Howdy, Stranger!

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

The betting on next PM since BoJo bowed out – politicalbetting.com

1567810

Comments

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,617

    @SebastianEPayne
    More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.

    "The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473

    Excellent. The Online Harms Bill is absurd.

    It cannot make any sense for it to be illegal to write something on an internet site but legal to write the same thing in a newspaper or magazine.

    Next - scrap the proposed Football Regulator. Football clubs are highly successful in this country - indeed they are world leading - clubs are not a monopoly, nor is it an essential product like gas or electricity.

    The last thing it needs is to have its hands tied behind its back which will allow clubs in other countries to gain an advantage.

    Both ideas are ridiculous Govt meddling. All candidates should scrap both ideas immediately.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,987

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    MISTY said:

    To add to the above - and, in any case, we can hope to get treatments against Long Covid as we learn more and more about it (which does involve, as you say, not going into denial over it, but pinning down what it is).

    We can accept that there is a problem. Somewhere between 700,000 and 1.4 million of us have ongoing symptoms very likely due to having had covid that are limiting their daily activities (extended periods of fatigue, shortness of breath, and difficulty concentrating).

    https://www.ft.com/content/63dcc4d1-8b53-4110-bd44-10e3d1d98585

    We can plausibly hope that this figure doesn't rise too much further (if my hopeful and arguably motivated reasoning in my previous post is correct). And we can plausibly hope that we learn to treat it (I've seen hopeful studies pointing to a reservoir of virus in the gut that escapes being cleared being behind some of these, for example - understanding is the first step to treating).

    All of these are classic symptoms of anxiety, also. Many people bear the psychological scars of the Michie propaganda campaign, something that dreadful person is now trying to resurrect. With your help, by the looks of it.
    I'm not disputing Long Covid, but ... I know a lot of people. And almost all of them have had covid. But I don't know of any cases of long covid. Perhaps it's concentrated in certain sub groups?
    I've got one close friend and several acquaintances with Long Covid

    One of the acquaintances is this woman, who wrote about it in the Mail

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9292521/100-days-long-Covid-torture-counting.html

    She is absolutely NOT the kind of person to malinger. Dynamic, energetic, sardonic

    That article is from Feb 2021, and when I last inquired, a few months ago, she STILL has Long Covid (tho significantly better). It's real
    If we're swapping anecdotes I have an acquaintance who is still bedridden from his first Covid jab.

    Anecdotes are interesting but not too much to go on.

    I don't happen to know anyone with Long Covid but I have no doubt it's a thing.

    Neither do I set much store on your story or mine in the great scheme of things.
    Absolutely. I was just replying to anecdata with anecdata

    BTW @Cookie wondered if there is some propensity for certain groups to get LC. That Mail article suggests it is especially prevalent in caucasian woman aged 30-50. That fits with my anecdata, oddly enough

    Interesting and not a million miles away from the age of the Menopause.

    (IANAE in being a woman, that said, it may amaze you to hear.)
    It is not that close to menopause if LC is 30 to 50, and menopause is typically 45 to 55.
    https://www.maturitas.org/article/S0378-5122(21)00174-2/fulltext

    A recent study has found that the mean age of people with Long Covid was 46.5 years with 82.8% females. 36% of women reported disturbances to their menstrual cycles.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340
    Pulpstar said:

    Cable sub 1.19.

    That'll help at the pumps.

    Time for the BoE to give Sterling a shot in the arm, 0.5% rate rise and then another 0.5% rate rise six weeks later.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    eek said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced

    and that replacement needs to be outside London.
    And why were they wasting police time doing non-police work?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    edited July 11
    Cookie said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    The problem with leaving it to MPs is it leaves all those areas without a Tory MP without a say in the process.
    Not that I am necessarily arguing in favour of the current arrangement.
    I need someone to explain to me how all the other parties elect their leaders without input from the Leadership?

    In Lab did not the MPs arrange for Corbyn to be on the ballot.

    Personally I think we should rename it a ballet and have a dancing competition.

    And they say the members are going to encourage nutjobs !
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,153
    Cookie said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The betting markets are assuming Truss has a whole bunch of very quiet support given her price. Is that correct ?

    They're assuming she picks up second preferences.
    Are they? If the proportion of MPs stays the same on the same ballot as currently declared, I think she's in huge trouble.



  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    eek said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced

    and that replacement needs to be outside London.
    Move Parliament from London to Dublin
    Unite the islands
    All parts join NATO and EFTA/EEA
    Pope to allow dispensation for HM to be CoE, CoS and RC simultaneously.

    Sorted.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,488
    edited July 11
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cable sub 1.19.

    That'll help at the pumps.

    Time for the BoE to give Sterling a shot in the arm, 0.5% rate rise and then another 0.5% rate rise six weeks later.
    When is the next rate rise vote?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    Has Larry the Cat thrown his fish into the ring yet?

    I'd vote for him
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    @SebastianEPayne
    More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.

    "The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473

    The more I see of Kemi, the more I think she’s actually thought this through. I’ve been following her for years, and had thought she was maybe a little too inexperienced this time, in government rather than opposition. Now, I’m not so sure.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340

    Full admission, my daughter goes to private school and my son will when he is old enough.

    British private schools are internationally leading; and although mentally I accept that they should not be given tax breaks, my heart says why disturb the existing, successful eco-system?

    Britain spends roughly the same on education as its peers, and PISA results are “ok”, or even “good”.

    The issue seems to be a large cohort at the bottom of people leaving school without basic skills, especially outside London.

    It's politics of envy. The left doesn't want to create a level playing field, they just want to ensure that everyone fails in the state system, which is what would happen if it suddenly had to deal with a whole bunch of private schools kids with no additional funding.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,333
    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Water just in front of the despatch box? Did Johnson piss himself laughing?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,559
    dixiedean said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    I think there is a case for different rules when in government.
    MP's know who would make the best PM.
    In Opposition, there is a case that voters might be better placed to judge who might win power.
    This applies to Labour as well.
    Agreed. I don't mind the membership choosing the leader when in opposition because their decision does not impact on everyone else.

    It does not sit well that 200,000 predominantly elderly Daily Mail readers get to choose the PM for the next to years.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Whatever....

    Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.

    We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
    .... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
    One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.

    I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
    It would have been interesting had Clarke, in office as LoTO still opposed Iraq.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,340

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Cable sub 1.19.

    That'll help at the pumps.

    Time for the BoE to give Sterling a shot in the arm, 0.5% rate rise and then another 0.5% rate rise six weeks later.
    When is the next rate rise vote?
    August 4th, then 15th September.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    MaxPB said:

    My personal favourite by far is Penny.

    But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?

    If Penny wins we may as well read out the last rites for the Tory party. It just morphs into the Lib Dems with (impossible) tax cuts.
    I don't know how to call Penny.

    But Eurotwitter seems to think she is Trumpty-Dumpty.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 8,227
    edited July 11

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    Sandpit said:

    @SebastianEPayne
    More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.

    "The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473

    The more I see of Kemi, the more I think she’s actually thought this through. I’ve been following her for years, and had thought she was maybe a little too inexperienced this time, in government rather than opposition. Now, I’m not so sure.
    The base would love her manifesto, which is why they probably won't get a chance to vote for it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Has Larry the Cat thrown his fish into the ring yet?

    I'd vote for him

    Hat, surely. Every child with a Dr Seuss book knows that a Cat has a Hat.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    algarkirk said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Interesting. How the Tories should do this should be paralleled with how other parties do it.

    Over the years the Tories have tried variations on:

    Magic Circle
    Grey Suits
    MPs
    MPs and party members.

    There are obvious objections to all of them. The question is not what is best, the question is what is least worst. All the proposals for change involve some sort of circular change, back to something that has already been found wanting.

    PBers coalesce to some extent around three very general views, (I exaggerate but still):
    MPS are self interested herd of sheep-like idiots
    Party members are more or less idiots
    The voters in elections are mostly idiots.

    Which brings you back to the Magic Circle and Grey Suits. Which to say the least had some democratic deficit issues.

    Systems have given us in recent times: Corbyn, IDS, Boris, The Wrong Miliband, Swinson, Farron, Salmond, Mrs T May, Brown.

    And rejected: The other Miliband, Rory, Ken Clarke, Kendall, Cooper, Burnham, Hunt, and others I have forgotten.

    If there is a lesson to learn except that the human race is insane I have no idea what it might be, or what system might be an improvement, except doing it through the National Lottery.


    It is not really that people are idiots, although of course some are. It is about incentives and knowledge. Asking leaders to go through an auction of impossible pledges to an audience who are not necessarily experts or following things in detail, inevitably ends up with disappointment and long term failure.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,368
    For @Leon :

    Taking a look around, there's this:
    image

    This indicates that Long Covid is currently clearing up slightly faster than it is being inflicted through new infections.

    Given that:
    - Indie SAGE are the opposite of what we'd regard as denialists, so I think we can assume that they're very much not on the denialist front (I'll note they're highlighting it as a big concern, but the graph itself and what it says looks to me like it's clearing up at about the rate of being inflicted, of not slightly faster)
    - We are probably pretty close to the peak of the latest sub-variant infection surge

    ... I think it's a decent baseline point to assume that the current level of Long Covid (which is indeed an issue) is about the endemic level of Long Covid going forwards, unless or until we learn to prevent new cases or treat it quickly.

    Overall, I think it implies that we aren't seeing Long Covid snowball inexorably, nor will we see such, unless something changes significantly in future variants.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053

    Train just started to move. And I've got another G&T. All is good!

    Heading north or south?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,959
    edited July 11
    biggles said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Whatever....

    Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.

    We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
    .... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
    One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.

    I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
    It would have been interesting had Clarke, in office as LoTO still opposed Iraq.
    Clarke plus Kennedy would have been quite a powerful Parliamentary combination! Might have resulted in a Labour split.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited July 11
    MikeL said:

    @SebastianEPayne
    More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.

    "The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473

    Excellent. The Online Harms Bill is absurd.

    It cannot make any sense for it to be illegal to write something on an internet site but legal to write the same thing in a newspaper or magazine.

    Next - scrap the proposed Football Regulator. Football clubs are highly successful in this country - indeed they are world leading - clubs are not a monopoly, nor is it an essential product like gas or electricity.

    The last thing it needs is to have its hands tied behind its back which will allow clubs in other countries to gain an advantage.

    Both ideas are ridiculous Govt meddling. All candidates should scrap both ideas immediately.
    The top handful of football clubs are highly successful. The rest are at various degrees of precariousness, and the success of the top handful relies on the existence of the rest.
  • Andy_JS said:
    Interesting how divided it is - from that, it looks as if at least eleven should be able to get the eight nominations required under the existing system (Shapps is just below but will presumably get the extra name, Chishti is clearly a joke candidate, and Patel is yet to declare).

    It does seem likely the 1922 Committee will change the rules this evening to set a much higher bar. Eleven would add to the impression of chaos and be very open to extremely odd tactical voting in the successive rounds.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 317
    Regarding how to choose a Prime Minister, Cecil Northcote Parkinson of Parkinson’s law fame said that the right job advert would only yield the one candidate who was perfect for the job. For the role of Prime Minister he suggested that the winning applicant agree to be executed if their popularity slips below 40%. Then only someone who felt very sure that the country would be pleased with their performance would apply.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    edited July 11
    Foxy said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Water just in front of the despatch box? Did Johnson piss himself laughing?
    In weather like this I'd wonder if the air con was leaking condensation. But air con in Pmt? It sounds like something much worse, like the office a former colleague of mine had under the men's urinal.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    “I don’t want to protect others”? Really?

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited July 11
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    People who are irrationally terrified of a virus can take precautions accordingly, surely?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,250
    It’s hard to keep up with what the contenders are saying.

    As far as I can tell, ALL are promising tax cuts, except Rishi.

    Only Hunt and Tugendhat have suggested that they would in part need to be deficit funded.

    (This, by the way, is my personal view, expressed one night in a thread provoked by @BigG).

    Zahawi, Badenoch and possibly others are simply promising to slash the state.

    I would love to know where the candidates stand on the following; but the unseemly speed of the process and the chaos of so many candidates means we will likely not find out.

    1. Growth / Productivity
    2. Cost of Living
    3. Ukraine / Defence Spending
    4. Northern Ireland Protocol / Brexit
    5. Housing
    6. Standards in Public Life
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Whatever....

    Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.

    We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
    .... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
    One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.

    I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
    It was more existential than that. Clarke, as LotO, would have joined Blair in accessing to the Euro. We’d have been screwed.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    edited July 11

    algarkirk said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Interesting. How the Tories should do this should be paralleled with how other parties do it.

    Over the years the Tories have tried variations on:

    Magic Circle
    Grey Suits
    MPs
    MPs and party members.

    There are obvious objections to all of them. The question is not what is best, the question is what is least worst. All the proposals for change involve some sort of circular change, back to something that has already been found wanting.

    PBers coalesce to some extent around three very general views, (I exaggerate but still):
    MPS are self interested herd of sheep-like idiots
    Party members are more or less idiots
    The voters in elections are mostly idiots.

    Which brings you back to the Magic Circle and Grey Suits. Which to say the least had some democratic deficit issues.

    Systems have given us in recent times: Corbyn, IDS, Boris, The Wrong Miliband, Swinson, Farron, Salmond, Mrs T May, Brown.

    And rejected: The other Miliband, Rory, Ken Clarke, Kendall, Cooper, Burnham, Hunt, and others I have forgotten.

    If there is a lesson to learn except that the human race is insane I have no idea what it might be, or what system might be an improvement, except doing it through the National Lottery.


    It is not really that people are idiots, although of course some are. It is about incentives and knowledge. Asking leaders to go through an auction of impossible pledges to an audience who are not necessarily experts or following things in detail, inevitably ends up with disappointment and long term failure.
    You don't have to be a detail person to know that taxing and spending are related, and that, as in individual life, income, expenditure, debt, deficit, and interest payments can't be simply placed in unrelated boxes.

    The campaigns so far suggest that the candidates think that MPs, members and voters are all in a delusional state about this. This is evidence that people in the know, rightly or wrongly, think that all relevant groups are idiots.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    Carnyx said:

    Has Larry the Cat thrown his fish into the ring yet?

    I'd vote for him

    Hat, surely. Every child with a Dr Seuss book knows that a Cat has a Hat.
    The main difference between the Cat in the Hat and Boris Johnson is that the Cat in the Hat clears up the mess he creates.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    edited July 11
    Applicant said:

    Kemi is also pro-fox hunting.
    That doesn’t matter to me, but I know it does for some.

    Pro it?

    Or anti-banning it?
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    People who are irrationally terrified of a virus can take precautions accordingly, surely?
    Not if he is deliberately and wilfully doing a Typhoid Mary.

    And it is not irrational to be wary of covid, given the known problems of acute and long-term impact.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    19m
    One thing I'd like to see more of from Truss: what is her plan for inflation?

    ===

    Genuinely LOL.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,937
    I don't know if anyone heard Rachel Reeves earlier but she improved hugely. She'd eviscerate Mordaunt and Truss. She wanted to know how many nurses teachers and policemen these leadership candidates wanted to shed?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Carnyx said:

    Has Larry the Cat thrown his fish into the ring yet?

    I'd vote for him

    Hat, surely. Every child with a Dr Seuss book knows that a Cat has a Hat.
    The main difference between the Cat in the Hat and Boris Johnson is that the Cat in the Hat clears up the mess he creates.
    Ha! I'd forgotten that.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,250
    edited July 11
    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    My personal favourite by far is Penny.

    But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?

    If Penny wins we may as well read out the last rites for the Tory party. It just morphs into the Lib Dems with (impossible) tax cuts.
    I don't know how to call Penny.

    But Eurotwitter seems to think she is Trumpty-Dumpty.
    Can I suggest that you spend too long on “Eurotwitter”?

    Twitter is full of nutters, from Brexit and Trump die-hards, to eco-extremists, trans-militants etc.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 16,479
    Dominic Raab has halved in price this afternoon. Betfair next pm:-

    2.94 Rishi Sunak
    4.7 Penny Mordaunt
    5.9 Liz Truss
    12 Tom Tugendhat
    19 Jeremy Hunt
    21 Kemi Badenoch
    27 Dominic Raab
    40 Sajid Javid
    46 Nadhim Zahawi
    46 Priti Patel
    65 Suella Braverman
    70 Keir Starmer
  • Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Kemi is also pro-fox hunting.
    That doesn’t matter to me, but I know it does for some.

    Pro it?

    Or anti-banning it?
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    People who are irrationally terrified of a virus can take precautions accordingly, surely?
    Not if he is deliberately and wilfully doing a Typhoid Mary.

    And it is not irrational to be wary of covid, given the known problems of acute and long-term impact.
    COVID isn't typhoid and we have vaccines.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083
    biggles said:

    eek said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced

    and that replacement needs to be outside London.
    And why were they wasting police time doing non-police work?
    There is precedent for police being called in to investigate the source of leaks...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    Roger said:

    I don't know if anyone heard Rachel Reeves earlier but she improved hugely. She'd eviscerate Mordaunt and Truss. She wanted to know how many nurses teachers and policemen these leadership candidates wanted to shed?

    I didn’t see her, but agree that she is very impressive. She is my choice for Labour leader.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,115
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    Nah. There is an honest libertarian credo, which includes the idea that freedom stops when it harms others. Going beyond that is when libertarianism turns into selfishness.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,083


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico
    ·
    19m
    One thing I'd like to see more of from Truss: what is her plan for inflation?

    ===

    Genuinely LOL.

    A load of hot air, probably :wink:
  • eek said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced

    and that replacement needs to be outside London.
    Rwanda?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Roger said:

    I don't know if anyone heard Rachel Reeves earlier but she improved hugely. She'd eviscerate Mordaunt and Truss. She wanted to know how many nurses teachers and policemen these leadership candidates wanted to shed?

    I didn’t see her, but agree that she is very impressive. She is my choice for Labour leader.
    If Starmer had fallen surely it would have been her that took over?


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    Nah. There is an honest libertarian credo, which includes the idea that freedom stops when it harms others. Going beyond that is when libertarianism turns into selfishness.
    Happy to accept that emendation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 35,987
    Interesting Nigel Farage's tweet showing toff Rishi has now had 3.4m views.

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1546250644029407232?cxt=HHwWgIC8sZaxsfUqAAAA
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,250

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    Nah. There is an honest libertarian credo, which includes the idea that freedom stops when it harms others. Going beyond that is when libertarianism turns into selfishness.
    One interesting aspect of libertarianism is that it often fringes into support for hard right, authoritarian government.

    Some libertarians are so concerned about their rights, they end up desiring a government who will use maximal force to protect them.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    MattW said:

    Cookie said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    The problem with leaving it to MPs is it leaves all those areas without a Tory MP without a say in the process.
    Not that I am necessarily arguing in favour of the current arrangement.
    I need someone to explain to me how all the other parties elect their leaders without input from the Leadership?

    In Lab did not the MPs arrange for Corbyn to be on the ballot.

    Personally I think we should rename it a ballet and have a dancing competition.

    And they say the members are going to encourage nutjobs !
    Sorry - input from the Membership :smile:
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095
    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Can't the three chaps in question suggest some ways of getting benefits out of Brexit? (No one else seems to have a clue.)
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    eek said:

    CatMan said:

    From The Guardian Live Blog:

    Commons sitting delayed because of water leaking into chamber

    "Today’s sitting of the House of Commons has been delayed because water has bee pouring in through the ceiling of the chamber after a suspected leak, PA Media reports.

    "Buckets were catching drips around the green benches, with a clean-up operation under way amid efforts to keep the central table dry with protective coverings.

    It was unclear what was causing the leak since the weather in Westminster was very warm and dry.

    A message on the annunciator monitors in Parliament states: “Today’s sitting is delayed due to a water leak in the chamber. Revised sitting time to be announced.”

    Police officers could be seen entering the Commons chamber with what appeared to be water-absorbent blankets.

    Entry to the chamber was restricted while the issue was being dealt with.

    Labour MP Emma Hardy who briefly walked into the Commons chamber before being turned away told PA the water leak appears to be “just in front of the despatch box”.

    She said said: “I have just walked through and there are a lot of people working, around six or seven. Lots of blankets on the floor and a machine, which I’m not quite sure what is doing. It [the leak] is just in front of the despatch box, but the roof looks fine.

    Which PM candidate is going to admit that Westminster is now past it's prime and needs to be replaced

    and that replacement needs to be outside London.
    Rwanda?
    Edinburgh. Stir the pot.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    :D:D:D:D
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,937

    Roger said:

    I don't know if anyone heard Rachel Reeves earlier but she improved hugely. She'd eviscerate Mordaunt and Truss. She wanted to know how many nurses teachers and policemen these leadership candidates wanted to shed?

    I didn’t see her, but agree that she is very impressive. She is my choice for Labour leader.
    It was only by listening to her that it was possible to understand how crap Truss really is
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,285

    If people want to shop at out-of-town centres, let them, but personally I strongly suspect such centres are effectively subsidised by the way planning law operates, and they leave behind depressed town centres which is a kind of “cost” in itself.

    American is littered with these soulless big-box parks, but they have the space.

    I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that the neatest solution is to enable easier car-parking adjacent to town centres.

    This requires active planning by local authorities though and Britain has the weakest such authorities in Western Europe (bar possibly Ireland).

    Town centres became identikit with no free parking.

    The solution is shopping centres, online, and easy conversion of commercial property into homes. The high street ain't coming back.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    eek said:

    And while I'm here, on private schools and charitable status. I live adjacent to a large, famous independent school, and know people who work there. They have just spent millions on new buildings and a sports centre. The school contributes absolutely nothing charitable to the local community. Zilch. The school and its students live in a complete bubble. No outsider can use any of their facilities, and to the best of my knowledge they don't help any other local schools. Its students spend money in local shops, which helps, and they generously allow locals to watch their cricket matches in summer. That's it.

    Charitable my arse.

    Tries to work out which of 3 private schools like that that I think it is (as I can't remember where you live)..

    But all 3 schools really do far less than they should do...

    I will add all 3 private schools are up North, Eton actually does a lot locally and in the surrounding areas...
    Eton sponsors two schools in the State sector, and runs a whole bundle of initiatives, does it not?
    Eton does a whole pile of stuff - the issue really isn't them the issue is elsewhere in the private school sector.

    1 example at some point this week Eton will be hosting the end of school prom for a reasonably close secondary school - they've done it now for 20 odd years at a cost well below the going rate.
    It varies extremely widely - the school my youngest goes to packs it’s sport centre with kids from 3 states schools locally, 20%+ pupils on 100% means tested bursaries, provides free computers to a bunch of schools in deprived areas etc etc.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,250
    edited July 11
    Personally I think Truss’s was the best campaign launch video.

    Doesn’t mean she should be PM of course.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    edited July 11

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    My personal favourite by far is Penny.

    But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?

    If Penny wins we may as well read out the last rites for the Tory party. It just morphs into the Lib Dems with (impossible) tax cuts.
    I don't know how to call Penny.

    But Eurotwitter seems to think she is Trumpty-Dumpty.
    Can I suggest that you spend too long on “Eurotwitter”?

    Twitter is full of nutters, from Brexit and Trump die-hards, to eco-extremists, trans-militants etc.
    Hmmm. Quite a number of correspondents and prominent journos / commentators for National Media organisations are in that group.

    That such sentiments exist amongst prominent and influential media people is quite a serious problem.

    Anyhoo, it's more a watching brief - rather like I try and listen to two or three news broadcasts on other countries' channels a couple of times a week.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Should be short meetings then.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,666
    Sandpit said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Whatever....

    Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.

    We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
    .... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
    One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.

    I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
    It was more existential than that. Clarke, as LotO, would have joined Blair in accessing to the Euro. We’d have been screwed.
    Chances are we would have taken the Euro with us though...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112

    It’s hard to keep up with what the contenders are saying.

    As far as I can tell, ALL are promising tax cuts, except Rishi.

    Only Hunt and Tugendhat have suggested that they would in part need to be deficit funded.

    (This, by the way, is my personal view, expressed one night in a thread provoked by @BigG).

    Zahawi, Badenoch and possibly others are simply promising to slash the state.

    I would love to know where the candidates stand on the following; but the unseemly speed of the process and the chaos of so many candidates means we will likely not find out.

    1. Growth / Productivity
    2. Cost of Living
    3. Ukraine / Defence Spending
    4. Northern Ireland Protocol / Brexit
    5. Housing
    6. Standards in Public Life

    They all think we are idiots in the fiscal sense, except Rishi, who thinks we are idiots who can't remember that he stuck at Boris's side from Patersongate onwards. Dismal.

    Oh for one candidate, who, knowing they can't win (plenty of choice there) goes head first for the maximal amount of truth they can tell about what a PM of any party has to do for the next 5-10 years and how they would set about it.

    It would be cool water in a dry land. Anyone seen Rory recently?

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,250
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    My personal favourite by far is Penny.

    But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?

    If Penny wins we may as well read out the last rites for the Tory party. It just morphs into the Lib Dems with (impossible) tax cuts.
    I don't know how to call Penny.

    But Eurotwitter seems to think she is Trumpty-Dumpty.
    Can I suggest that you spend too long on “Eurotwitter”?

    Twitter is full of nutters, from Brexit and Trump die-hards, to eco-extremists, trans-militants etc.
    Correspondents for National Media organisation should not really be termed "nutters" imo.

    That such sentiments exist amongst prominent and influential media people is quite a serious problem.
    Sadly there are an equal and perhaps greater proportion of nutters in the UK domestic media.

    Large screeds of output from the Telegraph, Guardian, Mail etc etc are effectively propaganda.

    Focus on improving standards at home, I say.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    Sandpit said:

    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    Whatever....

    Conservative Party members have a very shrewd on wo they can sell as PM on the doorstep.

    We are in this process because they told their MPs they could no longer sell Boris.
    .... which is how we got IDS (only as LOTO, thank goodness)
    One could mount an argument that the membership actually picked the lesser of two evils in the IDS/Clarke contest.

    I am a big fan of Ken Clarke, and I believe it’s a crying shame he was never Prime Minister, but there is a real risk that the Tory Party would have split in two under his leadership, such was the sheer bloody mindedness of the Maastricht Rebels at that point in the Party’s history. Maybe Ken would have cleaned it all out, resolved the schism and led the Tories to success in 2005, but I have my doubts his election would have been the end of the matter. IDS was just fundamentally useless rather than being out of step with large chunks of the membership/MPs.
    It was more existential than that. Clarke, as LotO, would have joined Blair in accessing to the Euro. We’d have been screwed.
    Yes, I agree.
    I have a lot of time for Ken but he was flat out wrong on the Euro. And had we had Blair as PM and Ken as LOTO would Brown have really managed to keep us out of the Euro?
    And by now we'd be Greece-like levels of f*cked.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,813
    Sandpit said:

    @SebastianEPayne
    More policy: @KemiBadenoch announces she would scrap the Online Harms Bill ("legislating for hurt feelings") if she becomes prime minister due to concerns about freedom of speech.

    "The crucial thing is to celebrate the power and importance of free speech in our wider culture. "


    https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1546490503419625473

    The more I see of Kemi, the more I think she’s actually thought this through. I’ve been following her for years, and had thought she was maybe a little too inexperienced this time, in government rather than opposition. Now, I’m not so sure.
    If she governed by articulating a clear political philosophy and surrounding herself with serious people, she'd provide a big contrast in styles to Johnson.

    Perhaps in that sense she's the real heir to Thatcher from the current field, not Truss.
  • Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    Nah. There is an honest libertarian credo, which includes the idea that freedom stops when it harms others. Going beyond that is when libertarianism turns into selfishness.
    The question is what you consider to be harm. Be extremist enough and you can consider anything to be harming others, so you need to draw the line somewhere.

    For me, going out and stabbing others would be across the line.
    For me, going out unmasked and breathing, while you have a common cold, a cough, or COVID for which everyone has been offered the vaccines is not.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    Mortimer said:

    If people want to shop at out-of-town centres, let them, but personally I strongly suspect such centres are effectively subsidised by the way planning law operates, and they leave behind depressed town centres which is a kind of “cost” in itself.

    American is littered with these soulless big-box parks, but they have the space.

    I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that the neatest solution is to enable easier car-parking adjacent to town centres.

    This requires active planning by local authorities though and Britain has the weakest such authorities in Western Europe (bar possibly Ireland).

    Town centres became identikit with no free parking.

    The solution is shopping centres, online, and easy conversion of commercial property into homes. The high street ain't coming back.
    Now that working from home is here to stay, the thing that really needs a leg up in town centres is eating and drinking establishments now people might be more likely to go out closer to home rather than after work, where they work.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    I still wear a mask on trains and buses because I CARE about my own health and the health of others.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Should be short meetings then.
    Between Patel, Bravermann or Badenoch this one. Might transfer to Truss later.

    Sunak, Hunt and Tugendhat won't bother.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    Nah. There is an honest libertarian credo, which includes the idea that freedom stops when it harms others. Going beyond that is when libertarianism turns into selfishness.
    The question is what you consider to be harm. Be extremist enough and you can consider anything to be harming others, so you need to draw the line somewhere.

    For me, going out and stabbing others would be across the line.
    For me, going out unmasked and breathing, while you have a common cold, a cough, or COVID for which everyone has been offered the vaccines is not.
    What you are forgetting is that (a) the vaccines do not give complete protecttion and (b) many people are not benefiting from them because they cannot take them: not through their wish, but through conditions suich as transplants.
  • madmacsmadmacs Posts: 70
    Just been reading the head to head "voting figures" on Conservative Home. Based on that snapshot Rishi would lose to most of the other candidates (Ben Wallace would beat everyone). Rishi is probably being too honest in not seeking early tax cuts and suggesting his opponents are telling fairy stories. The lure of unfunded tax cuts seems to be more enticing to Tory members. Not too confident about Mike's bet!!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,959
    Scott_xP said:

    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith

    Very unlikely to mean a jail sentence though. So highly unlikely we'll see a bye-election.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    My personal favourite by far is Penny.

    But surely she is too woke for the Tory Party rump?

    If Penny wins we may as well read out the last rites for the Tory party. It just morphs into the Lib Dems with (impossible) tax cuts.
    I don't know how to call Penny.

    But Eurotwitter seems to think she is Trumpty-Dumpty.
    Can I suggest that you spend too long on “Eurotwitter”?

    Twitter is full of nutters, from Brexit and Trump die-hards, to eco-extremists, trans-militants etc.
    Correspondents for National Media organisation should not really be termed "nutters" imo.

    That such sentiments exist amongst prominent and influential media people is quite a serious problem.
    Sadly there are an equal and perhaps greater proportion of nutters in the UK domestic media.

    Large screeds of output from the Telegraph, Guardian, Mail etc etc are effectively propaganda.

    Focus on improving standards at home, I say.
    I say it need both.
  • biggles said:

    Mortimer said:

    If people want to shop at out-of-town centres, let them, but personally I strongly suspect such centres are effectively subsidised by the way planning law operates, and they leave behind depressed town centres which is a kind of “cost” in itself.

    American is littered with these soulless big-box parks, but they have the space.

    I agree with @BartholomewRoberts that the neatest solution is to enable easier car-parking adjacent to town centres.

    This requires active planning by local authorities though and Britain has the weakest such authorities in Western Europe (bar possibly Ireland).

    Town centres became identikit with no free parking.

    The solution is shopping centres, online, and easy conversion of commercial property into homes. The high street ain't coming back.
    Now that working from home is here to stay, the thing that really needs a leg up in town centres is eating and drinking establishments now people might be more likely to go out closer to home rather than after work, where they work.
    I agree with this. Big city centres are one thing. But I live close to a smaller town centre which has seen something of a revival over the past couple of years, led by independent food and drink. Less commuting has been something of a boon, despite other problems.

    I rather worry that national politicians are led by lobbying efforts and what they see in the centre of London. But the shifts in recent times have created winners as well as losers. And, as it happens, the new model is something rather closer to the more sustainable "20 minute neighbourhood" concept in many cases.

    It's a bummer for those who invested in commercial property in big city centres in the late 2010s, but I'm not sure politicians should be busting a gut to reverse an unintended consequence of the pandemic that has actually broadly been a net positive.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    Scott_xP said:

    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith

    Political party?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,243
    Barney said:

    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The ludicrous pledges being made by all the contenders show the folly of having this decision made by, what, 200,000 elderly Tories.

    The person who wins will become PM. They should make at least a show of showing why they would be good at that. None of them see to have a clue, though some are marginally less bad than others.

    Except that: everyone knows how the new Tory leader is chosen (would a new Labour leader be magically better remembering how it got on last time but one?); everyone is free to join the party and have a vote; nearly everyone, including almost all Tory voters have chosen not to.

    It's a free world, but our free decisions are not free of consequences.

    How, Cyclefree, would you elect Boris's successor?

    My viewpoint - leave it to the MPs we elect to select their leader. That was how our Parliamentary system was designed.
    ......and so it goes round. Putting it to the membership was the solution to the objections to doing exactly that......

    I think Cyclefree is quite right. Allowing the final decision to be left to 200,000 members is a terrible idea.

    a) The membership isn't remotely representative of Conservative supporters or voters, let alone the country at large
    b) They only have superficial knowledge of the candidates strengths and weaknesses, filtered through partisan media outlets, and by and large they have little idea of the qualities actually required to run a government. This isn't because they're (all!) stupid. They just don't have the necessary experience or knowledge. It's like asking me to identify a capable brain surgeon - I'd end up making the decision based on bedside manner not medical expertise.
    c) The election process becomes subverted as the MPs doing the whittling down are forced into a whole series of tactical voting exercises driven by a desire to appeal to the narrow constituency of members rather than identifying the best person for the job.
    d) The candidates find themselves having to make pledges which I'm sure many of them don't really believe in, pandering to the uninformed and biased constituency which makes the final decision.

    And the point made by Algarkirk to the effect that anyone is free to join the party to gain the right to vote is pretty weak in my view. Do we really want a system in which effectively you can buy the right to participate in such a crucial decision?

    The governance structure of the Conservative party simply isn't fit for purpose. No large corporate would be able to get away with such a process for deciding who should be chief executive. Shareholders (for which read party members) would be able to vote for Board members but it would be the Board members - familiar with the characters involved and the skills required - who would select the CEO. And a subset of those Board members, including the Chairman, would be non-executives specifically tasked with the job of protecting the interests of shareholders. In the case of a widespread loss of confidence in the CEO the Chairman and non-execs would have the people who would go to the CEO and tell him time was up. We wouldn't be in the ludicrous situation whereby the Chairman is the one who feels he has to resign in that situation.

    So I think that they desperately need to overhaul their governance structure. Probably easier to do while in opposition, so the opportunity may present itself soon. There are, I'm sure many alternatives which would improve the situation, but one idea would be that the elected MPs elect their leader (and perhaps at least some Cabinet members) while the members elect a group of 'non-execs' (perhaps from the House of Lords?) who aren't involved in the day-to-day running of government but who have real power to intervene at a time of crisis.
    It's almost like you're suggesting the best way would be for the membership NOT to get a vote, but then there to be a near immediate General Election to confirm the candidate's suitability to the country at large after there selection.....

    That would suit me fine!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Scott_xP said:

    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith

    Political party?
    Tory.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
    Almost certainly, yes.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,243
    biggles said:

    The membership certainly should not get a vote on who leads the parliamentary party.

    Perhaps they should vote for the Party Chairman, but not the Prime Minister.

    The criticisms upthread by @Barney are spot-on.

    I think it’s fine in opposition. In power, it should be a decision for the Government’s MPs.
    If I recall correctly, Labour do (or did) have different rules for removing the leadership whilst in power against whilst in opposition. I recall Blair was technically unable to be removed (but stood down anyway) as Labour was in power in 2006/7.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,641
    MaxPB said:

    Full admission, my daughter goes to private school and my son will when he is old enough.

    British private schools are internationally leading; and although mentally I accept that they should not be given tax breaks, my heart says why disturb the existing, successful eco-system?

    Britain spends roughly the same on education as its peers, and PISA results are “ok”, or even “good”.

    The issue seems to be a large cohort at the bottom of people leaving school without basic skills, especially outside London.

    It's politics of envy. The left doesn't want to create a level playing field, they just want to ensure that everyone fails in the state system, which is what would happen if it suddenly had to deal with a whole bunch of private schools kids with no additional funding.
    Why would there be no additional funding? I would be fairly confident that funding per pupil would go up not down if the 6% richest/most well connected/most pushy parents suddenly had a stake in the state education system.
    And people keep asserting that "the Left" want to level down and for everyone to fail. Where is the evidence for that? Speaking for myself, I believe every child should have the same opportunity to succeed. I believe in the state education system, although I wish it was better resourced. I am a product of that system, and did well out of it. I have three children in that system. Do you really think I don't want that system to do the best possible job educating my children? That I want them to fail? What planet are you living on?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,823

    Full admission, my daughter goes to private school and my son will when he is old enough.

    British private schools are internationally leading; and although mentally I accept that they should not be given tax breaks, my heart says why disturb the existing, successful eco-system?

    Britain spends roughly the same on education as its peers, and PISA results are “ok”, or even “good”.

    The issue seems to be a large cohort at the bottom of people leaving school without basic skills, especially outside London.

    I have less problem with selection by parental wealth than I do with selection by "crammed" 11 plus results. At least there is no pretence of meritocracy in the private sector. If one wants to spend almost £10k per term plus boarding fees, so be it.

    I don't agree with the notion of charitable status for private schools, unless that is offset by some genuine system of fully funded scholarships for gifted underprivileged children, breaking a generation to generation cycle of lifetime welfare benefits (perhaps children currently under the guardianship of local authorities or similar).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783
    Sandpit said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
    Almost certainly, yes.
    None of the ERG members have declared?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited July 11

    Scott_xP said:

    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith

    Political party?
    Tory.
    Dont think anyone else was involved/no injury so prison highly unlikely. No by election
  • theakestheakes Posts: 671
    Conservative for Bridgend, recently came out as Trans gender, left scene apparently because he/she was wearing high heels, tight skirt etc. Probable sentence Community sentence? There will be some sympathy for him/her.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,153
    edited July 11
    Sandpit said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
    Almost certainly, yes.
    Well, some of them, maybe.

    Javid, Mordaunt and Braverman are standing.

    Afolami, Baker, Gove, Gullis, Fox, B Lewis, Wood, Courts and probably some others have already declared.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited July 11
    theakes said:

    Conservative for Bridgend, recently came out as Trans gender, left scene apparently because he/she was wearing high heels, tight skirt etc. Probable sentence Community sentence? There will be some sympathy for him/her.

    Very unlikely it will be more than a fine and 5 to 10 points. No injuries or third party involved
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,073
    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my few fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    We make people wear motorcycle helmets when they ride motorcycles. We make people wear some clothes all the time in most places! I don’t think requiring face masks in shops during a global pandemic when there were hundreds of deaths per day in the country because of COVID-19 was unreasonable. The mewling of snowflakes who found this an unbearable burden is risible.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    I still wear a mask on trains and buses because I CARE about my own health and the health of others.
    Sadly this is where it’s divisive. For too many mask wearers the counter situation implies if I dont where a mask I don’t care about others.
    In reality I have made a judgement about risks and come to a different conclusion.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 3,367
    Rishi clears 40 declared supporters. Penny is next on 24. Tugendhat 19. Truss 17. Per Guido.

    Rishi looks to stand a good chance of topping first ballot depending on what the nomination threshold is, otherwise we might see some redistribution. Still far from being a comfortable lead though.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Penny Mordaunt is quoting Owen Jones saying that she's the most dangerous opponent for Labour.

    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1546478472800894979

    Mordaunt's problem may actually be the pendulum effect ie given what has happened with Boris, the Conservative party may be more inclined to go with someone who has decent experience in a Cabinet post and is seen as a safe pair of hands.

    If so, that narrows it down to Sunak, Javid, Hunt, Truss. Patel theoretically but probably too much of a risk. Realistically then that means Sunak / Truss / Hunt



  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,823

    Scott_xP said:

    An MP has been found guilty of failing to stop & report an accident after crashing his car in the early hours of the morning in November last year. Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, was also found guilty of leaving his car in a dangerous position. 1/2

    He was cleared of a charge of driving without due care and attention. He awaits sentencing.
    via @hywel_griffith

    Very unlikely to mean a jail sentence though. So highly unlikely we'll see a bye-election.
    Result! And he keeps his licence. I wonder if that would have been the case if he had waited in Llanblethian for plod to turn up.

    I'm guessing a vote for Mordaunt, bearing in mind her views on transgender rights.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 10,213
    ScotRail train drivers accept new pay deal to end disruption

    ScotRail drivers will see their pay climb by 5% and also get more money for rest day and Sunday working, driving instructor and maternity pay along with a policy of no compulsory redundancies for the next five years.
    The nationalised train operator said 2.2% of the increase would be funded by Transport Scotland with the remaining 2.8% coming from ScotRail's funds.
    ScotRail came back into public ownership for the first time in 25 years in April, after previous operator Abellio had its franchise ended early over criticism of the quality of the service.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-62125059
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,053
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
    Almost certainly, yes.
    None of the ERG members have declared?
    They is "frit"?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    edited July 11

    For @Leon :

    Taking a look around, there's this:
    image

    This indicates that Long Covid is currently clearing up slightly faster than it is being inflicted through new infections.

    Given that:
    - Indie SAGE are the opposite of what we'd regard as denialists, so I think we can assume that they're very much not on the denialist front (I'll note they're highlighting it as a big concern, but the graph itself and what it says looks to me like it's clearing up at about the rate of being inflicted, of not slightly faster)
    - We are probably pretty close to the peak of the latest sub-variant infection surge

    ... I think it's a decent baseline point to assume that the current level of Long Covid (which is indeed an issue) is about the endemic level of Long Covid going forwards, unless or until we learn to prevent new cases or treat it quickly.

    Overall, I think it implies that we aren't seeing Long Covid snowball inexorably, nor will we see such, unless something changes significantly in future variants.

    Somewhat reassuring, thanks

    Tho two things:

    1. I am hesitant to call it from one data point in that graph. ie it WAS rising inexorably, for ages, until recently

    2. To be entirely placated, I'd like to see someone refute that guy's graph, from earlier. Haven't seen it yet

    But fingers x'd

    And now I must shower off the Adriatic seawater, and go buy some tonic. Later
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,188

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    Mortimer said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Mr. Leon, a question well worth asking.

    Any country other than China would've gotten a lot more flak for this (while retaliation against the US would be just as minimal, criticism would be way louder).

    The fools meddled with something entirely unnecessarily and didn't even safeguard it, infecting the whole world.

    Weaning ourselves away from Chinese economic integration is not only a useful logistical safeguard, it's also a justified response given their stupidity over this.

    That isn't the substantive part of my comment

    Long Covid is the issue. I really want that Twitter guy to be wrong, but I am struggling to see how he IS wrong. With every infection by Covid, you run a risk of Long Covid, perhaps a 20% risk. This means a steady accumulation of Long Covid in society until almost everyone is shuffling from bed to chair and wheezing all the time, incapable of work

    And this could happen over a few short years, not in a century


    As the Twitter dude says, new vaccines will come along and possibly save us from the worst of this. But what if they don't? Or what if they can only ameliorate? We are staring at an imminent global health disaster which will make everything else on our plates - Ukraine, inflation - seem trivial

    And then there is a real risk that with each Covid infection the body is weakened, in and of itself a bad thing, but might also mean the risks of Long Covid go UP
    This rather assumes that Long Covid is a real thing, rather than being a catch-all term blamed for everything which affects people who happen to have had covid.
    Are you serious? Long Covid is definitely a thing

    https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/civil-rights-covid19/guidance-long-covid-disability/index.html#footnote10_0ac8mdc

    We are seeing its effects in societies and economies

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/long-covid-keeps-a-tight-grip-on-irelands-workforce-jxnjx6qdd

    I know this is quite a terrifying prospect. but denying it doesn't help
    There has been a long-running problem with the entire covid subject: those who dislike the effects of covid, especially any restrictions, often default to full-on denial.
    It doesn't matter how often the denialism is discredited, whatever the denialists come up with gets trumpeted.

    (There's an analogous issue on the alarmist side as well, unfortunately. Possibly down to the natural human tendency of binary thinking).

    It's quite possibly due to the very understandable dislike of the effects of restrictions. Unfortunately, in some minds the logic chain goes:
    1 - I hate these
    2 - They are therefore wrong
    3 - They are supposed to be helping. But if they are wrong, they cannot be helping
    4 - They are therefore either unnecessary (and covid doesn't exist, or it is a minor issue, or it has already gone away forever) or do not help (and the reductions in spread just happen to occur at the same time), or are more harmful than letting it rip.

    And some seem to seek some form of confirmation of that, no matter how logically implausible or strained the reasoning gets. Ivor Cummins has made a fortune from servicing this need. Toby Young has set up pretty much an industry around it. Sadly, both tend to join with the antivaxxers as well (possibly due to the fact that the logic of restrictions - to defer the spread until vaccines were available - relied on vaccines. Which adds an extra line to the "logic"
    5 - As vaccines were needed to make restrictions work out long-term, they must either be useless or harmful, and justified solely by a worldwide conspiracy.

    Denial is comforting.

    As it happens, I'm not fully convinced that the fate of Long Covid lies in front of all of us, but I may be descending into denialism myself. We already know that self-reported long covid rates dropped enormously against infection rates following vaccination (not, unfortunately, to zero, but a long way down - from one in twelve to one in forty). It is plausible that surviving infection would help just as much. And we also know that immunity from breakthrough infection (vax plus infection immunity) is considerably stronger than either alone.

    It is therefore plausible to me (a layperson, I must highlight) that subsequent infections would each by progressively less and less likely to cause Long Covid. Meaning that we wouldn't all inevitably get it, but it would rise to a certain (low) level and no higher.
    I dont accept its denialism (although that is a factor), its the fact we were continually asked to accept varying and intrusive restrictions on the basis of 'the science' and 'the science has changed' without being presented with that science (just some pretty graphs made by modellers ans mathmeticians)
    Masks were ineffective, then they were 'our best line of defence' and needed 'because of asymptomatic blah blah blah' (now shown to be massively overstated) yet there was no bombshell 'the Billy Bluebottle report on masking' that entered the public domain to 'change the science'. Lockdown itself was an entirely new approach and the world were the guinea pigs.
    It was back of fag packet bollocks that ruined lives.
    Thats why it will never be allowed again, or flat out ignored.

    Hong Kong now saying they will be electronically tagging quaratiners to ensure they dont leave home. Covid hysteria will prevent governments from being able to deal with any pandemic in the future without full on authoritarianisn due to mass non compliance.
    How have you not been presented with the science? There are estimated to be over 87,000 published papers on COIVD. After an initial period, SAGE minutes and supporting papers were all being published. The main COVID project I worked on alone has released 45 reports produced for SAGE and Govt, as well as a dozen published papers and another dozen preprints.

    All the research was being done in a hurry. We didn’t know anything at the start, and we got a lot of things wrong at first. There wasn’t a bombshell report on masking because that isn’t how medical science generally operates. There was an accumulation of evidence that built up over time.
    No there wasnt. There was 'masks are not effective against Covid' then 'mask mandates'. Overnight. Pretty much everywhere.
    And yes of course papers have been written, with widely different conclusions. Which ones are we trusting? Why are we not trusting the others? Why did we not listen to the South Afrucan medical community in November/December? None of this was presented to the public. We were just expected to 'believe' the only way was lockdown.
    To clarify 'presented with the science' i mean 'you are being locked in your home because we believe the data in reports x, y and z' which of course never happened. Its clearly not reasinable to expect any lay person to read every paper issued and draw conclusions.
    The change in advice on masks was definitely not overnight. It was agonised over and argued over.

    Lots of papers are published. Some have widely divergent conclusions, but generally the science coalesces around a consensus. That can take time, and everything had to be done very quickly in the pandemic. Which papers do we trust? Well, we examine the methods and come to conclusions based on our understanding of what is good science. If you want details, do an OU science degree or try some of the good educational resources on YouTube like Crash Course.

    Why did we not listen to the South African medical community in Nov/Dec? Well, we did. There were very early reports, there was uncertainty about what could be concluded from those reports, those reports were saying different things. Government actions generally err on the side of caution, so it’s not just about your best estimate of what will happen, but having to take into account the uncertainty in predictions. However, broadly, the UK response to Omicron was pretty limited in terms of restrictions. We didn’t have another lockdown. We went from advising people to wear masks on public transport to telling people to wear masks on public transport (with minimal enforcement).

    It’s not reasonable to expect lay people to read every paper and draw conclusions. But nor is it reasonable for lay people to then make up stories about how much science was published or what the evidence-to-policy process was, as you are doing.

    I think the Government could have done more to explain the science. At times, they certainly failed to do that well (e.g. over the pingdemic, as I am writing a paper on).
    In a free society, enforcing face masks wasn't in my view ever acceptable - especially in private shops.

    Hilariously, every single person I know who adores masks has caught covid. Most of my fellow non-maskers haven't. I'm not implying any causation whatsoever. But it does make one think 'maybe they didn't really do anything at all, in the wild'.
    After two and a half fucking years, how can someone write this drivel?

    Wearing a mask protects those AROUND you, not you; if they wear a mask, they protect YOU
    For a certain kind of libertarian, it creates a massive "Does Not Compute" problem. It highlights a direct way that we can never be absolute masters of our own destiny, but depend on others.

    "No man is an island" isn't self-evident, which is why it's so powerful when it's said.
    It's not a does not compute problem. It's a priority problem.

    I don't want to protect others. It's not a priority for me. I have absolutely zero intentions of isolating if infected, or wearing a mask, as I don't intend to stop the spread or prevent infections.

    If someone wants to wear a mask to protect themselves or others, that's their choice. My choice is not to.

    I intend to live with the virus. If I get it, I don't care. If I infect others, I don't care. Taking basic precautions is washing hands, covering mouth when coughing etc, nothing more.
    "If I infect others, I don't care."

    The libertarian credo in a nutshell.
    I still wear a mask on trains and buses because I CARE about my own health and the health of others.
    Sadly this is where it’s divisive. For too many mask wearers the counter situation implies if I dont where a mask I don’t care about others.
    In reality I have made a judgement about risks and come to a different conclusion.
    .. based on?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,633

    Dominic Raab has halved in price this afternoon. Betfair next pm:-

    2.94 Rishi Sunak
    4.7 Penny Mordaunt
    5.9 Liz Truss
    12 Tom Tugendhat
    19 Jeremy Hunt
    21 Kemi Badenoch
    27 Dominic Raab
    40 Sajid Javid
    46 Nadhim Zahawi
    46 Priti Patel
    65 Suella Braverman
    70 Keir Starmer

    Raab is for some reason deemed by Betfair as 10x more likely to be the next PM as the next Tory leader.

    I guess because he's still deputy PM, so if Johnson walks out/keels over, he ends up as PM but not party leader?
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,530
    Sandpit said:

    MISTY said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ** Starting now **
    The European Reasearch Group of Tory MPs is meeting each Conservative candidate individually one-on-one to work out who to support.
    Each will be grilled by Mark Francois, Sir Bill Cash and Sir Iain Duncan Smith on getting the most out of Brexit.

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1546498641204023297

    Are they intending to vote as a bloc?
    Almost certainly, yes.
    how many of them are there? 30-odd?
This discussion has been closed.