c4countdown

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:29 am - Their numbers are worse than England’s.

Source please. What are you using as this metric? Number of deaths? Number of cases? Cases per 100000 of the population? Something else?

I've just checked the gov.uk website...

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths shows 49612 deaths in England vs 4256 in Scotland. That's 88.1 per 100k population vs 77.9.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases shows 491428 cases in England vs 37033 in Scotland. Per 100k population that's 873.1 vs 677.9.

Sure as hell doesn't look like their numbers are worse than ours. Perhaps you can explain a different way of interpreting this government data.

Their R number is higher than in England.

Their positivity rate (i.e. cases scaled for testing numbers) is 13%, whereas in England it’s less than 5%.

Fair enough, by that metric they are doing worse. It would have been a lot more helpful if you'd clarified this, though, since by the metrics I wrote England is doing far worse.

In fairness, Rhys was just responding to the request to summarise the article, and it's probably spelled out in there, although I'm not a subscriber so I haven't read it.

In fairness to Elliott I meant the present tense, as in the situation in Scotland now is worse than England now (mainly because England's outbreaks are highly localised) but I can understand why you would think I meant "done" rather than "doing" even though I used neither of those words.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:12 pm Their R number is higher than in England.

Their positivity rate (i.e. cases scaled for testing numbers) is 13%, whereas in England it’s less than 5%.

As far as I've seen, the R number for all (possibly maybe not quite all) regions of the UK is somewhere in a range which is statistically inseparable. The confidence range for Scotland is a little higher than elsewhere, I suspect that's what you're referring to.

Now that Captain Hindsight has called for one, Sky News have sent three notifications today about a second lockdown and why they think it’s a good idea, yet not one peep out of them about the WHO U-turning on lockdowns. Bias.

It’s also notable that for many people their Brexit position correlates to their lockdown position - from full remoan ignore the referendum (lockdown forever) to no dealers (get rid of social distancing).

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:20 pm It’s also notable that for many people their Brexit position correlates to their lockdown position

Do you have evidence for that?

Edit to say that wasn't meant to sound confrontational - genuinely curious if this is the case or just supposition

Quite often you have a "left" position and a "right" position on seemingly completely unrelated subjects. How many people fit this model in reality though I don't know.

We (NI) are going in to a two week lockdown from this weekend. Schools closed an extra week for mid term. Restaurants etc. all shut. Close to the full shabang.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:29 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:20 pm It’s also notable that for many people their Brexit position correlates to their lockdown position

Do you have evidence for that?

Edit to say that wasn't meant to sound confrontational - genuinely curious if this is the case or just supposition

It’s just anecdotal for now.

——

More media bias: just over two hours before Labour called for a lockdown, Ashworth claimed Labour don’t want one. Not a peep out of the media on this either.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:26 pm

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:29 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:20 pm It’s also notable that for many people their Brexit position correlates to their lockdown position

Do you have evidence for that?

Edit to say that wasn't meant to sound confrontational - genuinely curious if this is the case or just supposition

It’s just anecdotal for now.

——

More media bias: just over two hours before Labour called for a lockdown, Ashworth claimed Labour don’t want one. Not a peep out of the media on this either.

Lol, so basically you made a wild overgeneralisation based on a few personal accounts. Funny how you're obsessed with how parties and such get branded and portraying the truth and stuff, yet you're perfectly happy to make claims like this and pass them off as true without anything solid to back you up. You're no better than the "media" which you talk about.

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:00 pm We (NI) are going in to a two week lockdown from this weekend. Schools closed an extra week for mid term. Restaurants etc. all shut. Close to the full shabang.

What about over the border?

I find it incredibly weird that in England, the Prime Minister/government of the entire UK gets to decide our coronavrius rules, but that other parts of the UK have their own system.

I know this is an age-old thing, and is related to e.g. this but it is a bizarre asymmetry nonetheless, and this whole coronavirus thing has brought it out strongly.

YouGov latest findings on 'rona restriction support, with Leave/Remain divides: 1; 2

So some significant differences, particularly on whether or not to encourage people back to workplaces, but not *extreme* differences in most areas.

This may also be of interest.

Jennifer Steadman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:55 am YouGov latest findings on 'rona restriction support, with Leave/Remain divides: 1; 2

So some significant differences, particularly on whether or not to encourage people back to workplaces, but not *extreme* differences in most areas.

This may also be of interest.

Interesting, thanks for providing sources for Rhys's argument. I wasn't entirely disputing that there might be differences before, but when there is precisely zero evidence to back a point up then it rather negates the impact of it.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:30 am

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:00 pm We (NI) are going in to a two week lockdown from this weekend. Schools closed an extra week for mid term. Restaurants etc. all shut. Close to the full shabang.

What about over the border?

Different restrictions depending on the county. Not totally up to speed. My brother works down in Dublin and he hasn't been able to leave the county for a month or so.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:43 am I find it incredibly weird that in England, the Prime Minister/government of the entire UK gets to decide our coronavrius rules, but that other parts of the UK have their own system.

I know this is an age-old thing, and is related to e.g. this but it is a bizarre asymmetry nonetheless, and this whole coronavirus thing has brought it out strongly.

I've often thought about this. To me it would make sense for there to be a devolved government in England.

Granted, my perception has always been that 'England thinks they're the bosses, the rest are just plebs'. But as you've mentioned, it actually works the other way as well.

Why should my MP* get to have an input on decisions which just affect England.

*lol, my MP doesn't take his seat in parliament anyway

I wasn't really making a full "argument", Elliott, just a mere anecdotal observation. I was pleasantly surprised there was any sources at all for it (so much so I didn't bother to look), so that's a fascinating discovery, Jen.

Mind you, I have passionately argued against devolution for a number of years now (even regarding council tax). The problem is it's a political suicide to reinstate powers back to Westminster, unless the alternative is an English Assembly. London, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland all have assemblies and all have different levels of power devolution. One country* but about 5-6 systems.

There's two ways around this: have a devolved England and standardise devolved powers, or take back control of devolved powers. Devolution in terms of Scottish independence, however, seems to have a lingering stench of appeasement. No matter how many powers are given to Scotland, they still argue for independence.

*"nation state", to use the technical term, before people say "isn't Scotland/Wales/NI a country"

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:03 pm No matter how many powers are given to Scotland, they still argue for independence.

I'm not Scottish, so I don't know for sure, but I imagine this very sentiment is what drives some Scots towards wanting independence.

Removing the devolved government in Stormont would be very risky indeed. When the Assembly wasn't sitting for over a year, we verged towards Direct Rule, a phrase which does not sit well with a lot of people.


If Scotland do have another independence referendum and if it is successful (or unsuccessful I suppose, depending on your view point), it would presumably only hasten an Irish unity referendum.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:03 pm No matter how many powers are given to Scotland, they still argue for independence.

This feels like a naive comment.

People that want independence will generally argue for independence until it's granted - devolution is welcome for many of these people, but is a very different issue, and for many highlights failings in the system.

Devolution wasn't a done deal by any means in the 90s, and there are many people against it even now. There are numerous intersecting issues here on all sides, independence just one of many. It's by no means a unanimous issue within the SNP, and I'd wager that the current relatively high level of support for independence is driven by an impression of ongoing fecklessness at a UK level mixed with (wilful?) ignorance of, or illiteracy about, many issues that affect people outside the (demographically rather than geographically) affluent south of England.

It doesn't help that the collegiate approach that is sometimes professed at a UK regional level doesn't seem to be done in any sort of coherent manner, and that the people of England are generally being left behind with their own lack of a legislative chamber or regional devolution.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that, regardless of where one stands on devolution generally, dealing with an international pandemic shouldn't be a devolved issue.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:12 am I'm going to stick my neck out and say that, regardless of where one stands on devolution generally, dealing with an international pandemic shouldn't be a devolved issue.

I would agree, but only so far as I think it should be dealt with on a land-mass basis. Wales, Scotland and England together, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland together.

Lots of people live in Scotland/Walee yet work in England and vice versa.

Lots of people live in NI and work in the ROI and vice versa.

I imagine the numbers are low for people commuting daily/weekly across the Irish Sea.

Has a post been removed?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:06 am Has a post been removed?

What did it say?

It's probably me having a senior moment.
Especially as I thought it was from you

Vallance really ought to resign. The government have always said they’re being led by the science but Vallance’s failures are quite extensive... https://t.co/y8W813Sfof

Noel Mc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:43 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:12 am I'm going to stick my neck out and say that, regardless of where one stands on devolution generally, dealing with an international pandemic shouldn't be a devolved issue.

I would agree, but only so far as I think it should be dealt with on a land-mass basis. Wales, Scotland and England together, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland together.

Lots of people live in Scotland/Walee yet work in England and vice versa.

Lots of people live in NI and work in the ROI and vice versa.

I imagine the numbers are low for people commuting daily/weekly across the Irish Sea.

Coming back to this, it might be difficult to implement, especially as this logic would also extend to other landmasses, or at least where there is relatively free movement, such as in the Schengen Area. And who would govern it?

On a separate note, a lot of people have been talking about whether restrictions will be able to be lifted for Christmas, or whether people will not be able to see their families. I don't imagine this being a problem myself, although it is wise for the respective governments not be be making any promises at this stage. It seems that at the moment we're basically in a cycle of higher and lower restrictions. So unless things are absolutely the worst they've been at Christmas, they will probably arrange the cycle to lift the restrictions for a couple of weeks or so (covering Christmas and New Year) and then lock down again if they feel the need to. It's basically a statistical thing and they'll balance the statistical books by having harsh restrictions either side of Christmas.

Apparently they will announce Lockdown 2 Electric Boogaloo today.

Nah I’m done. Unnecessary.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:08 pm Apparently they will announce Lockdown 2 Electric Boogaloo today.

Nah I’m done. Unnecessary.

Controversial. But this must be at least in part to make sure that Christmas can happen properly. There would be a lot of criticism if the timings of their lockdown yo-yo meant Christmas was spent in lockdown, or with the NHS being overwhelmed.

With cases plateauing it’s just totally unnecessary and nukes the economy for no reason. Especially on the day the R estimate was lowered.

Also, the WHO’s U-turn on lockdowns has gone unreported by the “we want a lockdown because it will improve our viewing figures” media.

I'm expectingpelters for this but here goes.
Why don't the government offer free WiFi for all.
Lockdown all vulnerable people and those over sixty. (BTW I'm classed as vulnerable).
Encourage the young and healthy to help those that are vulnerable if only to show them how to shop online or shop for them.
There will be a vaccine eventually and the vulnerable will get theirs first along with the health care sector.
There are enough nightingale hospitals to cope with increased cases
We need to use common sense.
The government hasn't got any.
Eat out to help out being one of a series of disasters.
That's my ten cents

Bumbling Boris Johnson's dog has eaten his speech it seems. What a shambles.

I've met Boris & Carrie's dog and I have a phobia of dogs. He wouldn't hurt a fly.

Some suggestion that lockdown may not happen because it needs to get through parliament. Apparently, Tory backbenchers have descended on No 10 tonight to get a U-turn. Which would explain the delay. Nick Robinson - and I am not making this up - says No 10 are aware of wanting to get it done before they crash all the Saturday evening TV schedules.

Still at least the football is safe.
But you can't buy your Christmas tree unless online

I'm surprised that they've picked the seemingly arbitrary day of this Thursday for the latest lockdown. Had they not noticed that it's Guy Fawkes night? If they were going to be like that about it, they should have done it on Hallowe'en to stop the idiots trick or treating.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 6:40 pm I've met Boris & Carrie's dog and I have a phobia of dogs. He wouldn't hurt a fly.

Stop dodging the question - would he eat a speech?

It's not all going brilliantly in Sweden.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:08 pm Apparently they will announce Lockdown 2 Electric Boogaloo today.

Nah I’m done. Unnecessary.

My understanding is that Boris Johnson has the same general viewpoint as you, but that's why he's done such a bad job of this. He didn't want to go into lockdown the first time and held off as long as possible, and when he did, it was later than it should have been. And the same has happened here. If you want to argue that there shouldn't be any sort of lockdown at all, then fine as long (as you can avoid the NHS getting overwhelmed), but by consistently entering these lockdowns too late, Johnson is getting the worst of both worlds.

Yes, but I don’t believe that point has been reached. Lockdown 2 Electric Boogaloo was not inevitable.

Not that I want to peddle optimism unduly, but a leaked NHS document shown to Sky News suggests all adults (who want one) will be vaccinated by the end of April. One presumes that some restrictions will still be in place, presumably until COVID is wiped out globally (overseas travel restrictions?) but we could well be back up to something approaching normal by COLIN time.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:49 am Not that I want to peddle optimism unduly, but a leaked NHS document shown to Sky News suggests all adults (who want one) will be vaccinated by the end of April. One presumes that some restrictions will still be in place, presumably until COVID is wiped out globally (overseas travel restrictions?) but we could well be back up to something approaching normal by COLIN time.

That'll be internal planning making some quite large assumptions. Give it a year maybe, anything faster than that we can then be pleased about.

That's as likely as the half a million tests a day that's been peddled

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:05 pm That's as likely as the half a million tests a day that's been peddled

Almost literally - it would require about half a million vaccines to be administered a day, starting now.

If we can develop a testing system from nothing it stands to reason we can roll the vaccine out at double speed.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:20 pm If we can develop a testing system from nothing it stands to reason we can roll the vaccine out at double speed.

That is slightly less logical than saying if we can develop a testing system from nothing it stands to reason we can have a world-beating track and trace system.

Thought this tweet might find an appreciative audience round these parts

https://twitter.com/IvoGraham/status/13 ... 9076995073

Nice.

Love it.

Very disappointed that the tier system is judged by counties rather than by district.
I live and work in Kent and and apart from Sheppy and Dartford most other areas are pretty good
Also how the fuck did London get off so lightly?

Tiers 2 and 3 are basically lockdown. Almost all of England will remain in effective lockdown. Once you reach not being able to meet people inside, anything else on top of that is relatively minor.

What do you mean you've never been in a bar sat at a table for one?

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:54 pm What do you mean you've never been in a bar sat at a table for one?

Not intentionally

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 3:39 pm Thought this tweet might find an appreciative audience round these parts

https://twitter.com/IvoGraham/status/13 ... 9076995073

I've only just got the grammatical joke here

So having harassed Dominic Cummings for not technically breaking the rules, Beth Rigby and Kay Burley break Covid rules. You couldn't really make it up.

Margaret Ferrier is still an MP, by the way.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:19 pm So having harassed Dominic Cummings for not technically breaking the rules, Beth Rigby and Kay Burley break Covid rules. You couldn't really make it up.

Margaret Ferrier is still an MP, by the way.

Think they've both been suspended

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:19 pm So having harassed Dominic Cummings for not technically breaking the rules, Beth Rigby and Kay Burley break Covid rules. You couldn't really make it up.

Just remembered I wanted to reply to this post.

Dominic Cummings did break the rules. Even if you argue that his trip from London to Durham was allowed using some exemption for arranging childcare, how would his day trip from there to Barnard Castle have been permitted under the rules at the time?

What do people think of the Christmas bubble idea? A lot of people are against it because of the inevitable rise in infections and therefore deaths. But I'm not sure if this really is reason enough to stop it. I don't think it's much different from tier 1 conditions (where you can meet six people indoors anyway), and we had that in most of the country for quite a long time before we went into lockdown again. But the point is that was multiple weeks (or months - I can't remember exactly how long it was). I don't think we're going to get a massive spike that will overwhelm the NHS from five days of it. And ultimately that's what this is about. We tolerate 7000 to 20000 people dying of flu each year without going into lockdown over it because it's small enough that the NHS can cope with it. It might sound monstrous, but that's how it's always been before COVID came along. And I think once you get to the point where the NHS can cope, it should largely be up to people to act responsibly themselves. And that's how I see this Christmas bubble thing. If any of your relatives you were planning on meeting up with are at risk, then take precautions or don't meet up until they've been vaccinated. But I don't think it needs to be banned.

I don't think it matters what the rules are over Christmas. No one's going to follow them. So the government have got to try doing something that people will follow that therefore isn't exceedingly draconian.

Something I find strange is that mask-wearing took so long to become a thing and that originally it was all about hand-washing. Because it's now thought that the risk catching COVID 19 from contaminated surfaces is low, and that you're far more likely to get it through the air. Obviously there are a couple of things - hand-washing is easy, whereas not everyone has a mask lying around that they can wear, and it makes sense to keep your hands clean if you think it can reduce your risk. However, early on it seemed that people were reluctant to advise mask-wearing because of a lack of evidence that it worked. This seems strange because obviously evidence will be lacking when you have a new virus, and it's far more likely to help than hinder, so you'd think that erring on the side of caution (that means wearing a mask in public - indoors at least) until more evidence comes out would be the default stance.

Well, this comes back to what I said about how poor Vallance et al have been, but have been somewhat unaccountable. Remember, they told us masks may hinder things rather than improve them, at first...!