The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI

[plasticpig]

grumbledoak said:

This is just a rehash of the "scary sounding exponential" from March, only without the authority of the highly qualified academic and his "sophisticated" computer model, and using PCR test positives as "cases" instead of real metrics.

Deaths were never exponential then, when allegedly "nobody had any immunity". It is spectacularly unlikely that they will be six months later, now most of us have been exposed, we border herd immunity, and about half of the most susceptible are dead.

That doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the most susceptible were shielding. They have been told by the government that they can stop shielding and carry on with their lives. So they are now being exposed to a far higher risk than they were previously.

[NGee]

Chromegrill said:

Looked into the future and made a lot of assumptions.

Blimey, with foresight like that can you pick next weeks lottery numbers for me please.

[anonymous-user]

This is a good article on Covid and the rule of 6.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-...

[donkmeister]

Durzel said:

Is it not fair to say that people that ensured Johnson got his 80 seat majority deserve this outcome and everything that follows it? Whether they voted for him/Conservatives in their own naked self interest, or as an anti-Corbyn vote, the net result is the same.

By that logic the people who voted for Labour in 2001 responsible for the deaths of countless people in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the refugees who drown in the English Channel whilst fleeing those war-torn nations.

Which is obviously nonsense. So no, you can't go "voters are to blame for every bad thing that happens after the party they voted for wins an election".

As you have alluded to we essentially have a two party system. Ive always been a floater... at the last GE I voted for Labour as it was the slightly less crap option at the time, and TBH I don't think Corbyn would have done any better during Covid. Abbott's stats might have been amusing at times.

At the last GE there were no good choices and the few people I know who were proclaiming support for any party were more than a little bit swivel-eyed (including an acquaintance in the local labour party).

[anonymous-user]

I do not know this to be the case but would not be surprised if, outside the small bubble of the chattering classes (whether right, left, or centre), a great many people, those who do not concern themselves with politics, still think that Johnson is OK, perhaps because of his impersonation of someone who is "relateable". Such people may also not object to being told what to do, and may not care about the lack of Constitutional propriety of the Johnson regime.

They may object eventually to the economy tanking, but Johnson may be able as before to convince those who think him an amiable toff that anything bad must all be the fault of Johnny Foreigner. I suspect that the Johnson con tricks will fail in 2024, but by then he will have done a lot of damage.

[Durzel]

200Plus Club said:

Durzel said:

Is it not fair to say that people that ensured Johnson got his 80 seat majority deserve this outcome and everything that follows it? Whether they voted for him/Conservatives in their own naked self interest, or as an anti-Corbyn vote, the net result is the same.

I’ve seen people talking about not voting for Biden because he’s not socialist enough, because they would’ve voted for Bernie and that option was denied to them. Well, not voting for someone gets you the other guy - Trump. You can whine about the injustice of it or how there should be better candidates, but you need to deal with the reality.

I would call myself centre leaning, and I voted Labour despite being in a comfortable position financially, because I thought it was for the greater good. Obviously my vote didn’t count for st because my home town is in Rees-Moggs constituency, so is de facto Tory, but still.

We reap what we sow, and the shower of st running things now until 2024 with an unassailable majority are exactly what the public wanted, with all the Cummings-is and power grabs etc that it entailed.

You surely don't think Corbyn and Abbott could have handled this situation any better though, they literally couldn't even sort themselves out never mind the country. Regardless of your leanings this is all unprecedented territory but I don't believe messers Corbyn and Abbott would have done half as much as quickly to try and keep the country going. They'd still be debating a motion to consider thinking about doing something...soon..

No, I think Corbyn was weak and unelectable to the vast majority of the country, and the less said about Abbott the better, but sadly you can’t choose the candidates and sometimes voting means choosing the lesser of two evils. I happen to think Johnson is essentially dangerous, and with his cohorts destructive to the fabric of the country.

I do think that pre-COVID people were happy enough to elect him and his party, they were comfortable with just the standard “fk the poor” ideology at that point. COVID has in many ways, like Trump, exposed the rank incompetence of his leadership. And that’s even before considering Brexit.

[anonymous-user]

Corbyn was undoubtedly a car crash, and he bears a heavy responsibility for handing a large majority to Johnson. If Corbyn has stepped aside last autumn, Johnson could have been turfed out in favour of a Coalition, and by now Johnson would be back to being a dishonest journalist, instead of being the most harmful political leader to run Britain since, probably, James II. But what happened happened.

We now have a principled and talented Leader of the Opposition, but he is far from power, and Johnson and his cronies can do pretty much what they like. The rest of us are passengers for the time being.

[Durzel]

Breadvan72 said:

I do not know this to be the case but would not be surprised if, outside the small bubble of the chattering classes (whether right, left, or centre), a great many people, those who do not concern themselves with politics, still think that Johnson is OK, perhaps because of his impersonation of someone who is "relateable". Such people may also not object to being told what to do, and may not care about the lack of Constitutional propriety of the Johnson regime.

They may object eventually to the economy tanking, but Johnson may be able as before to convince those who think him an amiable toff that anything bad must all be the fault of Johnny Foreigner. I suspect that the Johnson con tricks will fail in 2024, but by then he will have done a lot of damage.

Reality TV has a lot to answer for. To be honest the world as it is was probably an inevitable consequence of it.

Good old buffoon Boris waving his flags around, stuck on a zipline, and rugby tackling that guy in that celebrity football match, etc has been all part of cultivating an everyman image. Same with Rees-Mogg really, people celebrating his Victorian Britishness and peak Tory ways.

People are obsessed with personality and dog whistle politics over actual competence. It’s why Trump got elected, and why Boris did too.

In many ways I think Boris is more dangerous than Trump, because there’s been an insidiousness to his rise to power. Trump is just hopelessly incompetent, and in any other reality would have torpedoed his career a hundred times over. But again, we’re through the looking glass now. Reality TV personality trumps (huhu) competence. People willingly vote for entities who - if you scratch even slightly below the surface - are exposed as nakedly self-interested, but scratching takes effort, and that jolly Tory boy says he’ll keep my taxes low.

Still, this is what people wanted. As citizensm1th said, there would be a certain amount of schadenfreude involved were it not for the fact that we’re all in the st here.

Edited by Durzel on Sunday 13th September 10:20

[anonymous-user]

I recently re-read a collection of Johnson's journalism published about ten or twelve years ago. It was quite a chilling experience, as Johnson was already signalling his intentions. Like many Populist monsters, he hides in plain sight. His core skill is self advancement - his entire career has consisted of being fired into a promotion, again and again. I cannot recall who it was that said of Johnson that he is a man who watches to see which way a crowd is running, and then places himself at its head.

Johnson is not as bright as he wishes he was, or as he claims to be, but he is not stupid; so he knows that Brexit will be a disaster, but he really doesn't care about that, because Brexit gives him what he regards as his birthright. He appears to be a man who is devoid of empathy, and cannot even begin to comprehend that any human being other than him matters at all. Trump is similar - the two are very alike. All of this would be truly fascinating were it not happening in real time in the real World.

[Durzel]

donkmeister said:

Durzel said:

Is it not fair to say that people that ensured Johnson got his 80 seat majority deserve this outcome and everything that follows it? Whether they voted for him/Conservatives in their own naked self interest, or as an anti-Corbyn vote, the net result is the same.

By that logic the people who voted for Labour in 2001 responsible for the deaths of countless people in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the refugees who drown in the English Channel whilst fleeing those war-torn nations.

Which is obviously nonsense. So no, you can't go "voters are to blame for every bad thing that happens after the party they voted for wins an election".

As you have alluded to we essentially have a two party system. Ive always been a floater... at the last GE I voted for Labour as it was the slightly less crap option at the time, and TBH I don't think Corbyn would have done any better during Covid. Abbott's stats might have been amusing at times.

At the last GE there were no good choices and the few people I know who were proclaiming support for any party were more than a little bit swivel-eyed (including an acquaintance in the local labour party).

That’s not really what I said. There is a difference between some exceptional event occurring and the leader you voted for making the wrong decision (in the case of the Iraq War I would suggest our Govt were duped re WMD and coerced into it by the US, but the end result is still wrong).

You can absolutely blame people for voting for an apparatus that is predisposed to be leaning heavily one way or the other though. No one voting Tory should have ever been under any illusions that their modus operandi has been to fk the poor. If you’re middle class enough though then this isn’t really a problem, though, at least that’s what most people seem to feel.

I’m not pro-Labour either. I’m not suggesting that they have necessarily been a viable alternative, certainly not under Corbyn. As BV72 said they’ve managed to find someone eminently electable in Starmer, but it’s too little too late.

America, at least, has a chance to get rid of their dire wraith come November, and I’d say it’s probably 50/50 that will happen in spite of everything Trump has said and done. We’ve got another 4 years of our demonic horde to look forward to.

[Durzel]

Breadvan72 said:

I recently re-read a collection of Johnson's journalism published about ten or twelve years ago. It was quite a chilling experience, as Johnson was already signalling his intentions. Like many Populist monsters, he hides in plain sight. His core skill is self advancement - his entire career has consisted of being fired into a promotion, again and again. I cannot recall who it was that said of Johnson that he is a man who watches to see which way a crowd is running, and then places himself at its head.

Johnson is not as bright as he wishes he was, or as he claims to be, but he is not stupid; so he knows that Brexit will be a disaster, but he really doesn't care about that, because Brexit gives him what he regards as his birthright. He appears to be a man who is devoid of empathy, and cannot even begin to comprehend that any human being other than him matters at all. Trump is similar - the two are very alike. All of this would be truly fascinating were it not happening in real time in the real World.

Indeed.

It is a shame, also, that there are a great many people who do not have the presence of mind to fathom that there are ways to make vast sums of money from Brexit going a certain way, and that those in the inner circle are positioned to do exactly that.

As you rightly say Boris is not smart but is also not stupid (unlike Trump), which makes him more dangerous. There is a capriciousness to him beneath the surface that is plain to see by anyone who has followed his trajectory and catalogued the immoralities hidden in amongst the grandiloquent writings. None of this seems to matter anymore though, in fact in certain quarters these caustic views are celebrated.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

I cannot recall who it was that said of Johnson that he is a man who watches to see which way a crowd is running, and then places himself at its head.

I think it was Heseltine.

Boris and Gove are opportunists. Brexit was one such vehicle, as is Covid. Their eye is firmly on the personal prize in both. We are just sheep in the pen, awaiting dipping.

[agtlaw]

Welsh legislation made on Friday, published today, in force tomorrow:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/985/conten...

[donkmeister]

Durzel said:

donkmeister said:

Durzel said:

Is it not fair to say that people that ensured Johnson got his 80 seat majority deserve this outcome and everything that follows it? Whether they voted for him/Conservatives in their own naked self interest, or as an anti-Corbyn vote, the net result is the same.

By that logic the people who voted for Labour in 2001 responsible for the deaths of countless people in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the refugees who drown in the English Channel whilst fleeing those war-torn nations.

Which is obviously nonsense. So no, you can't go "voters are to blame for every bad thing that happens after the party they voted for wins an election".

As you have alluded to we essentially have a two party system. Ive always been a floater... at the last GE I voted for Labour as it was the slightly less crap option at the time, and TBH I don't think Corbyn would have done any better during Covid. Abbott's stats might have been amusing at times.

At the last GE there were no good choices and the few people I know who were proclaiming support for any party were more than a little bit swivel-eyed (including an acquaintance in the local labour party).

That’s not really what I said. There is a difference between some exceptional event occurring and the leader you voted for making the wrong decision (in the case of the Iraq War I would suggest our Govt were duped re WMD and coerced into it by the US, but the end result is still wrong).

But that IS what you said, I quoted you.

The only difference is that invading other countries was a proactive decision that Blair made (regardless of whether a bigger boy made him do it), whereas dealing with an unforeseeable disease is a reactive situation.

Don't get me wrong, BoJo is a hateful little st who would bum his own dog if he thought there was something in it for him but his manifesto wasn't "Rah rah we're going to smash the oiks". Claiming victory on the negative outcomes after the fact is easy but achieves little. Starmer and some of his new Shadow Cabinet have got off to a good start, hopefully we can have a manifesto that reflects the will of the people rather than just "not as bad as the others" next time.

[plasticpig]

agtlaw said:

Welsh legislation made on Friday, published today, in force tomorrow:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/985/conten...

More restrictive than England. That's up to six people from an extended household. An extended household is up to 4 different households who have joined together to form a support bubble.

[grumbledoak]

[I only answered Chromegrill here because he isn't even posting that crap on the numerate COVID threads]

To return to the topic - what is the situation on this "Rule of Gove"?

It strikes me that history isn't full of dictators handing back democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights with a wink and a cheeky "You can't blame a guy for trying!" ...

[anonymous-user]

Well someone has had some trouble grasping the no more 30 people in a gathering let alone 6. Suspect we will see more instances like this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...

[Durzel]

donkmeister said:

Durzel said:

donkmeister said:

Durzel said:

Is it not fair to say that people that ensured Johnson got his 80 seat majority deserve this outcome and everything that follows it? Whether they voted for him/Conservatives in their own naked self interest, or as an anti-Corbyn vote, the net result is the same.

By that logic the people who voted for Labour in 2001 responsible for the deaths of countless people in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the refugees who drown in the English Channel whilst fleeing those war-torn nations.

Which is obviously nonsense. So no, you can't go "voters are to blame for every bad thing that happens after the party they voted for wins an election".

As you have alluded to we essentially have a two party system. Ive always been a floater... at the last GE I voted for Labour as it was the slightly less crap option at the time, and TBH I don't think Corbyn would have done any better during Covid. Abbott's stats might have been amusing at times.

At the last GE there were no good choices and the few people I know who were proclaiming support for any party were more than a little bit swivel-eyed (including an acquaintance in the local labour party).

That’s not really what I said. There is a difference between some exceptional event occurring and the leader you voted for making the wrong decision (in the case of the Iraq War I would suggest our Govt were duped re WMD and coerced into it by the US, but the end result is still wrong).

But that IS what you said, I quoted you.

The only difference is that invading other countries was a proactive decision that Blair made (regardless of whether a bigger boy made him do it), whereas dealing with an unforeseeable disease is a reactive situation.

Don't get me wrong, BoJo is a hateful little st who would bum his own dog if he thought there was something in it for him but his manifesto wasn't "Rah rah we're going to smash the oiks". Claiming victory on the negative outcomes after the fact is easy but achieves little. Starmer and some of his new Shadow Cabinet have got off to a good start, hopefully we can have a manifesto that reflects the will of the people rather than just "not as bad as the others" next time.

Fair point. When I said "everything after it" I was perhaps being a bit hyperbolic. I meant in more general terms the sort of things you'd expect a party with a certain sentiment to do, and what has happened historically. But I agree with your points.

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

I only answered Chromegrill here because he isn't even posting that crap on the numerate COVID threads

To return to the topic - what is the situation on this "Rule of Gove"?

It strikes me that history isn't full of dictators handing back democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights with a wink and a cheeky "You can't blame a guy for trying!" ...

Lucius Sulla. The first iteration of Flt Lt Jerry Rawlings. Not many others.

[Trophy Husband]

Breadvan72 said:

I do not know this to be the case but would not be surprised if, outside the small bubble of the chattering classes (whether right, left, or centre), a great many people, those who do not concern themselves with politics, still think that Johnson is OK, perhaps because of his impersonation of someone who is "relateable". Such people may also not object to being told what to do, and may not care about the lack of Constitutional propriety of the Johnson regime.

They may object eventually to the economy tanking, but Johnson may be able as before to convince those who think him an amiable toff that anything bad must all be the fault of Johnny Foreigner. I suspect that the Johnson con tricks will fail in 2024, but by then he will have done a lot of damage.

This^^. For me at least.