    I don't mind your honesty, but I think you're getting carried away to an untenable position. When you say "If that leads to deaths then whoever dies won't be putting the NHS under pressure anymore. They will have zero NHS demands going forwards. People dying is a pressure valve release for the NHS." you seem to be welcoming mass deaths, as a way of shortening waiting lists.

    I can see a case for not locking down, and I'm having dinner with half a dozen people on Saturday, so I'm not locking down myself yet. But there's a balance to be struck, and if Omicron proves wildly infectious, we need to start taking more precautions, such as wfh where possible. It does your argument a disservice if you pretend it's a no-brainer and really you don't care if large number die prematurely or not.

    If that was really your position, then you would be a sociopath - albeit a notably honest sociopath.
    Not a sociopath - and I was sober but angry when I wrote that. Had a couple of glasses of wine watching the Ashes now, so calmer but have had a drink now.

    It is a no-brainer. People die, that's part of the circle of life, everyone dies eventually.

    Viruses are natural. If some antivaxxers and vulnerable people die from natural causes then that sucks but its part of life.

    Telling kids to learn from home, telling businesses to shutdown, halting life is quite simply not a price worth paying to postpone by a little while an infection that is still going to be circulating after the restrictions are lifted.

    There was possibly an argument that restrictions were worthwhile pre-vaccines, to get us to a state where vaccines are available, though since that same BS is being pushed post-vaccines now I am beginning to think I was wrong to back that and that people like @contrarian who opposed it last year were right afterall. Mea culpa.

    Post-vaccines it is a no brainer. Stripping years of childhood from kids who need to spend time with other infants, stripping years from teenager or adults or anyone else . . . that is really sociopathic, not being OK with nature taking its course.
    +1
    -1

    What Philip wrote is rubbish. For one thing, 'everyone dies eventually' is a truism that can be used to excuse all sorts of horrors or excesses. He wants *his* freedom - and he doesn't care how many people who are not him lose their ultimate freedom.
    The thing is that normal life has to resume at some point. It's fairly clear that Covid is both endemic, and is going to periodically throw up nastier and more virulent variants. We can't afford to have normal life perpetually ready to hit the pause button for a couple of months every time a new variant crops up.

    Apart from anything else, lockdowns cost years of life across the population - and in many cases, years from the prime of people's lives. I'm 34. I had three months in 2020 where I didn't work, didn't really do anything, couldn't meet with my young lady (now Fiancée). The reality is that is three months lost from our marriage (our relationship was pretty much on hold because of the practicalities), three months of business development lost for my business (I would probably have taken on another employee by now, that's having to wait whilst some of the pandemic situation stabilises)... Etc etc.

    Repeat that over the population, and it's not clear that lockdown actually saved a net amount of life lived (as opposed to life forceably spent sat at home alone watching daytime TV) at the time, never mind in the long run. The idea it's even a possibility now just because of a more transmissible variant isn't just stupid, but actively evil.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,293
    edited December 2021
    eek said:

    I think No 10 pulled all interview requests as the very easy solution for Sajid was as John Bull states

    And he didn't even need to go that far - it could be if there was a party than it....

    John Bull
    @garius
    ·
    1m
    In seriousness, Sajid Javid has missed an absolute trick here.

    He was pre-booked on everything. He still wants to be PM.

    1) Show up to them all
    2) say the party was a disgrace and should, in his opinion, be investigated.

    Instead he's now associated with the silence.

    Henry Zeffman of the Times confirms it's No 10's decision.

    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1468485456748859393

    Which means the party is so awkward it's more important than getting booster jabs going.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,824

    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The Saj was due to do the media round this morning.

    And now he isn't...

    One thing the video shows is why Allegra Stratton never took any press conferences in the White House style, as was originally intended for the briefing room. She just isn't good enough for the barefaced lies needed, for that you need a delusional true believer. Shapps seems to be the Cabinet Minister to defend the indefensible.
    Though even he has ducked the gig today, apparently.

    But what should Allegra have said? The nervous laugh, the awkward joke, the gawping like a stranded fish... It's because, even if there's a legal loophole, it's not one the government can use without destroying itself.
    This is the way to do it:

    Separately, the Department for Education confirmed a report that some staff and the then education secretary Gavin Williamson held an office party on 10 December last year, while London was in tier 2, the second-highest level of Covid restrictions.

    The Mirror said Williamson gave a speech while up to two dozen staff gathered in a cafe area drinking wine. A DfE spokesperson said that on that date, “a gathering” took place of officials already present at the office “to thank those staff for their efforts during the pandemic”.

    They added: “While this was work-related, looking back we accept it would have been better not to have gathered in this way at that particular time.”

    Fair enough. Is anyone demanding that Williamson resign? No.
  • Suella Braverman just arrived at no 10

    Interesting
  • Pro_Rata said:

    Good morning

    The video last night has made it impossible for Boris to do anything other than accept the criticism and apologise

    I suspect withdrawing from the media this morning is a pre cursor to a statement from Boris at the start of PMQs accepting it was inappropriate and offering an apology

    Anything less would be unacceptable

    I suspect what you want to happen and what will happen are not the same thing.
    History is not on the big man’s side. Hope duffs up experience.
This discussion has been closed.