When will this shit end?

[balthazarstarbuck]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its 1 year old.

Which makes Covid a Scorpio. Destructive and a desire for domination. Sounds about right.

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Happy Birthday!

Just don’t blow out the candles on the cake- risk of transmission.

[JoeyT]

26 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Might mouthwash help you more than you might think ? 

 

Worse case scenario it doesn't kill the virus but we all smell minty fresh!

[jparx]

52 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

huh?

Didn’t you keep banging on about being born in Detroit over in the election thread?

[stuartbert two hats]

52 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

Absolutely this. The way it was to be implemented was actually picked from one of the options in a paper the government themselves commissioned. It wasn't drawn up on the bag of a fag packet.

So it was a costed, viable option that got completely slammed in the media.

I never saw a single Labour politician explain it well.  Nor did I see anyone explain why they could use quantitative easing as a way to inject money directly into the economy, bypassing banks.  Radical ideas need to be explained clearly and carefully, otherwise nobody will believe you can actually pull it off, no matter how reasonable the actual ideas are.

That's why the 2017 manifesto went down so well - it was a focussed set of policies that were communicated well, the 2019 one was a mess.

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, jparx said:

Didn’t you keep banging on about being born in Detroit over in the election thread?

I may have mentioned it a few times. Born in Michigan, but not Detroit. But I live in some dump called Manchester now.

[Crazyfool01]

31 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Worse case scenario it doesn't kill the virus but we all smell minty fresh!

everyone will have some beautiful smiles behind those face masks  

[Crazyfool01]

 

[Crazyfool01]

Delays until after 6 for todays numbers ..... just for a change .... 

[DeanoL]

 

5 hours ago, squirrelarmy said:

The party needs to move on and unite again. Corbyn needs to avoid being in the limelight for that to happen. 

The party is full of Corbynite left-wingers. If it wants to unite, it needs to bring those people on side, expelling Corbyn (even though I think it was the only option after his comments) doesn't do that. 

Of course, it may be that when people talk about "uniting" the party they actually mean "purge it of Momentum and the rest of that lot" which is a valid idea, but doesn't sound like actually uniting anything to me.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

or just perhaps, they have their own minds just like you and think what you want is a crock of shit...? 

You (and I) can think they're wrong all we like, but that doesn't win elections and actually make people's lives better.

There's fuck all point complaining that it's the wrong electorate, it's the only electorate the Labour Party has got to work with.

You can't just do what's popular though. Otherwise we may as well argue that next election Labour should push on having stricter immigration policy that whatever the Tories have, as that's always popular. And cut corporation tax rates. At some point the party still needs to have an actual fundamental outlook on things, else it just becomes a fight as to who can match the electorate's point of view better.

There still needs to be an element of winning people over. Of trying to actually win the argument. It didn't happen in 2019, but in some ways the argument was lost a long, long time ago when the Tories started austerity and convinced the entire country that the national debt was like a credit card we had over-spent on, and so needed to repay. So many years of that being hammered home time after time after time. With support from Miliband too, who ran on a platform of reducing the deficit also, just in a different way.

And that's where moving to the centre gets really dangerous - if you just prop up false narratives created by the opposition because people seem to like and understand them, you make it really hard to then reverse that. Labour didn't successfully make the argument in 2019, but then they would have had to start by rebuilding people's understanding of country economies, and the notion of investing in a country to improve it. That'll be the core battle for the Labour party in the next four years - disabuse people of the notion that spending is bad (and the CV response may help with that, as it's a clear example of spending to have things pay off in the future).

But I feel like a lot of people here seem to think "well, the public think government spending is bad, so we need to appeal to that", instead of trying to educate and actually win the argument.

3 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah I agree. If as in your example Starmer had been in charge in 2017, it’s very possible we could’ve had a Labour government given how bad May was in the campaign. 

Had Starmer been in charge we wouldn't have had a 2017 election. May only called it as she thought Corbyn was polling so badly that she'd beat him to an easy majority. That turned out to be wrong, but also explains why Corbyn didn't go in 2018 when the polls still had him miles behind.

[DeanoL]

 

On 11/14/2020 at 2:13 PM, shoptildrop said:

Yeah but they changed and improved the support under tier 2 once London was affected, agree it was shit when it was just the North being affected and really hit home how unequal support has been towards the North  

Also, they won't clarify the entry/exit triggers between each tier they just keep moving the goalposts based on who is affected - remember these were the numbers that put us into tier 2 in July, but London was over 100 per 100k when they were put into it

But clearly Manchester without restrictions has the virus spreading faster than London without restrictions. So it is apples and oranges. We don't know exactly why, but it's not just passing a specific threshold that matters, it's the speed at which it gets passed. Even if we got the virus down somehow to the exact same number everywhere in the country, then dropped all restrictions, in Manchester it would go back up quicker.

On 11/15/2020 at 10:57 PM, zahidf said:

Thats maybe what we would do in a perfect world. But people aren't following lockdown really without a vaccine. Once NHS workers and the elderly get a vaccine by Jan say, do you really think most people are going to agree to social distance?

 

I dont. People want back to normal ASAP. 

I don't think they do. I think the country will face, huge, massive economical damage over the next year because people will be too afraid to go out, even where they're told it's safe to do so. I mean, we've done this once, we opened most things back up again. We needed a special half price food deal to actually get people to go start using things. Pubs and restaurants were running at 50% capacity or less but you could still get a table on a Friday night.

Just because you see people breaking the rules doesn't mean they represent a majority. By definition, you don't see the people staying in. Because they're in.

I fully expect the government to say everything is open again in Spring, and withdraw all support, with only a small percentage vaccinated, knowing full-well that a huge number of people will just stay at home anyway - meaning that even for venues that survived, demand will still be down, gigs won't sell out that would before - it'll be death by a thousand cuts for much of the creative industry that's predicated on far more demand that will exist even next summer.

19 hours ago, Ryan1984 said:

What are we thinking for 2 December then?

Whatever this ‘lockdown’ is ending and the majority of the nation into tier three with the caveat of ‘behave yourselves and you can see Mum and Gran at Christmas’..?

Exact same rules as now but shops are allowed to open.

Pubs and restaurants are, unfortunately, already fucked. Even if allowed to open, the restrictions around distancing mean capacity will be hugely reduced so those Christmas party days of fully booked out floors every weekday evening and lunchtime just won't, and can't, happen. Restaurants opening in December won't make any more money than they would if they were allowed to open January.

Retail is different. Retail sees a Christmas rush too but they're not impacted so badly by the restrictions to capacity, as you spend maybe ten minutes in a shop, not two hours. And its less time sensitive. What I would hope is that shops re-open with revised "COVID-safe" guidelines and with a major lifting of restrictions on trading hours (so "late night shopping" every night), and also companies encouraged to give staff time out during the day to go Christmas shopping when its less busy. 

There's still a chance to save a lot of the retail industry, if they can still have a decent Christmas, but it'll come at the expense of pubs/restaurants I reckon.

[Kusy]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

But clearly Manchester without restrictions has the virus spreading faster than London without restrictions. So it is apples and oranges. We don't know exactly why, but it's not just passing a specific threshold that matters, it's the speed at which it gets passed. Even if we got the virus down somehow to the exact same number everywhere in the country, then dropped all restrictions, in Manchester it would go back up quicker.

I don't think they do. I think the country will face, huge, massive economical damage over the next year because people will be too afraid to go out, even where they're told it's safe to do so. I mean, we've done this once, we opened most things back up again. We needed a special half price food deal to actually get people to go start using things. Pubs and restaurants were running at 50% capacity or less but you could still get a table on a Friday night.

Just because you see people breaking the rules doesn't mean they represent a majority. By definition, you don't see the people staying in. Because they're in.

I fully expect the government to say everything is open again in Spring, and withdraw all support, with only a small percentage vaccinated, knowing full-well that a huge number of people will just stay at home anyway - meaning that even for venues that survived, demand will still be down, gigs won't sell out that would before - it'll be death by a thousand cuts for much of the creative industry that's predicated on far more demand that will exist even next summer.

Exact same rules as now but shops are allowed to open.

Pubs and restaurants are, unfortunately, already fucked. Even if allowed to open, the restrictions around distancing mean capacity will be hugely reduced so those Christmas party days of fully booked out floors every weekday evening and lunchtime just won't, and can't, happen. Restaurants opening in December won't make any more money than they would if they were allowed to open January.

Retail is different. Retail sees a Christmas rush too but they're not impacted so badly by the restrictions to capacity, as you spend maybe ten minutes in a shop, not two hours. And its less time sensitive. What I would hope is that shops re-open with revised "COVID-safe" guidelines and with a major lifting of restrictions on trading hours (so "late night shopping" every night), and also companies encouraged to give staff time out during the day to go Christmas shopping when its less busy. 

There's still a chance to save a lot of the retail industry, if they can still have a decent Christmas, but it'll come at the expense of pubs/restaurants I reckon.

If the cases will drop and stay low for a fair amount of time - they'll go out. It will start with teenagers and then the rest. 

But the vaccine must be rolled out. 

[Crazyfool01]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

But clearly Manchester without restrictions has the virus spreading faster than London without restrictions. So it is apples and oranges. We don't know exactly why, but it's not just passing a specific threshold that matters, it's the speed at which it gets passed. Even if we got the virus down somehow to the exact same number everywhere in the country, then dropped all restrictions, in Manchester it would go back up quicker.

I don't think they do. I think the country will face, huge, massive economical damage over the next year because people will be too afraid to go out, even where they're told it's safe to do so. I mean, we've done this once, we opened most things back up again. We needed a special half price food deal to actually get people to go start using things. Pubs and restaurants were running at 50% capacity or less but you could still get a table on a Friday night.

Just because you see people breaking the rules doesn't mean they represent a majority. By definition, you don't see the people staying in. Because they're in.

I fully expect the government to say everything is open again in Spring, and withdraw all support, with only a small percentage vaccinated, knowing full-well that a huge number of people will just stay at home anyway - meaning that even for venues that survived, demand will still be down, gigs won't sell out that would before - it'll be death by a thousand cuts for much of the creative industry that's predicated on far more demand that will exist even next summer.

Exact same rules as now but shops are allowed to open.

Pubs and restaurants are, unfortunately, already fucked. Even if allowed to open, the restrictions around distancing mean capacity will be hugely reduced so those Christmas party days of fully booked out floors every weekday evening and lunchtime just won't, and can't, happen. Restaurants opening in December won't make any more money than they would if they were allowed to open January.

Retail is different. Retail sees a Christmas rush too but they're not impacted so badly by the restrictions to capacity, as you spend maybe ten minutes in a shop, not two hours. And its less time sensitive. What I would hope is that shops re-open with revised "COVID-safe" guidelines and with a major lifting of restrictions on trading hours (so "late night shopping" every night), and also companies encouraged to give staff time out during the day to go Christmas shopping when its less busy. 

There's still a chance to save a lot of the retail industry, if they can still have a decent Christmas, but it'll come at the expense of pubs/restaurants I reckon.

spreading the time of the shopping I would agree with personally in more shops and this makes sense in terms of distancing for people  the demand will clearly be there  ... but that would also mean that shops would need to take on more staff very quickly , which is of course a lot more possible now sadly because of many out of work ... although in some sectors ( supermarkets )  closing shops has become essential to enable online picking to happen in safer circumstances without customers in ..... My shop was 24hrs and now it has restricted its hours its going to be absolutely hellishly busy during trading hours Christmas week and probably quite a lot before that ... retail needs to reopen ... its the golden quarter ... and this will help spread the trade and enable it to go to other areas and not just amazon , eBay and large supermarkets that have done well out of this pandemic already .... 

[steviewevie]

Should big pharma profit from covid?

https://unherd.com/2020/11/should-big-pharma-profit-from-covid/

[DeanoL]

Or put another way - they bent over backwards to give hospitality their summer (at least part of it) even though many were saying it wasn't wise. They'll also try and give retail their Christmas.

[Crazyfool01]

novel approach here ... but how about they shut the non food and clothing in supermarkets where it was open this time ... whilst letting the small businesses take their slice of the cake that they missed out on !!

[DeanoL]

Just now, crazyfool1 said:

novel approach here ... but how about they shut the non food and clothing in supermarkets where it was open this time ... whilst letting the small businesses take their slice of the cake that they missed out on !!

That'd be a really smart idea actually, although I'd imagine too interventionist for this government...

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

novel approach here ... but how about they shut the non food and clothing in supermarkets where it was open this time ... whilst letting the small businesses take their slice of the cake that they missed out on !!

great idea, but won't happen.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

That'd be a really smart idea actually, although I'd imagine too interventionist for this government...

Anyone have Boris number ?  

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

great idea, but won't happen.

I know .... people now will be giving so much extra trade to the supermarkets and wondering if the small shops will actually be reopenning before xmas .... my supermarket has been ridiculous during lockdown because thats where people head now instead of the high street ... no number restrictions is also very hard , they also have had business rate exemption ( i think ) despite not having had to close .... and also took advantage by running a black friday this week when they haven't for the last few years due to bad press ... 

[Crazyfool01]

Fans to be back at matches before Christmas maybe ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54977370

[Ozanne]

6 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Fans to be back at matches before Christmas maybe ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54977370

Seems a bit counterproductive if they want to ensure cases stay low heading into Christmas. It would be great if we could get fans back but we are in a lockdown and they are looking at getting some fans back in a month, seems a bit soon. Why not wait until we get through the worst of winter so we can keep other parts open in the meantime. 

[stuartbert two hats]

39 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

But clearly Manchester without restrictions has the virus spreading faster than London without restrictions. So it is apples and oranges.

We had much higher numbers when lockdown finished due to being hit later than London.  That's the reason numbers spiked in the NW earlier, because we should have stayed in the first lockdown at least 3 more weeks.

[Ozanne]

 

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Seems a bit counterproductive if they want to ensure cases stay low heading into Christmas. It would be great if we could get fans back but we are in a lockdown and they are looking at getting some fans back in a month, seems a bit soon. Why not wait until we get through the worst of winter so we can keep other parts open in the meantime. 

I guess its only counter productive if it causes virus spread ..... some of the stadiums are massive and could easily accommodate some supporters I would think ... although it would have to be well managed .... I believe at the moment (things will probably change ) the plan is that we are no longer in lockdown in dec .... and this would happen in lower tier areas .... again its balancing things out ... risk / reward strategy 

[Homer]

3 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I guess its only counter productive if it causes virus spread ..... some of the stadiums are massive and could easily accommodate some supporters I would think ... although it would have to be well managed .... I believe at the moment (things will probably change ) the plan is that we are no longer in lockdown in dec .... and this would happen in lower tier areas .... again its balancing things out ... risk / reward strategy 

I read that one plan was to allow fans who live in the near vicinity to attend (therefore avoiding the problems of people travelling in en masse).