This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The trouble is that when it's been pointed out to you about twenty times how misleading such statements are, it makes you look not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
Why do you think it's me saying it ? Numerous doctors in SA are saying it. Do you know more than them ?
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Well that’s the point of the pre recorded message yes. But Nerys Hughes is pointing out rebels can produce facts to counter argue Boris is out of touch.
It’s going to need a proper HoC debate you would agree?
Yes and on Tuesday I understand
It’s just my view, but the whole of humanity is slowly but strongly osmosising if that’s a word to just living with Covid, and same arguments used by government will meet stronger more articulate resistance now going forward.
Not least the harm done to health and happiness by tight restrictions.
The first lockdown address was pre-recorded, I think.
Here we go.
no, they have briefed the press already, no new restrictions (yet). It is all get your booster, be careful, things are looking dicey.
Then what's the point of this recording?
To urge boosters? Right now he's so unpopular he'd get a better takeup of them if he banned us all from getting them on the grounds they interfered with his Christmas plans.
I gather there's been some contretemps at the Grand Prix. Someone on here called it "WWE with cars". I suppose Cheltenham is "WWE with horses" and St Andrews would be "WWE with golf clubs".
On topic (remember that), expectations management isn't just about the Conservative Party (there's so many more important things than that organisation). Within the Liberal Democrats, there has been a message from the beginning which is "this is winnable just as Chesham & Amersham was".
Day after day, the reports have been of "hundreds" of volunteers in the constituency and every MP making multiple visits. This is to encourage people to go, to help, in the belief there is a real prospect of victory. I remember something similar for Romsey in 1999.
Beyond the party, a victory means a day at least of positive press coverage which re-enforces the idea the LDs are back and the nightmare of the past is over. That, you might argue, raises some other searching questions but those would be for another day. If you can't get into the buffet of publicity, the day you do manage to sneak in and you fill your plate as high as possible.
I'm reminded of the old maxim "you need to make the most of your successes because you can be sure someone else will make the most of your failures".
Understand PM will announce a massive expansion of booster campaign, extremely strong new language warning of Omicron threat, changes to booster rules and logistics to rapidly ramp up numbers getting jabbed (and no new restrictions)
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
When New Zealand did a National Vaccination Day, 130,000 doses were administered across the country. That would be the equivalent of not far off 1.5 million here so it shows what is possible.
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Indeed - I can only imagine. I feel particularly sorry for the people that devote their entire working lives to these organisations; who then get shafted because they find one day that their face doesn't fit anymore.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
Not true. My goal was only to tell you that masks work and for you to understand that. I guess I got halfway there.
I never claimed they don't.
I claimed mandates don't.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, you haven't proved they do. You haven't shown they reduce hospitalisations, or deaths, or anything else over the long-term.
I literally posted your comments earlier where you did. Philip_Trumpson, gaslighter and liar. I'm off to get some dinner.
You're lying.
The words you quoted were me saying mandates don't work. They don't. I will repeat the words. Where did I say masks don't work?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
Do you have even a single study to show that mask mandates have any efficacy at all in reducing deaths and hospitalisations or restrictions over the long term?
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
Being at the top is better.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
Yeah. My elderly landlord and landlady have declined to have any vaccination - "We never have visitors" (except carers twice a day...), he has cancer so "his immune system is weaker, don't want to risk the vaccine affecting it", "we don't want any blood clots or other side-effects". I've told them that I think they're making a mistake, as apparently have their younger relatives. Not sure how far I should jump up and down about it - they seem quite set on it, and ultimately it's of course their decision, but do I just passively wait and probably see them die?
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
When New Zealand did a National Vaccination Day, 130,000 doses were administered across the country. That would be the equivalent of not far off 1.5 million here so it shows what is possible.
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
How many jabs were done on the next days? We’re limited by capacity; I’m not sure what good it would do to concentrate it to one day simply to get a good headline.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Reorg are a nightmare. Last job I carefully checked that the last reorg was recent and there was a clear two year runway. I had been stung in my previous public sector job.
UK chief medical officers: "Data on severity will become clearer over the coming weeks but hospitalisations from Omicron are already occurring and these are likely to increase rapidly"
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Indeed - I can only imagine. I feel particularly sorry for the people that devote their entire working lives to these organisations; who then get shafted because they find one day that their face doesn't fit anymore.
The most important lesson I was taught in my early teaching career was by a newly retired teacher, who was forced to retire early for that reason. 'Never be loyal to a school, because they'll only be loyal to you as long as it suits them.'
Good advice, particularly at my last school (where I was ostracised for daring to protest at the team building exercise where we had to give the Fascist salute). Even at my current one although I get on fine with the head, we both understand I am about to move on for my own reasons and she has said while she would like me to stay she respects my decision and the reasons for it.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The trouble is that when it's been pointed out to you about twenty times how misleading such statements are, it makes you look not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
Why do you think it's me saying it ? Numerous doctors in SA are saying it. Do you know more than them ?
It's not the severity, its the contagiousness and the impact on health services. I need to see significant rises in hospitalisations to Jan levels (which I don't believe is remotely likely) and strong pressure on the NHS before I could get even a teensy bit behind any further restrictions.
The first lockdown address was pre-recorded, I think.
Here we go.
no, they have briefed the press already, no new restrictions (yet). It is all get your booster, be careful, things are looking dicey.
Then what's the point of this recording?
To urge boosters? Right now he's so unpopular he'd get a better takeup of them if he banned us all from getting them on the grounds they interfered with his Christmas plans.
Absolutely genuine huge LOL from that. Bravo!
I'm not here all week because I have to earn a living, but the week after...
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
Being at the top is better.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
Yeah. My elderly landlord and landlady have declined to have any vaccination - "We never have visitors" (except carers twice a day...), he has cancer so "his immune system is weaker, don't want to risk the vaccine affecting it", "we don't want any blood clots or other side-effects". I've told them that I think they're making a mistake, as apparently have their younger relatives. Not sure how far I should jump up and down about it - they seem quite set on it, and ultimately it's of course their decision, but do I just passively wait and probably see them die?
Perhaps they are not that fussed and can't be bothered. Perhaps, being elderly and ill, their view is to take it as it comes. I suspect there are quite a few like that.
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
When New Zealand did a National Vaccination Day, 130,000 doses were administered across the country. That would be the equivalent of not far off 1.5 million here so it shows what is possible.
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The trouble is that when it's been pointed out to you about twenty times how misleading such statements are, it makes you look not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
Why do you think it's me saying it ? Numerous doctors in SA are saying it. Do you know more than them ?
It's not the severity, its the contagiousness and the impact on health services. I need to see significant rises in hospitalisations to Jan levels (which I don't believe is remotely likely) and strong pressure on the NHS before I could get even a teensy bit behind any further restrictions.
In SA there has been no increase in pressure on hospitals from Omicron according to a Dr from SA on BBC news today
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
With marginal, if any, differences to the Delta wave in England.
Plus all the negatives of mask-wearing so Nippy can do something just to be different from evil England.
We spent the entire summer being complacent and not getting prepared. Yet again we have repeated mistakes again, anytime people raised concerns, they were shouted down
Yes Yes No Hell No How exactly?
Masks on public transport and in shops should never have been removed, we should have spent the summer getting cases down and getting capacity freed up. I did say the cases were too high and I did call for masks to be brought back and I was called silly by you and some others
We've had them all along in Scotland. Much to some PBers' disgust.
With marginal, if any, differences to the Delta wave in England.
Plus all the negatives of mask-wearing so Nippy can do something just to be different from evil England.
Percentages of people who have had a 3rd dose of vaccine in England and Scotland
Experimental. Not to be trusted. The management take no all responsibility for the numbers in this item. The management take no responsibility. Your mileage will vary. May contain nuts. May contain nutters, May contain trained Marxist nutters.
I'm upset that no-one has said anything rude about this one.
Tower Hamlets is fucked, it looks like.
There’s so much to take in tonight, sorry I’m in back of car being driven home!
So it’s better to be at top of this graph than bottom? 55.61 Chelsea. I’ll have a go at saying something rude. Average age of London is probably lowest in country, vast amount not even allowed to book jabs yet - but then when you say fucked it’s not younger age groups most at risk?
Is that okay? 🙂
Being at the top is better.
The problem with Tower Hamlets etc is the low take up in the older age groups. They have quite a few 80+ with no vaccinations at all.
The fatality rate for COVID for 80+ with no vaccination has been 30%+ in the past.
yes, 1/3rd of 80+ getting COVID, no vaccinations, will die from it.
That's Black Death rates.
This thing kills old people, literally, like the plague.
I'll do absolute numbers in a bit. But the issue is really, over 40s with *no protection at all*.
Yeah. My elderly landlord and landlady have declined to have any vaccination - "We never have visitors" (except carers twice a day...), he has cancer so "his immune system is weaker, don't want to risk the vaccine affecting it", "we don't want any blood clots or other side-effects". I've told them that I think they're making a mistake, as apparently have their younger relatives. Not sure how far I should jump up and down about it - they seem quite set on it, and ultimately it's of course their decision, but do I just passively wait and probably see them die?
At risk of sounding rather callous, it sounds to me as though given their circumstances you're fairly likely to do that before long anyway whether they get Covid or not.
I'm fortunate that my father (for once) made the sensible decision to get vaccinated ASAP but I have had to resign myself to the fact we're in a downhill run to the end now anyway due to his other health issues.
I might add, it isn't easy but sometimes you have to be realistic.
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The trouble is that when it's been pointed out to you about twenty times how misleading such statements are, it makes you look not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
Why do you think it's me saying it ? Numerous doctors in SA are saying it. Do you know more than them ?
It's not the severity, its the contagiousness and the impact on health services. I need to see significant rises in hospitalisations to Jan levels (which I don't believe is remotely likely) and strong pressure on the NHS before I could get even a teensy bit behind any further restrictions.
In SA there has been no increase in pressure on hospitals from Omicron according to a Dr from SA on BBC news today
So are the BBC now on board with your idea of scare over, as you were?
Hearing Starmer ... 'worst possible leader at the worst possible time' and yet he sounds like the worst possible loto at the worst possible time. (Entirely unengaging)
This should be headline news. I imagine the tory rebels have loads of evidence from SA to use in the debate on Tuesday
The conservative rebels are going to be seen as completely out of touch after tonight's press conference
Out of touch ? Have you watched the video of the Doctor from SA, they are completely in touch. Omicron is a much milder disease than Delta
The trouble is that when it's been pointed out to you about twenty times how misleading such statements are, it makes you look not only a liar, but a stupid liar.
Why do you think it's me saying it ? Numerous doctors in SA are saying it. Do you know more than them ?
It's not the severity, its the contagiousness and the impact on health services. I need to see significant rises in hospitalisations to Jan levels (which I don't believe is remotely likely) and strong pressure on the NHS before I could get even a teensy bit behind any further restrictions.
In SA there has been no increase in pressure on hospitals from Omicron according to a Dr from SA on BBC news today
So are the BBC now on board with your idea of scare over, as you were?
Hearing Starmer ... 'worst possible leader at the worst possible time' and yet he sounds like the worst possible loto at the worst possible time. (Entirely unengaging)
Hearing Starmer ... 'worst possible leader at the worst possible time' and yet he sounds like the worst possible loto at the worst possible time. (Entirely unengaging)
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Indeed - I can only imagine. I feel particularly sorry for the people that devote their entire working lives to these organisations; who then get shafted because they find one day that their face doesn't fit anymore.
The most important lesson I was taught in my early teaching career was by a newly retired teacher, who was forced to retire early for that reason. 'Never be loyal to a school, because they'll only be loyal to you as long as it suits them.'
Good advice, particularly at my last school (where I was ostracised for daring to protest at the team building exercise where we had to give the Fascist salute). Even at my current one although I get on fine with the head, we both understand I am about to move on for my own reasons and she has said while she would like me to stay she respects my decision and the reasons for it.
My experience of government that there is often a very strong culture in organisations that resists this sort of change, or manages it to the point where it is really insignificant in terms of its effect on staff. But the pressure is constant, and when the dam breaks (typically when the 'change' consultants get their way) it unleashes a tsunami of chaos and the former situation is never restored.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
I'm not so sure. The Conservative and LD teams should be fairly well acquainted with where their support is and should now be firming that up by final calls, leaflets and the like.
The old maxim "there are fools, damn fools and people who rely on canvass returns" should always lend more than a hint of caution to any calculations and so much will depend on the GOTV operation on the day. The weather looks favourable but we can probably assume the LDs will need every vote on the day to offset the likely Conservative advantage in the postal ballots.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Reorg are a nightmare. Last job I carefully checked that the last reorg was recent and there was a clear two year runway. I had been stung in my previous public sector job.
Three months after joining, full blown merger.
Painful. The one thing about the public sector is that these mergers are generally very slow. I went through a merger and saw that some people were able to manipulate the process so that their positions were secured in the new organisation, whereas everyone else had to reapply for their jobs through a so called objective and impartial process. On seeing this I just applied for another job outside the organisation, because I concluded that the process was a sham and had no credibility. Like @ydoethur, I've kept moving on; and been honest with my employers as to why and they tend be ok about it.
The first lockdown address was pre-recorded, I think.
Here we go.
no, they have briefed the press already, no new restrictions (yet). It is all get your booster, be careful, things are looking dicey.
Then what's the point of this recording?
To urge boosters? Right now he's so unpopular he'd get a better takeup of them if he banned us all from getting them on the grounds they interfered with his Christmas plans.
As stated below, I wonder if SAGE have repeated calls for more restrictions, Witty / Valance won't come out and back his "keep calm and get boostered, no more than Plan B". Witty was absolutely not on board with Plan B the other day.
And why would anyone listen to SAGE given their track record?
Because people trust the modellers and scientists more than politicians, even if the modellers are shown to be consistently wrong nobody calls them out on there massive misses.
Exactly. Unlike elected politicians, the modellers are always let off, not pilloried, when they commit serious errors.
The Government is therefore in a very difficult position. If it makes its next moves informed by the experience of July (when all of the models were shown to be wildly inaccurate) and we don't have a gigantic death wave, then ministers will likely get no credit and the academics will be forgotten about - until the next set of doomcasts. If the academics turn out to be right then all of the blame will be visited upon the Government and everyone will say how brilliant the models were.
It makes the impulse to take precautionary action extremely strong and, now that the collapse back into restrictions has commenced, their snowballing into a new lockdown seem all too likely.
They won’t overturn this IMO, although there is probably a good case for it.
I think the bad decisions about evened themselves out, frankly.
I would also say I think Hamilton had the faster car but for that very reason Verstappen was the better driver over the season. It wasn't until near the end Hamilton seemed to push himself a bit more.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Reorg are a nightmare. Last job I carefully checked that the last reorg was recent and there was a clear two year runway. I had been stung in my previous public sector job.
Three months after joining, full blown merger.
Painful. The one thing about the public sector is that these mergers are generally very slow. I went through a merger and saw that some people were able to manipulate the process so that their positions were secured in the new organisation, whereas everyone else had to reapply for their jobs through a so called objective and impartial process. On seeing this I just applied for another job outside the organisation, because I concluded that the process was a sham and had no credibility. Like @ydoethur, I've kept moving on; and been honest with my employers as to why and they tend be ok about it.
Worst one I had was at Company X. Apparently there had been a few rumours for a couple of days, but I'd not heard anything at my grunt level. One morning we were all called over to the church hall opposite the company - the only space large enough to take us all, and even then we were sardines. Once in there, we were told the company was being reorged (it turned out as part of a larger plan), and about a third of us were being let go.
As we left the building, each of us was handed an envelope with our name on it. Inside was a letter saying whether you had a job or were undergoing 'the process', with little chance of staying.
People were crying outside the church doors. It seemed a horrible sudden and impersonal way of doing things. I got to stay for another three or so years, but we lost some good people. It was also rather chaotic.
I can’t imagine a lockdown over Christmas now, given that planes with family members onboard are already in the air and everyone is looking forward to it. It would bring down the government.
A lockdown in ‘Dry’ January is a different matter. Will probably depend on the South African numbers staying on course, and cutting through (everyone is ignoring them currently).
Should it be a surprise that F1 having been bought by a US media business it now has the sporting integrity of WWE…
It has ever been this since Bernie took it over. The camaraderie in dangerous adversity from the drivers of1960s and 70s gave way to the cynicism we saw today. I had a letter published in the Times critical of Schumacher after he took Damon out in 1994 (?). A complete waste of effort on my part as nothing has changed.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Indeed - I can only imagine. I feel particularly sorry for the people that devote their entire working lives to these organisations; who then get shafted because they find one day that their face doesn't fit anymore.
The most important lesson I was taught in my early teaching career was by a newly retired teacher, who was forced to retire early for that reason. 'Never be loyal to a school, because they'll only be loyal to you as long as it suits them.'
Good advice, particularly at my last school (where I was ostracised for daring to protest at the team building exercise where we had to give the Fascist salute). Even at my current one although I get on fine with the head, we both understand I am about to move on for my own reasons and she has said while she would like me to stay she respects my decision and the reasons for it.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Reorg are a nightmare. Last job I carefully checked that the last reorg was recent and there was a clear two year runway. I had been stung in my previous public sector job.
Three months after joining, full blown merger.
Painful. The one thing about the public sector is that these mergers are generally very slow. I went through a merger and saw that some people were able to manipulate the process so that their positions were secured in the new organisation, whereas everyone else had to reapply for their jobs through a so called objective and impartial process. On seeing this I just applied for another job outside the organisation, because I concluded that the process was a sham and had no credibility. Like @ydoethur, I've kept moving on; and been honest with my employers as to why and they tend be ok about it.
Worst one I had was at Company X. Apparently there had been a few rumours for a couple of days, but I'd not heard anything at my grunt level. One morning we were all called over to the church hall opposite the company - the only space large enough to take us all, and even then we were sardines. Once in there, we were told the company was being reorged (it turned out as part of a larger plan), and about a third of us were being let go.
As we left the building, each of us was handed an envelope with our name on it. Inside was a letter saying whether you had a job or were undergoing 'the process', with little chance of staying.
People were crying outside the church doors. It seemed a horrible sudden and impersonal way of doing things. I got to stay for another three or so years, but we lost some good people. It was also rather chaotic.
The management don't really think about such things.
Twice I have had to tell people their jobs were being abolished, and each time I did it myself, so I could talk to the people concerned and make sure they were supported.
Ironically both times they were then reprieved largely due to my later intervention when other roles became available.
Even more ironically, after I had left they were offered redundancy and it was I, knowing the full story of what was going on, who urged them to take it...
I can’t imagine a lockdown over Christmas now, given that planes with family members onboard are already in the air and everyone is looking forward to it. It would bring down the government.
A lockdown in ‘Dry’ January is a different matter. Will probably depend on the South African numbers staying on course, and cutting through (everyone is ignoring them currently).
I think SAGE want it now, Boris wants to get through to Jan because Christmas cancelled he will be cremated toast rather than currently badly burned toast.
Obviously the stewards are going to make a decision, announce it, then speak to the teams again, change their mind and come up with another decision that doesn’t make sense……
The good thing is that Mercedes’ can do whatever they like next season and just point out that the rules don’t actually apply and can be changed at any time!
But I take it that the motor race is over, that the fastest driver won, and that the post mortem could be lengthy.
When's the next test match start? I understand the cricket stuff.
Please God no. Not cricket. I understand nothing about this thread. I understand nothing about cricket. They may be sport but if so they are the dullest activities in the world. So dull in fact that I have been forced to watch a documentary about the Shipman murders. Oh and write a header. 😉
Obviously the stewards are going to make a decision, announce it, then speak to the teams again, change their mind and come up with another decision that doesn’t make sense……
The good thing is that Mercedes’ can do whatever they like next season and just point out that the rules don’t actually apply and can be changed at any time!
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Indeed - I can only imagine. I feel particularly sorry for the people that devote their entire working lives to these organisations; who then get shafted because they find one day that their face doesn't fit anymore.
The most important lesson I was taught in my early teaching career was by a newly retired teacher, who was forced to retire early for that reason. 'Never be loyal to a school, because they'll only be loyal to you as long as it suits them.'
Good advice, particularly at my last school (where I was ostracised for daring to protest at the team building exercise where we had to give the Fascist salute). Even at my current one although I get on fine with the head, we both understand I am about to move on for my own reasons and she has said while she would like me to stay she respects my decision and the reasons for it.
As I used to say to new colleagues at my international megacorps: this is a great company to work for, up until they decide they don't need you any more.
I write this without prejudice and as a pro-European.
However, any sporting organisation (especially motorsport) run by the French (which seems to be most of them) is institutionally corrupt and it is the plucky Brit that normally takes the spanking.
I learned this lesson as a 4 year old in 1966 when the winning Mini Coopers were disqualified from the Monte Carlo Rally on a lighting infringement. The French scrutineers decided the Minis had the wrong bulbs in the headlights- like that would have any effect on performance! Anyway several other teams were also disqualified over lighting issues before the 1966 Monte Carlo Rally win could be awarded to the Citroen team.
A lesson learned well, and early. Sorry Lewis.
That also explains why it was our beef that was banned in 1996 while it went rampaging through the French national herd at an even greater rate amid an official cover-up (that they still get very touchy if you mention).
My friends in the French veterinary community are happy to acknowledge that one these days.
They won’t overturn this IMO, although there is probably a good case for it.
I think the bad decisions about evened themselves out, frankly.
I would also say I think Hamilton had the faster car but for that very reason Verstappen was the better driver over the season. It wasn't until near the end Hamilton seemed to push himself a bit more.
So the outcome would seem about fair.
It is a great shame that the FIA in hock to their TV masters don't stop coming up with wizard wheezes to draw the championship out to the last lap.
Hamilton could have had a ban or points deduction for Silverstone, and Verstappen should have been given a slap for being outrageously dangerous on several occasions. Had Hamilton's neck been broken after Verstappen drove onto his head I wonder how many seconds penalty Max would have incurred?
I write this without prejudice and as a pro-European.
However, any sporting organisation (especially motorsport) run by the French (which seems to be most of them) is institutionally corrupt and it is the plucky Brit that normally takes the spanking.
I learned this lesson as a 4 year old in 1966 when the winning Mini Coopers were disqualified from the Monte Carlo Rally on a lighting infringement. The French scrutineers decided the Minis had the wrong bulbs in the headlights- like that would have any effect on performance! Anyway several other teams were also disqualified over lighting issues before the 1966 Monte Carlo Rally win could be awarded to the Citroen team.
A lesson learned well, and early. Sorry Lewis.
That also explains why it was our beef that was banned in 1996 while it went rampaging through the French national herd at an even greater rate amid an official cover-up (that they still get very touchy if you mention).
My friends in the French veterinary community are happy to acknowledge that one these days.
Then tell them to stop editing Wikipedia to try and conceal it.
Regarding work reorganisations (amongst other things) - all the best and good luck to @Jonathan. I have spent the last 10 years in the public sector; and we seemed to have to go through these every couple of years. It was very destablising and stressful, to the point where it seemed like half the office left for other jobs, or took redundancy. In fact, in the last Council I worked for, people only stayed on average for 1-2 years, because the whole place was so unstable due to the continuous reorganisations. I have recently returned to similar work, but as a contractor, and it is much better paid, even within IR35, and perversely more stable, because if this job ends I can look for another contract in another Council. Of course, I might get to the point where there is no contract work available; but equally I could lose my job in a local authority reorganisation, so it feels like there is little real difference between the two scenarios.
Feel your pain. That's the way it's getting with teaching too.
Reorg are a nightmare. Last job I carefully checked that the last reorg was recent and there was a clear two year runway. I had been stung in my previous public sector job.
Three months after joining, full blown merger.
Painful. The one thing about the public sector is that these mergers are generally very slow. I went through a merger and saw that some people were able to manipulate the process so that their positions were secured in the new organisation, whereas everyone else had to reapply for their jobs through a so called objective and impartial process. On seeing this I just applied for another job outside the organisation, because I concluded that the process was a sham and had no credibility. Like @ydoethur, I've kept moving on; and been honest with my employers as to why and they tend be ok about it.
Worst one I had was at Company X. Apparently there had been a few rumours for a couple of days, but I'd not heard anything at my grunt level. One morning we were all called over to the church hall opposite the company - the only space large enough to take us all, and even then we were sardines. Once in there, we were told the company was being reorged (it turned out as part of a larger plan), and about a third of us were being let go.
As we left the building, each of us was handed an envelope with our name on it. Inside was a letter saying whether you had a job or were undergoing 'the process', with little chance of staying.
People were crying outside the church doors. It seemed a horrible sudden and impersonal way of doing things. I got to stay for another three or so years, but we lost some good people. It was also rather chaotic.
The management don't really think about such things.
Twice I have had to tell people their jobs were being abolished, and each time I did it myself, so I could talk to the people concerned and make sure they were supported.
Ironically both times they were then reprieved largely due to my later intervention when other roles became available.
Even more ironically, after I had left they were offered redundancy and it was I, knowing the full story of what was going on, who urged them to take it...
This has bought back memories of one reorganisation where, when confronted with having to reapply for my job, I refused to participate at all, and just asked for voluntary redundancy. My manager supported my request. But then her manager overturned it and I was in a position where I wasn't able to leave, but didn't have a job in the organisation. Then I applied for a promotion and got it, presumably because they couldn't think what else to do with me.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
Off the top of my head, how about something like a National Vaccination Day? Massive advertising campaign, vaccines available in as many locations as capacity can cope with, free public transport to get to a vaccination site, mobile vaccination units cruising around, employers and schools etc. have agreed to give time off work for vaccinations etc.... You get the idea.
Yes, a few big publicity events and days to get it done.
When New Zealand did a National Vaccination Day, 130,000 doses were administered across the country. That would be the equivalent of not far off 1.5 million here so it shows what is possible.
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
Today's Anecdata:
1) Around 1% wearing masks at a packed football game.
2) Mrs Foxys friend at the vax booster clinic says getting a lot of no shows (and not done elsewhere as would show on the screens)
3) I was pinged today (asymptomatic) so have been for a PCR. LFT negative. Not required to isolate as fully vaxxed, but will wear an FFP3* for this week.
4) Antivax friend of my neighbour died of covid this week.
Looks bad to me. Leicester shaping up for a horrible holiday period. Stay safe out there...
*a correctly fitted FFP3 filters out aerosol viruses, an FFP2 larger droplets. They are far better and the results from Addenbrookes show that they should be used more by staff.
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
He who wields the knife…
Hancock thinks he’s in with a chance as well. Which is a bit like me entering the NFL draft.
They won’t overturn this IMO, although there is probably a good case for it.
I think the bad decisions about evened themselves out, frankly.
I would also say I think Hamilton had the faster car but for that very reason Verstappen was the better driver over the season. It wasn't until near the end Hamilton seemed to push himself a bit more.
So the outcome would seem about fair.
Except I don't think Mercedes has the fastest car for most of the season - hence the run of wins Verstappen clocked up. The regulation changes for the 2021 season really disadvantaged Merc, and it took them ages to turn it around.
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
He who wields the knife…
Hancock thinks he’s in with a chance as well. Which is a bit like me entering the NFL draft.
Most delusional claim since Jo Swinson Next Prime Minister.
@Farooq your problem is you seem to be, like Rochdale, incapable of seeing past "cases = BAD".
For me, as many cases as happen naturally occur is a GOOD thing. Especially if those who are bothered about the virus are protected by wearing a quality FFP2 etc mask while those who aren't, are not wearing one.
That segments the risk so that the right people are getting immunity more, which raises the herd immunity levels for the benefit of everyone including those having to wear a mask because they're afraid.
I don't accept the premise that preventing "cases" is a good thing. It may have been early on in the pandemic pre vaccines but it isn't anymore. I don't want cases reduced by NPIs, so them being reduced by NPIs isn't a benefit.
The BMJ article says how states (and nations) with mask mandates have had lower case rates. That is an argument AGAINST mask mandates for me. Those states have failed to get immunity.
No, you're just attacking straw men now. The only point I'm trying to make is that masks work. This is in response to your repeated false assertions that they do not. At no point have I said masks should be mandated, I'm just trying to bring some truth in to usurp your lies.
You seem on the verge in the above post of saying that NPIs do, in fact, work. Alongside a separate argument which is saying that, to paraphrase, "they are bad BECAUSE they work".
Well, it's progress, I guess. I hope you'll stop with your anti-science premises now. I won't even attempt to tackle your argument that it's good to let this spread, not now at least.
No shit Sherlock that masks work. That's why I advocated for them last year.
I dispute that mask mandates work post vaccines because inhibiting those who are not bothered about catching Covid and putting them on the same footing as those who are bothered is a terrible idea.
The only way out of this is immunity. The best way to get immunity is vaccines, we've done that.
The second best way to get immunity is for those who don't care if they get infected, to naturally get infected before those who do care if they do.
Inhibiting the spread of the virus post vaccines is stupid. The sane solution is those who are bothered wear masks to protect themselves and nobody else does.
So you've gone on journey from being right about the facts of masks to being wrong about them. What do you want, part credit? Most people prefer to go the other way but horses for courses I guess.
If you were confident in your justification that masks shouldn't be mandated, why go around spreading misinformation about mask efficacy? Why lie?
I never said masks have no efficacy.
I said mask mandates are bad.
There's a difference. I've said that many times now. How many different ways do I need to say it?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
You, just in the last few days. I remember older stuff too, but I'm not doing your homework for you a third time. You've been trying to get people to think masks don't work for several weeks. It would be better if you used honest means to push your agenda. Philip, you've lied repeatedly.
Mask mandates. Mask mandates not masks. 🤦♂️
"If mask mandates had efficacy"
They don't. Mask mandates don't work because they suppress the virus for everyone but the virus is still endemic. It doesn't ensure those capable of defeating the virus get immunity. It doesn't suppress the virus away from those vulnerable, since the virus remains endemic.
Mandates don't work. Name any state or nation with mask mandates that has better immunity now than we do?
Mask mandates do work. It's right there in one of the studies I sent you earlier that you claim to have read. Jesus fucking Christ, how is it possible you cram so much stupid into just one head? You're like a fucking goldfish.
Define "work".
Working is getting out of restrictions and our normal life with high immunity so the virus isn't causing problems. How do mask mandates achieve that end?
They are counterproductive as they prevent the right people from getting infected, postponing the infection until down the road. They don't prevent infections, they just delay them for everyone which is not working.
But if you don't have mask mandates then you can have more infections amongst the low-risk, but if you are high-risk you can be better protected than everyone else.
Work in that they reduce transmission of the virus. And, in the right circumstances, they can keep the R below 1. That's it. It's a perfectly simple fact.
Once again I'm trying not to involve myself in the argument you're making beyond that which is "is that even desirable?" You make your case well but I'll note that there are arguments against what you're saying too. But I'm not going to enter into those right now, especially not with you because you have a tendency to resort easily to fallacies and even lies. And partially because I would be exploring an issue where I haven't decided where I stand. And you are a very poor person to do that with, for the reasons stated above: I don't trust you not to lie.
The one thing that concerns me most about what you're saying is I think high incidence leads to higher chances of mutations.I haven't read into it or thought much about it, but it "feels" like it's a gamble. But again, I'm not pushing a point of view there. I need to know more facts.
Then you have a completely different and in my view faintly ridiculous definition of working.
Using your logic, lockdowns work, so we should be under lockdown still.
Why is suppressing cases the aim? Suppressing cases should only ever be a means to an end.
My definition for working would be getting to the other side and out of restrictions with as few restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as possible.
If you end up with more restrictions which suppresses cases in the short term, but overall leads to more hospitalisations and deaths, then you have failed all three of my tests but passed yours.
Do you really think fewer cases in the short term, but more restrictions, more deaths and more hospitalisations over the long term is "working"?
Yes, lockdowns DO work. That is not the same as advocating their use. Masks work. The whole point of them is to prevent transmission of infections. If you prefer everyone to become infected, don't use masks. What you do with the facts is up to you.
Working should be more than just preventing infections in the short term.
If you stop someone from getting infected today but they get infected next Thursday instead, then what purpose has that served?
You're missing the fact that life goes on for longer than today. Mask mandates don't work because they just kick the can with no solution.
You keep asking me to get into the other argument with you, Philip, and I keep telling you no. No means no.
That's fine, then don't complain when others say mask mandates don't work. Because they don't.
Preventing 'cases' is not the goal. It should never be the goal. Preventing 'cases' is never any more than a means to an end.
If you want to claim mask mandates work then they need to do more than just postpone infections from today to tomorrow.
And we're back to the start again. You're impervious to reason, and concretely anti-science on this. I'm done trying to dig you out. You have the science, you can wallow in your own stupidity.
I'm pro-science.
I have different goals than you. You've set a goal of preventing 'cases' today which the science shows doesn't even prevent future cases.
I have set a goal of reducing restrictions, hospitalisations and deaths as much as possible.
Preventing 'cases' today doesn't achieve that goal if that results in more hospitalisations and deaths tomorrow.
I wrote this the other day but Farooq would do well to look at daily case rates before and after the Nov lockdown. All that happened was cases were displaced in time. No sombrero was squished, the spike just got pushed to the right.
The fact that the boffins and ministers are both still clearly wetting because they're unsure of exactly what Omicron will do makes life rather complicated.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.
If you close down hospitality over the Christmas period, it doesn't matter what support you offer much of it would not reopen. February is a bad month for them anyway with the poor weather and everyone busy.
Comments
(I do not count resigning in the 'something stupid' category.)
Not least the harm done to health and happiness by tight restrictions.
I gather there's been some contretemps at the Grand Prix. Someone on here called it "WWE with cars". I suppose Cheltenham is "WWE with horses" and St Andrews would be "WWE with golf clubs".
On topic (remember that), expectations management isn't just about the Conservative Party (there's so many more important things than that organisation). Within the Liberal Democrats, there has been a message from the beginning which is "this is winnable just as Chesham & Amersham was".
Day after day, the reports have been of "hundreds" of volunteers in the constituency and every MP making multiple visits. This is to encourage people to go, to help, in the belief there is a real prospect of victory. I remember something similar for Romsey in 1999.
Beyond the party, a victory means a day at least of positive press coverage which re-enforces the idea the LDs are back and the nightmare of the past is over. That, you might argue, raises some other searching questions but those would be for another day. If you can't get into the buffet of publicity, the day you do manage to sneak in and you fill your plate as high as possible.
I'm reminded of the old maxim "you need to make the most of your successes because you can be sure someone else will make the most of your failures".
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1470095701224923144?s=20
There was an all-day Jabathon on the television - that might be a step too far.
The words you quoted were me saying mandates don't work. They don't. I will repeat the words. Where did I say masks don't work?
'Sadly there is a bullshit idea that has been spread that "your mask protects others"'
'If mask mandates had efficacy, we should surely have studies demonstrating that by now. Where are they?'
Do you have even a single study to show that mask mandates have any efficacy at all in reducing deaths and hospitalisations or restrictions over the long term?
Not enough. Lockdown incoming
Three months after joining, full blown merger.
Good advice, particularly at my last school (where I was ostracised for daring to protest at the team building exercise where we had to give the Fascist salute). Even at my current one although I get on fine with the head, we both understand I am about to move on for my own reasons and she has said while she would like me to stay she respects my decision and the reasons for it.
Nobody knows anything.
According to England.
I'm fortunate that my father (for once) made the sensible decision to get vaccinated ASAP but I have had to resign myself to the fact we're in a downhill run to the end now anyway due to his other health issues.
I might add, it isn't easy but sometimes you have to be realistic.
The Labour 2019 campaign was a disaster, lead by a leader who had given up
It's a sort of red flag.
This is almost more exciting than the race.
The old maxim "there are fools, damn fools and people who rely on canvass returns" should always lend more than a hint of caution to any calculations and so much will depend on the GOTV operation on the day. The weather looks favourable but we can probably assume the LDs will need every vote on the day to offset the likely Conservative advantage in the postal ballots.
But it's still richly entertaining.
The Government is therefore in a very difficult position. If it makes its next moves informed by the experience of July (when all of the models were shown to be wildly inaccurate) and we don't have a gigantic death wave, then ministers will likely get no credit and the academics will be forgotten about - until the next set of doomcasts. If the academics turn out to be right then all of the blame will be visited upon the Government and everyone will say how brilliant the models were.
It makes the impulse to take precautionary action extremely strong and, now that the collapse back into restrictions has commenced, their snowballing into a new lockdown seem all too likely.
I would also say I think Hamilton had the faster car but for that very reason Verstappen was the better driver over the season. It wasn't until near the end Hamilton seemed to push himself a bit more.
So the outcome would seem about fair.
As we left the building, each of us was handed an envelope with our name on it. Inside was a letter saying whether you had a job or were undergoing 'the process', with little chance of staying.
People were crying outside the church doors. It seemed a horrible sudden and impersonal way of doing things. I got to stay for another three or so years, but we lost some good people. It was also rather chaotic.
Er, No!
A lockdown in ‘Dry’ January is a different matter. Will probably depend on the South African numbers staying on course, and cutting through (everyone is ignoring them currently).
Twice I have had to tell people their jobs were being abolished, and each time I did it myself, so I could talk to the people concerned and make sure they were supported.
Ironically both times they were then reprieved largely due to my later intervention when other roles became available.
Even more ironically, after I had left they were offered redundancy and it was I, knowing the full story of what was going on, who urged them to take it...
The good thing is that Mercedes’ can do whatever they like next season and just point out that the rules don’t actually apply and can be changed at any time!
https://twitter.com/APHanrahan/status/1470105861444018181
Hamilton could have had a ban or points deduction for Silverstone, and Verstappen should have been given a slap for being outrageously dangerous on several occasions. Had Hamilton's neck been broken after Verstappen drove onto his head I wonder how many seconds penalty Max would have incurred?
But @Farooq @RochdalePioneers and @CorrectHorseBattery are more interested in virtue signalling and bullying others than the science.
1) Around 1% wearing masks at a packed football game.
2) Mrs Foxys friend at the vax booster clinic says getting a lot of no shows (and not done elsewhere as would show on the screens)
3) I was pinged today (asymptomatic) so have been for a PCR. LFT negative. Not required to isolate as fully vaxxed, but will wear an FFP3* for this week.
4) Antivax friend of my neighbour died of covid this week.
Looks bad to me. Leicester shaping up for a horrible holiday period. Stay safe out there...
*a correctly fitted FFP3 filters out aerosol viruses, an FFP2 larger droplets. They are far better and the results from Addenbrookes show that they should be used more by staff.
He fancies the job.
He was just on telly with Trevor Phillips. Slated Johnson repeatedly. Said he was put there for two jobs, Brexit and seeing off Corbyn, which he’s now done. Then when specifically asked if BoJo had lost his confidence, dodged it and said he wasn’t going to take down a second PM and wanted him to succeed.
He who wields the knife…
To play devil's advocate for a moment, there's a plausible case to be made for immediate hard lockdown, starting next weekend for six weeks. But it would need to be strictly limited in duration, and the time would need to be used efficiently.
Terms would be the same as previous, except that the schools would break up early for Christmas but come back as normal after the New Year. The Government would also need to bring back business support schemes for the duration, and make it explicitly clear that the lockdown would end, and anybody who'd been closed would therefore be free to trade again, at the end of January, so that everyone knew where they stood.
This would be allied to a desperate and concerted effort to deliver the booster doses, including issuing instructions to the many GP surgeries that have stopped doing jabs to dump as much of their routine workload as they felt they could dare, ration appointments and release staff to restart vaccination clinics. Lockdown ought also to offer the NHS some relief from flu cases.
Then, at the end of the six weeks, revert to the status quo of July 19th and get on with it. Once everyone over 40 at least, and as many as possible of the younger recipients, who are willing to take the jabs have had them, then we're not going to get much more protection against this thing, and the hospitals will just have to cope with what's thrown at them.
Regardless of what the Government actually ends up doing with respect to NPIs, we're probably going to need to keep boosting in a continuous cycle every three months until further notice, using tweaked vaccines as and when they become available. That wouldn't foolproof us against variants but it's the maximum that can realistically be done in the longer term. We should not embark down the road of creating a national health state, where the assumption is made that the people are there to serve the NHS and not the other way around. Citizens shouldn't be expected to tolerate masks and social distancing forever.