The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
Two separate challenges, although they might possibly be heard together. In general, however, each decision much be scrutinised on its own evidence. Chumocracy is a pretty blatant thing with this lot. I am fairly convinced that they have little intention of being re-elected in 2924*. They plan to loot the larder, and then scarper, leaving Starmer with a huge mess to clear up (compare 1964 and 1997). Public service is a concept entirely alien to these people. Power and self-enrichment are their two mantras.
* knock it off, smiffy.
* knock it off, smiffy.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th October 22:28
Breadvan72 said:
The pompously named "Declaration" has had loads of publicity, but has rightly been rubbished because of its right wing fruitloop elements and the Person McFakenames, so hardly surprising that all the slagging lists higher on Google.
Did you also publicly condemn that EU petition that had about 4 million signatures? I believe there were plenty of fake ones on that if I recall correctly.If you didn't condemn it at the time then how about doing it now, say it was a worthless petition because of all the fakes on it.
scottyp123 said:
Did you also publicly condemn that EU petition that had about 4 million signatures? I believe there were plenty of fake ones on that if I recall correctly.
If you didn't condemn it at the time then how about doing it now, say it was a worthless petition because of all the fakes on it.
Brexit threads are over in that there np&e.If you didn't condemn it at the time then how about doing it now, say it was a worthless petition because of all the fakes on it.
Stupid attempt at point scoring is stupid
scottyp123 said:
Did you also publicly condemn that EU petition that had about 4 million signatures? I believe there were plenty of fake ones on that if I recall correctly.
If you didn't condemn it at the time then how about doing it now, say it was a worthless petition because of all the fakes on it.
Why should I? It has nothing to do with this thread. Do you have a list of things that must be denounced before another unrelated thing can be denounced? The obsessions of some people on PH are very strange indeed.If you didn't condemn it at the time then how about doing it now, say it was a worthless petition because of all the fakes on it.
The BBC have decided to go with the "PM biffs science" line. Johnson may, however, to be too frit to go for a full lockdown, and anyway all that a full lockdown does is kick the can along the road.
I regret to say that, yes, we will probably just have to live with the virus, horrible though it is.
I regret to say that, yes, we will probably just have to live with the virus, horrible though it is.
Breadvan72 said:
The BBC have decided to go with the "PM biffs science" line. Johnson may, however, to be too frit to go for a full lockdown, and anyway all that a full lockdown does is kick the can along the road.
I regret to say that, yes, we will probably just have to live with the virus, horrible though it is.
Sometimes, kicking the can down the road is the best option. This is one of those cases. It buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found) and improved therapeutics, and lowers the demand on the NHS over the winter. The "do nothing" advocates need to explain how they think their approach would play out in the real world.I regret to say that, yes, we will probably just have to live with the virus, horrible though it is.
The lowering of demand on the NHS has been going on since March.
It’s not so long ago people were being derided for daring to go out in cars or on motorbikes ‘because NHS’
The NHS should be in the best shape it’s ever been because nobody’s been using it.
Unfortunately the money saved has been pissed against the wall on Covid related stuff.
barian said:
Sometimes, kicking the can down the road is the best option. This is one of those cases. It buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found) and improved therapeutics, and lowers the demand on the NHS over the winter. The "do nothing" advocates need to explain how they think their approach would play out in the real world.
There is, however, the very tiny matter of the economy to consider, and the economy isn't some abstract thing on charts and graphs - it's about the reality of destitution for a great many if it goes wrong, and it is a no brainer to observe that poverty is bad for mortality. In addition, your argument displays its fatal flaw when you say "buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found)". We all hope that a vaccine can be found, and it is we hope probable that this will happen, but it's only probable, not certain. My objection to the current policy is that it hinges on a vaccine becoming available. It's a fingers crossed and hope really hard policy. Planning against contingencies is of course normal, but this sort of guessing and hoping is a bit unusual as a basis for policy.
I do not think that anyone says "do nothing", but I am becoming more sceptical of the "something" that this Government has chosen to do. among the problems are that the Government is not transparent in its decision making, is unclear in its messaging, and has forfeited trust through a series of misjudgements.
Breadvan72 said:
In addition, your argument displays its fatal flaw when you say "buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found)". We all hope that a vaccine can be found, and it is we hope probable that this will happen, but it's only probable, not certain. My objection to the current policy is that it hinges on a vaccine becoming available. It's a fingers crossed and hope really hard policy. Planning against contingencies is of course normal, but this sort of guessing and hoping is a bit unusual as a basis for policy.
There is, though, an element in that of "rescue is only probable and not certain, everyone is getting hungry, perhaps we need to reconsider eating the cabin boy"Breadvan72 said:
I do not think that anyone says "do nothing", but I am becoming more sceptical of the "something" that this Government has chosen to do. among the problems are that the Government is not transparent in its decision making, is unclear in its messaging, and has forfeited trust through a series of misjudgements.
I'm less sceptical of the stated direction than the implementation. It's possible that it's completely incompetent. It's also conceivable that the stated and intended strategies don't match, and there is still some herder influence behind it (and this second surge in infections is an intended outcome). It's hard to tell with the likes of Cummings involved. It seems that the two directions are continued suppression through general social distancing measures while we wait for a vaccine, or trying to identify and entirely socially isolate all those who are vulnerable until we have a vaccine or the virus goes away while allowing otherwise unfettered community transmission. I don't think anywhere is openly attempting the latter (some people seem to think Sweden is, but it plainly isn't).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff