advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XIII

Status
Not open for further replies.

2ManyBoxes

pfm Member
This is where we are with the death rate. I've plotted a 7 day rolling average since the reporting seems to fluctuate wildly, but we're looking at a steady rate of about 410 per day...


With figures that fluctuate as wildly as that you can't derive any precise figure. The most recent figures vary between about 175 and 600, that's a big variation. You could say 400 +/- 200.

You can say that there is a clear rising trend but unfortunately that phrase lacks a little punch, or indeed any punch at all.
 
Well from your own POV then you have to figure out why a load of right wing nutcases and sociopaths aren't in favour of lockdowns, sure as shit it has nothing to do with the health of the general public. So what is their motivation to opening everything up and "just gerrin on with it" ?

It's partly because they see their livelihoods going down the drain and bankruptcy looming and partly because they haven't had the real danger spelt out to them.

Some people are now so panicked that they wouldn't listen and understand if you tried 70,000 times to explain it. It's too bloody late, the opportunity has gone. Another issue to lay at Boris the Berk's door.
 
I know I’m changing the subject but I won’t let that stop me. This one has come up recently and I’d love to explore it more. The claim seems to be being used to say that closing things down very hard is economically the best thing to do, presumably while investing state money in some way into the businesses to make sure they can bounce back (bounce back when?) Do you know if any work has been done to spell out and support the idea, or is it just glib?

Part of the problem with this approach is to do with political reality. I don’t believe that Boris could have driven harder health protecting measures through parliament in September even if the cabinet wanted to, and I think he would have met opposition from left and right. It’s easy to say lock down harder, we’re looking in from the wings, we’re not in the thick of it.
Not in the thick of it? Speak for yourself...
 
I know I’m changing the subject but I won’t let that stop me. This one has come up recently and I’d love to explore it more. The claim seems to be being used to say that closing things down very hard is economically the best thing to do, presumably while investing state money in some way into the businesses to make sure they can bounce back (bounce back when?) Do you know if any work has been done to spell out and support the idea, or is it just glib?

Part of the problem with this approach is to do with political reality. I don’t believe that Boris could have driven harder health protecting measures through parliament in September even if the cabinet wanted to, and I think he would have met opposition from left and right. It’s easy to say lock down harder, we’re looking in from the wings, we’re not in the thick of it.
The argument was made very early on by leftish but fairly mainstream economists and public health experts, and it’s only glib in the sense that it’s bleedin obvious: if you take the health threat very seriously and make strong early interventions (not necessarily hard lockdowns by the way) then you can get control, open up the economy earlier and then use more targeted measures to keep control. I don’t know if there’s been any modelling on that: I expect so, but actual reality has since proved the point, it seems to me.

I don’t really know where you’re coming from with this political reality thing: it seems very unlikely to me that health measures would have met any serious opposition in September. When has Labour opposed anything like that? And it seems Boris only has 70 or so committed cranks on his own side to worry about.
 
With figures that fluctuate as wildly as that you can't derive any precise figure. The most recent figures vary between about 175 and 600, that's a big variation. You could say 400 +/- 200.

You can say that there is a clear rising trend but unfortunately that phrase lacks a little punch, or indeed any punch at all.

It's the weekends with the very low figures that tend to get reported early the following week, you can see the average levelling out quite clearly - deaths had been rising exponentially...
 
18 662 cases today, 398 deaths which is very high for a Sunday, and 1484 new admissions (19th)
 
if you take the health threat very seriously and make strong early interventions (not necessarily hard lockdowns by the way) then you can get control, open up the economy earlier and then use more targeted measures to keep control.

Ah, now I understand. That's what Boris believes! Others may think he could have done it better, they may be right, they may not, but in terms of policy there's nothing to distinguish left and right here.

By the way, I don't know what Farage would say about the bit of your post that I've quoted above, but he may well agree too.
 
18 662 cases today, 398 deaths which is very high for a Sunday, and 1484 new admissions (19th)

There's something strange about the UK when it comes to deaths and hospitalisations. I remember in Summer these figures were quite high given the R and the rates of detected cases. I also remember a discussion somewhere, maybe here, about whether this shows that Brits are not as healthy as the French, for example.
 
- Debt is cheap, load up on it; public equity in businesses in return for bailouts; tax the wealth-extractors
.

So are there some details about this? Who are they going to tax? I mean, the thing I want to know really is . . . you know, are they going to . . . tax . . . . little me? :eek:

- Don’t build up debt that later generations will have to pay off

I'd be very interested to know whether the figures support this, or whether it's just gl . . b


I also note that the Tories seem to be softening us up for big tax rises soon -- so once again this doesn't look promising as a left/right difference

Capture.png
 
Meanwhile...

The Good law Project

Kate Bingham heads up Britain’s vaccine task force. She’s a venture capitalist with no public health experience, married to a Conservative minister. Dido Harding leads the Test and Trace system. She has no public health experience and is the wife of a Conservative MP. Mike Coupe, is head of COVID-19 testing, and has - you guessed it - no public health experience. The list goes on.

Why - when facing the single greatest threat to public health this country has ever seen - would the Government of the day not want the best-qualified people to lead the response?

Thousands of lives depend on these public bodies. Yet this Government has handed them over without competition to cronies who’ve channelled billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to private companies and their associates - while the Test and Trace system fails.

In response to our pre-action letter demanding ministers reveal how and why these individuals were chosen to lead vital public health bodies, Government failed to produce any evidence. But they concur that the roles were not openly advertised: there was no proper recruitment process. A number of people - who just happen to share the quality of being friends of the Conservative Party - were just given the nod. This is not the Britain we should be, and we don’t believe it is lawful. So we’ve taken the next step in our claim with the Runnymede Trust and filed for judicial review. In accordance with our desire for transparency, we have posted the bundle so you can read it.

Closed recruitment particularly discriminates against Black, Asian and minority ethnic people, and disabled people. The Government's practice of offering these roles unpaid rules out those with family wealth. Those who don’t rub shoulders with high-ranking Ministers are often shut out. And public confidence is undermined: how can we see, without transparency, whose interests this serves? The public's - or the private interests of friends of the Conservative Party? Government now has 21 days to respond.

When we come to look at the evidence of how we managed the pandemic – with both excess deaths and the hit to the economy among the highest in the developed world – what will we conclude about who benefitted from giving jobs and contracts to friends?

If our politicians care in the slightest about public trust, public service needs to be exactly that, not a cloak for the advancement of private interests.

This legal piece of litigation stands to reshape society.

Thank you,

Jolyon Maugham QC
Director of Good Law Project

Good Law Project is able to carry out its work thanks to donations from thousands of people. If you are in a position to do so, you can make a donation here:

Donate
 
18 662 cases today, 398 deaths which is very high for a Sunday, and 1484 new admissions (19th)
You neglect to mention that 141 were deaths that should have been recorded yesterday...

Convenient.

24k cases last Sunday if I’m correct?
 
So are there some details about this? Who are they going to tax? I mean, the thing I want to know really is . . . you know, are they going to . . . tax . . . . little me? :eek:



I'd be very interested to know whether the figures support this, or whether it's just gl . . b


I also note that the Tories seem to be softening us up for big tax rises soon -- so once again this doesn't look promising as a left/right difference

Capture.png
You're asking quite a lot for a forum on a Sunday evening! Suggest some independent research. IPPR, OpenDemocracy, Simon Wren-Lewis' Mainly Macro blog would be good places to start. It's irritating that your default position on things you keep professing curiosity about but have so far avoided engaging with is that it's all just glib pie in the sky but what can you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top