When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

Thing is....with over 300 deaths per day then we would expect there to be higher infection rates than those recorded...right?

[Mouseboy11]

1 hour ago, zero000 said:

Feel very fortunate to be living in Wales currently. A functioning track and trace system, which hasn't been outsourced to Serco and a circuit break lockdown, when the prevalence is much lower than large parts of the rest of the UK. This is what competent governance looks like.

The issue will be when we open our borders up to the plaguelands next door again

[stuartbert two hats]

9 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Judging by the past few months, I’d agree with you but wasn’t someone on here saying a mass rollout is something they could be competent at as we do it already with the flu jab etc?

Me and @eFestivals were both making that case.

[DeanoL]

29 minutes ago, Chef said:

This raises some interesting questions about the levels of compliance and enforcement. Measures won't work if people don't follow them.

As bad as the government have been the public have their part to play in this as well. 

 

That graph didn't feel right so I had a look at the data. We're scoring higher than Germany for " recommend not leaving house" and "internal movement restrictions in place" which I think are both Wales and Scotland requirements, not England. 

The data does sort of account for this, but it's a simple flag of whether the restrictions are country-wide or regional, which increases the score if the former. And they define "country" as "United Kingdom".

[Fuzzy Afro]

10 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

I continue to maintain that this is stupid, short sighted and perhaps even working the other way round in deflecting those traits back at the government

People aren't doing the government a favour here by stopping the virus spreading- its them who won't get treated for survivable illnesses. But the problem is it probably isn't- it'll more likely be the people who have followed the rules and used their own logic around transmission (not just doing stuff because they're "allowed", taking air transmission seriously etc).

I'd honestly prefer people just admit they dont care (as many dont) or admit they dont think is real or overblown (many think this especially in the north). 

This Cummings argument shouldn't matter - people who take it seriously should take it seriously REGARDLESS of what the government does.

(Not having a go at you specifically here - just have strong opinions on the Cummings situation) 

I think it boils into two camps. In March/April/May you had half the country following the rules for the sake of following the rules, and then the other half following the rules because they were afraid of catching the virus/getting sick/spreading it.

 

After Cummings, as well as Catherine Calderwood, Neil Ferguson and Margaret Ferrier (especially Cummings though as the PM defended him) the sense of community spirit died away and people started to see it as one rule for us and one rule for politicians. After that, the first camp that I mentioned massively shifted away from following the rules, and the only people that were still careful were those who had their own material fears of either catching the virus or spreading it. 

[Quark]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Me and @eFestivals were both making that case.

In theory it's an open goal for them. I mean, can you imagine them missing a clear and easy win? Oh hang on...

I'm honestly keeping so many things crossed that they let grown ups sort out the distribution, but I can also see it being something else that Harding gets to fuck up.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

That graph didn't feel right so I had a look at the data. We're scoring higher than Germany for " recommend not leaving house" and "internal movement restrictions in place" which I think are both Wales and Scotland requirements, not England. 

The data does sort of account for this, but it's a simple flag of whether the restrictions are country-wide or regional, which increases the score if the former. And they define "country" as "United Kingdom".

I’m sure Germany never had a “stay at home” order even at the height of it. We did along with Spain and France.

 

Its worth noting that even under the national lockdown announced in Germany yesterday, you can still meet people in groups of up to 10 from 2 households. That’s less strict than socialising rules anywhere in the UK right now. The term “lockdown” is completely flawed at this point because it can mean anything from the French rules where you literally need a permit to leave home, to the German rules which are considerably more lenient. 

[efcfanwirral]

3 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I think it boils into two camps. In March/April/May you had half the country following the rules for the sake of following the rules, and then the other half following the rules because they were afraid of catching the virus/getting sick/spreading it.

 

After Cummings, as well as Catherine Calderwood, Neil Ferguson and Margaret Ferrier (especially Cummings though as the PM defended him) the sense of community spirit died away and people started to see it as one rule for us and one rule for politicians. After that, the first camp that I mentioned massively shifted away from following the rules, and the only people that were still careful were those who had their own material fears of either catching the virus or spreading it. 

Pretty much sums it up  - the bit at the end is a very sad reflection on our society considering where we've ended up. Not sure if it's a reflection on the public's education levels or empathy levels. Probably both... 

[Ozanne]

13 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Dunno, the NW has been in tier 2 for so long, I'm not sure there's many conclusions to draw from our data, since the general prevalence of the virus is so much higher now than when we went in, plus the schools are open now.  

You'll want to look at the London data in a couple of weeks to see if tier 2 does anything.  I agree, it's pretty clear tier 2 isn't enough - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't do anything. 

Good points, the London comparison will be interesting. Plus seeing what happens in Wales with their lockdown too. 

[steviewevie]

Imagine the shitfest when Starmer kicks Corbyn out of the labour party....

[priest17]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Imagine the shitfest when Starmer kicks Corbyn out of the labour party....

maybe running over that cyclist the other day was just practice for throwing Corbyn under the bus

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Imagine the shitfest when Starmer kicks Corbyn out of the labour party....

I can only imagine what Twitter would be like!

[zahidf]

13 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I think it boils into two camps. In March/April/May you had half the country following the rules for the sake of following the rules, and then the other half following the rules because they were afraid of catching the virus/getting sick/spreading it.

 

After Cummings, as well as Catherine Calderwood, Neil Ferguson and Margaret Ferrier (especially Cummings though as the PM defended him) the sense of community spirit died away and people started to see it as one rule for us and one rule for politicians. After that, the first camp that I mentioned massively shifted away from following the rules, and the only people that were still careful were those who had their own material fears of either catching the virus or spreading it. 

good post. I agree with this

[Quark]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Imagine the shitfest when Starmer kicks Corbyn out of the labour party....

 

3 minutes ago, priest17 said:

maybe running over that cyclist the other day was just practice for throwing Corbyn under the bus

Bus or not, it's probably going to have to happen. On a purely practical level it was and still is a massive stick for the Tories to beat Labour with. They need to take that ammo away from them.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Quark said:

 

Bus or not, it's probably going to have to happen. On a purely practical level it was and still is a massive stick for the Tories to beat Labour with. They need to take that ammo away from them.

Trouble is...Starmer was in that shadow cabinet when all this was going on...he didn't say anything then...

[Quark]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Trouble is...Starmer was in that shadow cabinet when all this was going on...he didn't say anything then...

True, but I guess it depends on whether he falls into the camp of any named staff as to whether it fundamentally affects how tenable his position is.

The point is that he's in a position to do something now, and it's a chance to draw that line under what's gone before.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Trouble is...Starmer was in that shadow cabinet when all this was going on...he didn't say anything then...

This will be a problem for Starmer at election time. A few of my centrist/centre-right mates say that Starmer says and does the right things to get their votes, but they can’t overlook the fact he spent years working to get Corbyn into number 10 

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

True, but I guess it depends on whether he falls into the camp of any named staff as to whether it fundamentally affects how tenable his position is.

The point is that he's in a position to do something now, and it's a chance to draw that line under what's gone before.

I expect he'd rather make it a collective labour problem rather than a Corbyn one...but after what Corbyn has said today it's hard to see how Starmer can't kick him out if he wants to look decisive and tough over all this...and at same time Corbyn is still very popular amongst many labour supporters and members...so could get messy.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

very popular amongst many labour supporters and members

I should say amongst some labour supporters and members...I have no idea how popular he still is....

And also.. I voted labour, I wanted Corbyn to be PM...and I knew about this antisemitism stuff....so.........

[Quark]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I expect he'd rather make it a collective labour problem rather than a Corbyn one...but after what Corbyn has said today it's hard to see how Starmer can't kick him out if he wants to look decisive and tough over all this...and at same time Corbyn is still very popular amongst many labour supporters and members...so could get messy.

Potentially.  I've always been a fan of politics by principles, but recent years and the current majority are moving me towards a more pragmatic approach.  By the time it gets to the next election Labour (and to an extent the Lib Dems) will need to decide whether they're willing to lose some voters in order to secure others.

On general principle I don't like the idea as that's how we ended up New Labour that was basically Tory-Light. But I think pragmatism will need to be used. Whether we like it or not, this country is right-leaning by quite a majority. If we want an alternative to more years of the Tories then Starmer has to move to meet some of those voters.

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, Quark said:

Potentially.  I've always been a fan of politics by principles, but recent years and the current majority are moving me towards a more pragmatic approach.  By the time it gets to the next election Labour (and to an extent the Lib Dems) will need to decide whether they're willing to lose some voters in order to secure others.

On general principle I don't like the idea as that's how we ended up New Labour that was basically Tory-Light. But I think pragmatism will need to be used. Whether we like it or not, this country is right-leaning by quite a majority. If we want an alternative to more years of the Tories then Starmer has to move to meet some of those voters.

Politics by principle doesn’t work in a FPTP country. Really if you look at every election in living memory it’s won by whichever of the two main parties can capture the centre ground better than the other. 

[Quark]

Agreed. My idealism has had the shit kicked out of it. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, Quark said:

Agreed. My idealism has had the shit kicked out of it. 

I do think we need a PR system which would allow a lot more idealist (although I’m a natural centrist myself because I believe in the state giving a minimum living standard but also in entrepreneurialism and civil liberties so I have left wing and right wing views) voting. Although fundamentally you might end up with similar output because whilst Mark Francois and Phillip Hammond or Dianne Abbott and Lisa Nandy fundamentally wouldn’t belong in the same parties as one another, they’d inevitably end up in coalition together. I’m not a fan of one party having absolute majority power with only 40% of the vote. 

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, Quark said:

In theory it's an open goal for them. I mean, can you imagine them missing a clear and easy win? Oh hang on...

I'm honestly keeping so many things crossed that they let grown ups sort out the distribution, but I can also see it being something else that Harding gets to fuck up.

don't think Harding has anything much to do with it.

There's a woman (don't know her name but not Harding) who's in charge of managing the roll-out, to a criteria set by someone else (might be harding but don't think so).

Top of the roll-out list is care home staff and residents (starting with the oldest), which I feel is wrong; I reckon it should be NHS health workers first as there'll be a bit of 'wastage' from doing the oldies first.

(I'm not trying to mean to oldies. I just think it's a bit weird to suddenly put lives at the top of the list rather than 'protect the nhs').

Edited October 29, 2020 by eFestivals

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

don't think Harding has anything much to do with it.

There's a woman (don't know her name but not Harding) who's in charge of managing the roll-out, to a criteria set by someone else (might be harding but don't think so).

Top of the roll-out list is care home staff and residents (starting with the oldest), which I feel is wrong; I reckon it should be NHS health workers first as there'll be a bit of 'wastage' from doing the oldies first.

I would have thought anyone administering the vaccine should be done first ? im not sure how quickly it becomes effective but surely giving it to these people would prevent unnecessary spread ?