The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The nobody could do better mantra is easily answered by pointing to, for example, Germany.
Johnson is, as someone pointed out the other day, a politician whose long list of failures in office are evident from his record, but whose self promotion and whose fanbase constantly compare him to Churchill when bigging up Johnson's supposed strengths. The comparison is of course ridiculous, and on the subject of crises in general, when WW2 happened a very talented cross-party Government was soon assembled. We face a big crisis and have a Government line up almost unparalleled in their unfitness to hold responsible offices. Oh well!
To be absolutely clear I am not a fan of this government. I voted Remain, I believe he’s a chancer at best, and a hair’s breadth from corrupt at worst. Johnson is, as someone pointed out the other day, a politician whose long list of failures in office are evident from his record, but whose self promotion and whose fanbase constantly compare him to Churchill when bigging up Johnson's supposed strengths. The comparison is of course ridiculous, and on the subject of crises in general, when WW2 happened a very talented cross-party Government was soon assembled. We face a big crisis and have a Government line up almost unparalleled in their unfitness to hold responsible offices. Oh well!
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 13th October 14:48
My point wasn’t to defend him though it was to highlight that many were jumping up and down in the most OTT support for a PM ever about 12 months ago. Most of those have deserted him now. His supporters were only supporters when it was trendy to be there because they felt like they were being tough.
Now it’s tough to demand the herd immunity / Great Barrington nonsense. I’d wager there’s a strong correlation between the No Deal Brexit champions and Herd Immunity proponents.
The problem is that we have what we have. There is no way to remove them so there needs to be a way to apply sensible pressure to get the right result. However, it seems that nobody really has any idea what that is. People would rather criticise without solutionizing (not a word apologies).
It doesn’t help that many are actively opposing / ignoring the rules just because.
Mentioning Germany is akin to being Lord HawHaw to some on here. They are a different culture though and more willing to accept some controls. You demonstrate the issue in trying to apply those rules as you accuse anyone of accepting them of being an authoritarian and those implementing / enforcing as being the Stasi.
Edited by unident on Tuesday 13th October 20:19
unident said:
I’m not sure that says what you think it does. Long Covid or whatever fancy name they’ve given it is going to be suffered by those that would get a vaccine when / if one is found. My comment that you quoted is purely extrapolating what the impact could be if we just let it run through the population unchecked now without a vaccine.
Ah fair enough unident said:
To be absolutely clear I am not a fan of this government. I voted Remain, I believe he’s a chancer at best, and a hair’s breadth from corrupt at worst.
My point wasn’t to defend him though it was to highlight that many were jumping up and down in the most OTT support for a PM ever about 12 months ago. Most of those have deserted him now. His supporters were only supporters when it was trendy to be there because they felt like they were being tough.
Now it’s tough to demand the herd immunity / Great Barrington nonsense. I’d wager there’s a strong correlation between the No Deal Brexit champions and Herd Immunity proponents.
The problem is that we have what we have. There is no way to remove them so there needs to be a way to apply sensible pressure to get the right result. However, it seems that nobody really has any idea what that is. People would rather criticise without solutionizing (not a word apologies).
It doesn’t help that many are actively opposing / ignoring the rules just because.
Mentioning Germany is akin to being Lord HawHaw to some on here. They are a different culture though and more willing to accept some controls. You demonstrate the issue in trying to apply those rules as you accuse anyone of accepting them of being an authoritarian and those implementing / enforcing as being the Stasi.
I'm not fully sure where you are going with your discussion it seem rather circular. On the one hand you argue we have what we have, yet people are providing alternatives that are not on the face of it being considered. many are actively opposing ignoring the rules because there appears to be no consideration for another way.My point wasn’t to defend him though it was to highlight that many were jumping up and down in the most OTT support for a PM ever about 12 months ago. Most of those have deserted him now. His supporters were only supporters when it was trendy to be there because they felt like they were being tough.
Now it’s tough to demand the herd immunity / Great Barrington nonsense. I’d wager there’s a strong correlation between the No Deal Brexit champions and Herd Immunity proponents.
The problem is that we have what we have. There is no way to remove them so there needs to be a way to apply sensible pressure to get the right result. However, it seems that nobody really has any idea what that is. People would rather criticise without solutionizing (not a word apologies).
It doesn’t help that many are actively opposing / ignoring the rules just because.
Mentioning Germany is akin to being Lord HawHaw to some on here. They are a different culture though and more willing to accept some controls. You demonstrate the issue in trying to apply those rules as you accuse anyone of accepting them of being an authoritarian and those implementing / enforcing as being the Stasi.
Edited by unident on Tuesday 13th October 20:19
Because people are anti strict lockdown does not make them a "ripper" or whatever the term people want to use.
The problem is well known, the at risk is well known, the vast majority are not at risk. Protect those that are, let the rest go about their business aware of the risks to them, let them take sensible precautions. Locking down everything & everybody to protect a very small number makes no rational sense to most, hence why people are not following the rules.
There is no point engaging with unident. He has been trolling these threads since March. His stuck-record line is that anyone who makes even the slightest criticism of the Government's policies is just a "contrarian" doing that for reasons of mischief. His mantra is simply OBEY OBEY OBEY. After a few rounds of trying to engage him in some sort of reasoned debate, most of us just give up and ignore him.
unident is an extreme example of a phenomenon visible in less extreme forms all across the forum. Quite a few posters get very upset if anyone questions the wisdom of the measures adopted to deal with the virus, and rapidly become very shrill in defending the line that whatever the Government does must be right and cannot be criticised. I suppose that people want to be comfortable with their own choice to switch off their critical faculties.
unident is an extreme example of a phenomenon visible in less extreme forms all across the forum. Quite a few posters get very upset if anyone questions the wisdom of the measures adopted to deal with the virus, and rapidly become very shrill in defending the line that whatever the Government does must be right and cannot be criticised. I suppose that people want to be comfortable with their own choice to switch off their critical faculties.
Big generalisation alert!
If I had to pin the Labour-leaning Brexiteer on the Covid donkey, I'd wager they broadly support greater state intervention and beefier lockdown, with a nice fat support cheque to keep them in Just Eat and pay telly.
The evidence of this we see in the socialist run council areas demeaning lockdowns and government support for their people.
The right leaning tory Brexiteer prefers a less state-heavy Covid intervention, with personal choice higher up the agenda and less support for handing out money.
In other words, Covid opinions probably don't align along Brexit lines.
If I had to pin the Labour-leaning Brexiteer on the Covid donkey, I'd wager they broadly support greater state intervention and beefier lockdown, with a nice fat support cheque to keep them in Just Eat and pay telly.
The evidence of this we see in the socialist run council areas demeaning lockdowns and government support for their people.
The right leaning tory Brexiteer prefers a less state-heavy Covid intervention, with personal choice higher up the agenda and less support for handing out money.
In other words, Covid opinions probably don't align along Brexit lines.
You use the word "socialist" much as a 1930s Grande Dame might. From what I have seen, Labour Councils in the North have been anti lockdown because of the economic harm, and because of the dodgy evidential base for local lock downs.
Starmer has just made a perhaps rather cynical political move by calling for the so called but mis named circuit breaker. The public been taught to believe that there is a thing called "The Science". This has the status of a sacred cow. Nobody knows what "The Science" actually is, but who cares? It's a religion. Johnson can now be characterised by Starmer as being anti "The Science".
Starmer has just made a perhaps rather cynical political move by calling for the so called but mis named circuit breaker. The public been taught to believe that there is a thing called "The Science". This has the status of a sacred cow. Nobody knows what "The Science" actually is, but who cares? It's a religion. Johnson can now be characterised by Starmer as being anti "The Science".
I agree, and the move is a shrewd one, albeit that Starmer probably knows that a circuit breaker does nothing but delay the virus a bit whilst trashing the economy a bit more. He was under pressure to do something oppositional, and Johnson, who appears to be floundering, has gifted Starmer this easy goal.
Breadvan72 said:
From what I have seen, Labour Councils in the North have been anti lockdown because of the economic harm, and because of the dodgy evidential base for local lock downs.
Are Labour not a socialist party? Are the locked down areas not predominantly areas under Labour local authority control? Were the regional lockdowns in the North not requested by those Labour controlled local authorities?I have seen plenty of criticism by those authorities that the exact measures imposed are not to their liking, that they weren't consulted on them as much as they would like and specifically that there is insufficient accompanying financial support from central government. There is no evidence I've seen to suggest they oppose the principle of lock downs. Only criticism that they weren't done to satisfaction.
Polling suggests Labour voters are significantly more in favour of lock downs that conservative ones.
Either way, I don't see a common political dividing line in Brexit and lockdown opinion.
No lockdown without support is hardly an unreasonable position. The Northern Councils also make the point that they are being locked down when southern places with similar C19 rates are not. You seem intent on making cheap points to suggest that Labour voters are just lazy handout seekers. I'm a Labour voter. I have been fully employed and paying higher rate taxes for decades. I know lots of other people like me. Lazy generalisations are lazy generalisations. Which are we today:
metro elite liberals in ivory towers, or idle doleys?
metro elite liberals in ivory towers, or idle doleys?
unident said:
The metaphor was more to demonstrate the options available to the government, not the specifics of coronavirus. Kind of a rock and a hard place scenario. As in they have two routes and both of them involve the end of this government.
However, if it is 1 in 200 then that equates to about 335,000 dead and probably 5-10 times that amount with ongoing after effects for a period of time and all the cost that entails. No government is going to say “yep, sorry if you die, or get ill, or lose a loved one, how sad, never mind, carry on”. whatever the stats are it makes my point. Either sacrifice a portion of society and create a burden / cost on the NHS / nation for a long time for those who get seriously ill, but don’t die, or create a burden / cost to the nation / economy for a long time by locking down partially or fully.
It's not 1 in 200 of everybody. You can't extrapolate out to the whole population like that, it would never spread that far. This is why we have all these scary figures, it's absolutely not right. And as for your 5-10 times that...where did you get that from? Oh right, just made up. No wonder we're in such a mess.However, if it is 1 in 200 then that equates to about 335,000 dead and probably 5-10 times that amount with ongoing after effects for a period of time and all the cost that entails. No government is going to say “yep, sorry if you die, or get ill, or lose a loved one, how sad, never mind, carry on”. whatever the stats are it makes my point. Either sacrifice a portion of society and create a burden / cost on the NHS / nation for a long time for those who get seriously ill, but don’t die, or create a burden / cost to the nation / economy for a long time by locking down partially or fully.
Anyone fancy a small wager? Proceeds to charity?
Twenty quid says that Johnson will call a lockdown in England on or before 1 November 2020. My reasoning is that Starmer has deftly hoist Johnson by his own petard. Johnson's mantra has been "The Science", and he has no plausible basis for pulling down the golden idol that he made. Add to this Johnson's known propensity never to lead but always to follow.
Any taker?
NB: I think that a lockdown would be a silly idea, but that is beside the point for this bet.
Twenty quid says that Johnson will call a lockdown in England on or before 1 November 2020. My reasoning is that Starmer has deftly hoist Johnson by his own petard. Johnson's mantra has been "The Science", and he has no plausible basis for pulling down the golden idol that he made. Add to this Johnson's known propensity never to lead but always to follow.
Any taker?
NB: I think that a lockdown would be a silly idea, but that is beside the point for this bet.
A national lockdown is not a smart move for a few reasons
1. Certain places in the U.K. are fine /very very low with hardly anyone in Hospital. To lock them down makes no sense.
2. Lockdown doesn’t prevent the deaths it simply kicks the can down the road.
3. Herd immunity doesn’t work/ no evidence of it working so far anywhere.
4. There is no wrong or right answer here is s
t options all round and it’s the same for every country globally.
5 people keep bashing track and trace yet people have and keep giving false info / not picking up their phone when it’s ringing (possibly due to the fact they only accept calls from known numbers - i personally do this)
Track and trace there is a ceiling where it can work - is it 20,000 cases a day that is impossible to track as it’s simply too many day in day out and escalating.
1. Certain places in the U.K. are fine /very very low with hardly anyone in Hospital. To lock them down makes no sense.
2. Lockdown doesn’t prevent the deaths it simply kicks the can down the road.
3. Herd immunity doesn’t work/ no evidence of it working so far anywhere.
4. There is no wrong or right answer here is s
t options all round and it’s the same for every country globally. 5 people keep bashing track and trace yet people have and keep giving false info / not picking up their phone when it’s ringing (possibly due to the fact they only accept calls from known numbers - i personally do this)
Track and trace there is a ceiling where it can work - is it 20,000 cases a day that is impossible to track as it’s simply too many day in day out and escalating.
Breadvan72 said:
Anyone fancy a small wager? Proceeds to charity?
Twenty quid says that Johnson will call a lockdown in England on or before 1 November 2020. My reasoning is that Starmer has deftly hoist Johnson by his own petard. Johnson's mantra has been "The Science", and he has no plausible basis for pulling down the golden idol that he made. Add to this Johnson's known propensity never to lead but always to follow.
Any taker?
NB: I think that a lockdown would be a silly idea, but that is beside the point for this bet.
Its a nigh-on certainty, I'll be 1 week into my quarantine by then! So one week left then a week of lockdown before I can fook back off to a real dictatorship for a bit of freedom. Twenty quid says that Johnson will call a lockdown in England on or before 1 November 2020. My reasoning is that Starmer has deftly hoist Johnson by his own petard. Johnson's mantra has been "The Science", and he has no plausible basis for pulling down the golden idol that he made. Add to this Johnson's known propensity never to lead but always to follow.
Any taker?
NB: I think that a lockdown would be a silly idea, but that is beside the point for this bet.
The track and trace is a clusterfk, at least partly because of the insistence on a go it alone approach. That is one consequence of Brexit having become a religion. But leave that aside, the real fubar-a-rama is testing. The only way to manage the virus is to know who has got it. Test, test, test, and test again. The Gov has right royally screwed that pooch again and again.
k, at least partly because of the insistence on a go it alone approach. That is one consequence of Brexit having become a religion. But leave that aside, the real fubar-a-rama is testing. The only way to manage the virus is to know who has got it. Test, test, test, and test again. The Gov has right royally screwed that pooch again and again. Breadvan72 said:
No lockdown without support is hardly an unreasonable position. The Northern Councils also make the point that they are being locked down when southern places with similar C19 rates are not. You seem intent on making cheap points to suggest that Labour voters are just lazy handout seekers. I'm a Labour voter. I have been fully employed and paying higher rate taxes for decades. I know lots of other people like me. Lazy generalisations are lazy generalisations. Which are we today:
metro elite liberals in ivory towers, or idle doleys?
I'm doing no such thing, BV. I simply make the point, in relation to Covid and Brexit, that they do not fall under similar lines. The polls and the evidence from local authorities is that labour voters are more in favour of lockdown that those who vote Conservative. That doesn't mean every voter follows the pattern.metro elite liberals in ivory towers, or idle doleys?
I make and made no comment here on the reasonableness of northern authorities requesting more money, as it was only mentioned as evidence that they did have some dissatisfaction with the detail but you were wrong on the principle that they did not want to lock down at all (they themselves requested the lockdowns).
Elsewhere in these pastures I have praised Starmer for his actions (and criticised him for his inactions, at times).
I get that you like the "I'm a bazzer and I bet you think I vote Tory but, surprise! I'm a liberal free marketeer middle ground immigrant man poor done good educated man of the people who defies your stereotype", but I really wasn't attacking or intending to attack anyone with my posts above (including you).
Breadvan72 said:
The track and trace is a clusterfk, at least partly because of the insistence on a go it alone approach. That is one consequence of Brexit having become a religion. But leave that aside, the real fubar-a-rama is testing. The only way to manage the virus is to know who has got it. Test, test, test, and test again. The Gov has right royally screwed that pooch again and again.
There is something fundamentally fooked about the testing programme. But it's not the amount of testing. We are running double the rate of testing as that paragon of virtue, Germany, and way more than any other major country. So from that perspective things are working.k, at least partly because of the insistence on a go it alone approach. That is one consequence of Brexit having become a religion. But leave that aside, the real fubar-a-rama is testing. The only way to manage the virus is to know who has got it. Test, test, test, and test again. The Gov has right royally screwed that pooch again and again. Track & trace is a clusterf
k.Everybody must have realised what was coming this Autumn, SAGE are brilliant at defining actions through how many are going to die, but they can't seem to model the simple process of capacity management. They & the government are lost in a world of academia with seemingly no concept of what is happening out there.
Breadvan72 said:
There is no point engaging with unident. He has been trolling these threads since March. His stuck-record line is that anyone who makes even the slightest criticism of the Government's policies is just a "contrarian" doing that for reasons of mischief. His mantra is simply OBEY OBEY OBEY. After a few rounds of trying to engage him in some sort of reasoned debate, most of us just give up and ignore him.
unident is an extreme example of a phenomenon visible in less extreme forms all across the forum. Quite a few posters get very upset if anyone questions the wisdom of the measures adopted to deal with the virus, and rapidly become very shrill in defending the line that whatever the Government does must be right and cannot be criticised. I suppose that people want to be comfortable with their own choice to switch off their critical faculties.
It’s good to see that the self-appointed champion of debate is actively stifling anyone debating with me. unident is an extreme example of a phenomenon visible in less extreme forms all across the forum. Quite a few posters get very upset if anyone questions the wisdom of the measures adopted to deal with the virus, and rapidly become very shrill in defending the line that whatever the Government does must be right and cannot be criticised. I suppose that people want to be comfortable with their own choice to switch off their critical faculties.
I see the ad hom is in full flow again. Delicious irony.
GT03ROB said:
I'm not fully sure where you are going with your discussion it seem rather circular. On the one hand you argue we have what we have, yet people are providing alternatives that are not on the face of it being considered. many are actively opposing ignoring the rules because there appears to be no consideration for another way.
Because people are anti strict lockdown does not make them a "ripper" or whatever the term people want to use.
The problem is well known, the at risk is well known, the vast majority are not at risk. Protect those that are, let the rest go about their business aware of the risks to them, let them take sensible precautions. Locking down everything & everybody to protect a very small number makes no rational sense to most, hence why people are not following the rules.
What alternatives? There’s really only a “let it run riot” suggestion and that’s pretty much what’s happening at the moment. The trends of hospital admissions and deaths don’t make pretty reading and really aren’t something that any government of whatever colour could sit back and accept. Nobody on here wants a full lockdown, as that’s not the trendy opinion. Mid ground is partial lockdowns, restricting some things and so on, much like a three tier regional system. You’ve really only got three options. Full lockdown, none or a variation of in the middle. Full has been done and nobody liked it, none (or well on the way to it) is pretty much what we’ve had for a few weeks now. I say “none” in that there may still be rules, but they aren’t enforced, so may as well not exist. In the middle is what’s being tried now, albeit heading more towards full depending on where you live in the country. Because people are anti strict lockdown does not make them a "ripper" or whatever the term people want to use.
The problem is well known, the at risk is well known, the vast majority are not at risk. Protect those that are, let the rest go about their business aware of the risks to them, let them take sensible precautions. Locking down everything & everybody to protect a very small number makes no rational sense to most, hence why people are not following the rules.
So your suggestion is lock up those who are at risk. That would include all those requiring surgery or treatment for other serious illnesses. Yet you all use them to make your point that they treating. They can’t be locked up and treated at the same time.
It’s not about letting people go about their business aware of the risks to them. It’s the risk to others. Most people are currently doing what you want anyway and it’s not going great is it?
People aren’t following the rules because they’re tired of the whole thing and I understand that. People saw lockdown as something new and exciting (as in different not getting the heart racing) initially, but tired of it quickly. The fact the nutters, conspiracy theorists got a voice meant that grew quickly.
GT03ROB said:
I'm not fully sure where you are going with your discussion it seem rather circular. On the one hand you argue we have what we have, yet people are providing alternatives that are not on the face of it being considered. many are actively opposing ignoring the rules because there appears to be no consideration for another way.
Because people are anti strict lockdown does not make them a "ripper" or whatever the term people want to use.
The problem is well known, the at risk is well known, the vast majority are not at risk. Protect those that are, let the rest go about their business aware of the risks to them, let them take sensible precautions. Locking down everything & everybody to protect a very small number makes no rational sense to most, hence why people are not following the rules.
The alternatives being put forward are "What" not how. Because people are anti strict lockdown does not make them a "ripper" or whatever the term people want to use.
The problem is well known, the at risk is well known, the vast majority are not at risk. Protect those that are, let the rest go about their business aware of the risks to them, let them take sensible precautions. Locking down everything & everybody to protect a very small number makes no rational sense to most, hence why people are not following the rules.
As the scientific reaction to the Barrington Declaration made clear:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction...
I could put forward an alternative of find a cure and prevent the spread of the disease without impacting on anyone. It's valueless unless I show how it can be done and what the relative costs are.
We have been shielding the most vulnerable throughout, the deaths we had are despite of this and all the other restrictions there were. With much better tools at our disposal we try to protect the most vulnerable from flu every year but that has limited success.
The vulnerable are a significant proportion of society depending on where you draw the line about 30% many of whom will be "Key workers, employers, decision makers. Taking them out of circulation might not be sustainable at the exact time we will be tolerating high levels of infections amongst the wider population. If doing so puts key services below a sustainable level how do we un-ring that bell?
We are not locked down and were never really locked down. There were some serious restrictions, probably too many, but far short of a lockdown.
As it stands there is a significant direct impact, but not allowing social gatherings of more than 6 (From different households) masks in shops and pubs closing at 10pm is not going to do a lot of damage to the economy. The biggest damage comes from peoples reaction to the pandemic (Manufactured or otherwise).
It's a long way from a given, that rising numbers of infections and deaths will be any better, by any measure, than the restrictions currently being proposed. Yet we are faced with alternatives that seem to suggest the damage is all caused by the mitigation and letting it rip will have no downsides apart from a handful of people dying a week or 2 early.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff