In the meantime it is worth noting Opinium’s comment that amongst various possible reasons for the poll one
is that the two parties are still statistically tied and the constant swapping of the lead is mostly down to standard sampling variation [more] than anything concrete.
Should still be 20 points ahead against a governing party that's overseen 120,000 people needlessly dying, the corruption, the shambles in education, the Brexit agreement, border control, and pretty much everything.
Alas, I fear that we are likely to be saddled with Bozzie And The Chumocrats until the next General Election (if such things haven't been abolished by then).
I shan't see it. I'll probably be in a mass grave somewhere, covered with quicklime...
Those figures are national, and given the state of the UK at the moment, it's even harder than usual to predict an outcome from them. The figures are very close, it's going to be on a seat-by-seat basis. Maybe even some tactical voting by LibDems and Greens to vote Labour in particular seats where those votes would make such a difference. (Or of course bring in preferential voting.)
All things considered I would expect Labour to be doing a lot better in mid term
I believe the right wing press is successfully promoting the ideas that a few mistakes are to be expected from an unprecedented disease, that not locking down at all is sane so Johnson is somewhere in the middle, and that nobody elected Johnson for his competence anyway.
Also if Labour doesn't criticise Johnson Johnson's doing an ok job, and if they do criticise Johnson they're not pulling together.
Johnson could be eating babies live at the press conference, and Starmer would just tut. I'm afraid that at this stage, Labour are pretty much complicit.
But then people wouldn't be able to make a pigs' ear of running TalkTalk and then go on to trouser a fortune lousing up Test and Trace. Come on, what's the point of these things if some spiv, I mean experienced and talented government appointee, can't make a few quid out of it?
Johnson could be eating babies live at the press conference, and Starmer would just tut. I'm afraid that at this stage, Labour are pretty much complicit.
I think your observation that 'anyone but Corbyn would have won' is bollocks is spot on. It's a lot more complex than that. However your depiction of Starmer here is way off. He eviserates Johnson every week at PMQs. Even our new Speaker (who looks so soft compared to his predecessor) has rebuked the Prime Minister for not answering questions. The problem is that PMQs does not connect with the majority of the public.
There is a media battle to win (as always) but Starmer is a very accurate and effective critic of Johnson.
I think your observation that 'anyone but Corbyn would have won' is bollocks is spot on. It's a lot more complex than that. However your depiction of Starmer here is way off. He eviserates Johnson every week at PMQs. Even our new Speaker (who looks so soft compared to his predecessor) has rebuked the Prime Minister for not answering questions. The problem is that PMQs does not connect with the majority of the public.
I think this points to the poverty of building a strategy around being 'forensic', and in all other ways showing that you are ready to be capitals B team.
I dunno. I think that Labour could run quite a successful campaign with the slogan "Make politics boring again". I'd certainly vote for them (although I probably would anyway under FPTP).
Johnson could be eating babies live at the press conference, and Starmer would just tut. I'm afraid that at this stage, Labour are pretty much complicit.
I think your observation that 'anyone but Corbyn would have won' is bollocks is spot on. It's a lot more complex than that. However your depiction of Starmer here is way off. He eviserates Johnson every week at PMQs. Even our new Speaker (who looks so soft compared to his predecessor) has rebuked the Prime Minister for not answering questions. The problem is that PMQs does not connect with the majority of the public.
There is a media battle to win (as always) but Starmer is a very accurate and effective critic of Johnson.
AFZ
While I agree with your point, it's unfortunately a very limited one.
Labour should be talking to people - something I appreciate is made more difficult in Covid times - to show there's a different way. But no one knows what Labour stands for now. There's nothing to support or reject.
We all know that Johnson is a charlatan - even the die-hard Tories do - but Labour have to turn up at some point. They are currently AWOL in the country's hour of need.
Johnson could be eating babies live at the press conference, and Starmer would just tut. I'm afraid that at this stage, Labour are pretty much complicit.
I think your observation that 'anyone but Corbyn would have won' is bollocks is spot on. It's a lot more complex than that. However your depiction of Starmer here is way off. He eviserates Johnson every week at PMQs. Even our new Speaker (who looks so soft compared to his predecessor) has rebuked the Prime Minister for not answering questions. The problem is that PMQs does not connect with the majority of the public.
There is a media battle to win (as always) but Starmer is a very accurate and effective critic of Johnson.
AFZ
While I agree with your point, it's unfortunately a very limited one.
Labour should be talking to people - something I appreciate is made more difficult in Covid times - to show there's a different way. But no one knows what Labour stands for now. There's nothing to support or reject.
I think the tone was set early on in the selection of the ministers to be part of the Shadow C-19 Committee - the then omission of Education was problematic on multiple levels.
And on schools alone their policies have been pretty terrible -- constant, but unspecific, demands that schools open, without pushing for the sorts of policies that would make schools safer (in this they seem to be running scared of being seen to agree with the teaching unions). They were briefing that schools should open the day before the latest Government u-turn.
Also, if you feed this kind of thing to 'Red Wall' voters for the next few years, don't be surprised if they decide that immigration is their number one issue, and then vote for the party that looks and sounds toughest.
Test and trace is OK. Problem is that you can't force people to isolate
1. Test and trace as implemented in England is a failure. The number of potential contacts that they manage to trace is far below the requirements, and it's cost a fortune. It may be "OK", but what's needed is a lot more than just OK. The government decision to sideline the expertise within public health departments was absurd, and looks very much like a decision to push a lot of money towards chums in private service rather than spend a good deal less supplementing local authority services.
2. For the last ten months many people have been saying that the lack of support for people who need to isolate has resulted in many of them being unable to do so. It was only a few weeks ago that the government finally announced plans to provide a pittance to those needing to self-isolate - whereas what's needed would be covering a significant portion of lost salary (something akin to the 80% of furlough), plus legislation that would prevent them from being fired for not going into work.
Test and trace is OK. Problem is that you can't force people to isolate
1. Test and trace as implemented in England is a failure. The number of potential contacts that they manage to trace is far below the requirements, and it's cost a fortune. It may be "OK", but what's needed is a lot more than just OK. The government decision to sideline the expertise within public health departments was absurd, and looks very much like a decision to push a lot of money towards chums in private service rather than spend a good deal less supplementing local authority services.
2. For the last ten months many people have been saying that the lack of support for people who need to isolate has resulted in many of them being unable to do so. It was only a few weeks ago that the government finally announced plans to provide a pittance to those needing to self-isolate - whereas what's needed would be covering a significant portion of lost salary (something akin to the 80% of furlough), plus legislation that would prevent them from being fired for not going into work.
All good points. Has it gone better in the other UK countries ?
While test and trace is better now in the UK than it has been, it’s important to recognise that it needs to be test, trace and isolate. There’s still quite a way to go.
It isn’t good enough now, and while one in five people required to isolate and unable to work from home receive no sick pay or wages the system will remain inadequate.
Quite apart from the inexplicable bypassing of the pre-existing system for testing and tracing of infectious diseases, there’s a blindness about how impossible self-isolation is for some people if it means the loss of a fortnight’s pay.
Universal Credit’s no help because it takes five weeks to arrive, and many low-paid workers are likely not to have the facilities at home to be able to go through the online application process.
There’s been a real lack of joined up thinking here which still hasn’t been resolved ten months after the first lockdown began.
Test and trace was not OK in the summer. I haven't seen any reports that it has improved significantly. Could you link to one please?
Problem is that you can't force people to isolate.
The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.
Employers can demand that employees come in to work, without repercussions.
Employers can forgo safe working environments without repercussions. Guardian report: 2945 complaints about workplaces imposing unsafe working practices between 6 and 14 January: no enforcement notices issued. 97000 complaints since the start of the pandemic: one in a thousand have resulted in some kind of improvement. No company has been prosecuted.
The DVLA is just the most prominent example.
Further, people who are self-employed and can't work from home can't both isolate and also earn money to live on or "take responsibility for feeding their families". The amount of money the government has made available to support such people is pitiful in relation to the need.
Test and trace was not OK in the summer. I haven't seen any reports that it has improved significantly. Could you link to one please?
Problem is that you can't force people to isolate.
The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.
Employers can demand that employees come in to work, without repercussions.
Employers can forgo safe working environments without repercussions. Guardian report: 2945 complaints about workplaces imposing unsafe working practices between 6 and 14 January: no enforcement notices issued. 97000 complaints since the start of the pandemic: one in a thousand have resulted in some kind of improvement. No company has been prosecuted.
The DVLA is just the most prominent example.
Further, people who are self-employed and can't work from home can't both isolate and also earn money to live on or "take responsibility for feeding their families". The amount of money the government has made available to support such people is pitiful in relation to the need.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
Test and trace was not OK in the summer. I haven't seen any reports that it has improved significantly. Could you link to one please?
Problem is that you can't force people to isolate.
The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.
Employers can demand that employees come in to work, without repercussions.
Employers can forgo safe working environments without repercussions. Guardian report: 2945 complaints about workplaces imposing unsafe working practices between 6 and 14 January: no enforcement notices issued. 97000 complaints since the start of the pandemic: one in a thousand have resulted in some kind of improvement. No company has been prosecuted.
The DVLA is just the most prominent example.
Further, people who are self-employed and can't work from home can't both isolate and also earn money to live on or "take responsibility for feeding their families". The amount of money the government has made available to support such people is pitiful in relation to the need.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
Even if your numbers were correct, and that's generous as I suspect a doctor with a very small camera would be required to show us where you got them from, that would not actually contradict the statement "The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.", nor all the examples thereof which followed.
If it's young children required to isolate the problem becomes even more involved: a parent has to then stay home with them, but is not covered by the isolation rules themselves, so potentially unpaid and unable to claim, and there is no point claiming UC for a week that wouldn't be paid anyway.
The Dragonlets' school, being a primary school, works on the basis of a positive case in the class bubble equals isolation. They have had a bubble "burst" six times this school year, including two go in the last few days (key worker children's classes haven't been merged). Dragonlet 1's has gone three times! I believe that most of the cases were teaching staff, but some parents last term could potentially have had children stuck at home for a good three weeks due to overlaps. I am very glad I am on maternity leave or things could be very complicated with work. (You're not supposed to use any outside childcare to cover it but I suspect some people will inevitably have to farm out to families.)
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isolate. Many would be ....
@Telford "I once heard ... " doesn't mean anything at all. Either give your source, preferably with a link, or why should anyone take your comment seriously?
This, but don't expect the Telfords of this sad world to understand...doubtless they'll be along soon to explain to you how you're doing it all wrong, and how Bozzie the Bumblewimp knows that he's doing it all right...
This, but don't expect the Telfords of this sad world to understand...doubtless they'll be along soon to explain to you how you're doing it all wrong, and how Bozzie the Bumblewimp knows that he's doing it all right...
I have some nice charts which clearly show otherwise. Will post soon.
The high figures for non-compliance presumably include people who are asymptomatic and risked a masked, sanitised, distanced trip to the supermarket to get food in as well as those who ignored their hacking cough, fever and inability to smell their own shit to carry on as normal their work escorting elderly transplant recipients on the tube during rush hour. The two extremes have very different risk profiles.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isolate. Many would be ....
@Telford "I once heard ... " doesn't mean anything at all. Either give your source, preferably with a link, or why should anyone take your comment seriously?
Source...ITV news and politics shows . BBC news and politics shows I do not keep a written record. . If you choose not to believe me, there's nothing I can do about it.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
You are going to have to give a source to justify your assumptions about the numbers of people who are paid to work from home or furloughed, since they do not fit with either the article I linked to or with similar articles.
When you say 10% are isolating do you mean 10% of people who've been told a contact tests positive, or 10% of people in the country?
If you're talking about people who've been in contact with someone who tests positive you're skewing your sample towards people who have more contacts than average anyway. People who are retired or furloughed or paid to work from home or so on are already less likely to be doing things that bring them into contact with other people. If most of the transmission is through workplaces as suggested in the article that I linked to and others, then most of the people who're told they test positive will be people who have to go to workplaces.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isolate. Many would be ....
@Telford "I once heard ... " doesn't mean anything at all. Either give your source, preferably with a link, or why should anyone take your comment seriously?
Source...ITV news and politics shows . BBC news and politics shows I do not keep a written record. . If you choose not to believe me, there's nothing I can do about it.
That is simply untrue. No one is choosing not to believe you. You are choosing not to support your arguments.
Again.
I know you struggle with links but even being precise about the source would be helpful.
Mostly because then it's possible to look at said report and weigh up how good the evidence is to support it.
For example, I could easily assert that compliance is really good, I read it somewhere.
As it happens, I read it in the Guardian. Now, I know some doubt that particular paper's reliability. Whether I do or not doesn’t change the fact that with all media reports of science, I want to read the actual publication. In this case it's from University College London.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
You are going to have to give a source to justify your assumptions about the numbers of people who are paid to work from home or furloughed, since they do not fit with either the article I linked to or with similar articles.
When you say 10% are isolating do you mean 10% of people who've been told a contact tests positive, or 10% of people in the country?
If you're talking about people who've been in contact with someone who tests positive you're skewing your sample towards people who have more contacts than average anyway. People who are retired or furloughed or paid to work from home or so on are already less likely to be doing things that bring them into contact with other people. If most of the transmission is through workplaces as suggested in the article that I linked to and others, then most of the people who're told they test positive will be people who have to go to workplaces.
The information I heard is that as few as 10% of those told to isolate actually isolated. If my figure is wrong, give me the true figure.
The information I heard is that as few as 10% of those told to isolate actually isolated. If my figure is wrong, give me the true figure.
That's what I thought. The Guardian back in September gave the figure as roughly 20%. That is still far too low. However, while some people didn't realise that they shouldn't e.g. go shopping, most people who didn't self-isolate said they would self-isolate properly if only they could afford to.
Over a third of respondents (38%) say they are not isolating for the recommended number of days (ten or more) when they develop symptoms of Covid-19, with 13% saying they are not isolating at all. Younger adults and those from higher income households are much less likely to not isolate at all (3% of those aged 18-29 and 9% of those in higher income households are not isolating at all).
Which is almost the opposite of your statement. Based on the UCL study, 49% of people who develop Covid symptoms isolate properly, 38% isolate partially, and 13% don't isolate at all. You will note that younger adults and wealthier people are more likely to isolate - these are the groups who are more likely to be able to work from home, less likely to have caring responsibilities for children or elderly relatives, and so on.
It's worth pointing out that whilst imperfect compliance with lockdown and quarantine rules is worse than correct compliance, it's still better than no compliance. @Arethosemyfeet compared the person who was told to isolate popping out for a masked, distanced trip to get groceries vs a person who continues to work coming into close contact with large numbers of people. We agree that the first person should have someone else do their shopping - I'd argue that the government should provide access to a grocery shopper when it tells you to stay home - but the first person is less bad than the second.
The information I heard is that as few as 10% of those told to isolate actually isolated. If my figure is wrong, give me the true figure.
That's what I thought. The Guardian back in September gave the figure as roughly 20%. That is still far too low. However, while some people didn't realise that they shouldn't e.g. go shopping, most people who didn't self-isolate said they would self-isolate properly if only they could afford to.
I am not going to argue with 20% I suspect that the figure varies. Even 20% compliance means 80% non compliance and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
The information I heard is that as few as 10% of those told to isolate actually isolated. If my figure is wrong, give me the true figure.
That's what I thought. The Guardian back in September gave the figure as roughly 20%. That is still far too low. However, while some people didn't realise that they shouldn't e.g. go shopping, most people who didn't self-isolate said they would self-isolate properly if only they could afford to.
I am not going to argue with 20% I suspect that the figure varies.
And you know 20% is the right figure because?
and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
It would be interesting to split the under 30s up by earnings/education level/job to see the respective rates for students/graduate roles/other jobs, which probably includes a higher percentage of hospitality and retail or places like call centres than other age groups.
Test and trace was not OK in the summer. I haven't seen any reports that it has improved significantly. Could you link to one please?
Problem is that you can't force people to isolate.
The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.
Employers can demand that employees come in to work, without repercussions.
Employers can forgo safe working environments without repercussions. Guardian report: 2945 complaints about workplaces imposing unsafe working practices between 6 and 14 January: no enforcement notices issued. 97000 complaints since the start of the pandemic: one in a thousand have resulted in some kind of improvement. No company has been prosecuted.
The DVLA is just the most prominent example.
Further, people who are self-employed and can't work from home can't both isolate and also earn money to live on or "take responsibility for feeding their families". The amount of money the government has made available to support such people is pitiful in relation to the need.
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
Even if your numbers were correct, and that's generous as I suspect a doctor with a very small camera would be required to show us where you got them from, that would not actually contradict the statement "The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.", nor all the examples thereof which followed.
I have access to, and am trained in the use of such instruments. However, as to the rest of your post, I could not comment.
Even 20% compliance means 80% non compliance and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
Not all could be 1% or it could be 99%. Unless you have some figures you're guessing.
The best figures I can find suggest that back in autumn when there was no lockdown the three biggest sources of transmission between households were: schools and universities; care homes; and workplaces. Everything else combined came in at less than workplaces. Alienfromzog's figures show students are more compliant than most of the population though it's hard to be fully compliant in a hall of residence. Care home residents don't go out much.
That suggests that now schools are closed more than half the transmission is through workplaces.
The information I heard is that as few as 10% of those told to isolate actually isolated. If my figure is wrong, give me the true figure.
That's what I thought. The Guardian back in September gave the figure as roughly 20%. That is still far too low. However, while some people didn't realise that they shouldn't e.g. go shopping, most people who didn't self-isolate said they would self-isolate properly if only they could afford to.
I am not going to argue with 20% I suspect that the figure varies.
And you know 20% is the right figure because?
and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
And you know that because?
That's a daft question. Not everyone goes out to work these days
Even 20% compliance means 80% non compliance and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
Not all could be 1% or it could be 99%. Unless you have some figures you're guessing.
Not guessing. Merely basing it on the figures you quoted
The best figures I can find suggest that back in autumn when there was no lockdown the three biggest sources of transmission between households were: schools and universities; care homes; and workplaces. Everything else combined came in at less than workplaces. Alienfromzog's figures show students are more compliant than most of the population though it's hard to be fully compliant in a hall of residence. Care home residents don't go out much. That suggests that now schools are closed more than half the transmission is through workplaces.
I don't want suggestions. I want facts and figures, sources etc. Students at Nottingham University were very compliant when they had an illegal rave
That's a daft question. Not everyone goes out to work these days
But the question was specifically around people who said they weren't able to afford to self isolate, in the context of the 10% figure which you seemingly pulled out of your fundament.
Given the nature of work done by people on zero hour contracts and the fact that workplaces are -- after schools -- one of the largest sources of infection, people who are aren't able to afford to self isolate are likely to make up a disproportionate amount of those infected or told to self isolate.
Has Telford's stat got the 90/10% backwards, thats then kind of rounds the same as Aoz, and is shocking but realistic.
What I said was that 90% did not comply. 10% did. I have accepted that it might be 80%/20% because the rate varies. The majority of the 90%/80% are not obliged to go to work for the reasons I haved already stated.
Has Telford's stat got the 90/10% backwards, thats then kind of rounds the same as Aoz, and is shocking but realistic.
As I said the Guardian reported a similar level of non-isolation. The Guardian, however, contextualised it by pointing out that a lot of people who aren't isolating cannot afford to. The level of support the Government is allocating to help people afford to stay at home is pitiful.
Has Telford's stat got the 90/10% backwards, thats then kind of rounds the same as Aoz, and is shocking but realistic.
As I said the Guardian reported a similar level of non-isolation. The Guardian, however, contextualised it by pointing out that a lot of people who aren't isolating cannot afford to. The level of support the Government is allocating to help people afford to stay at home is pitiful.
I have already said that a lot of people can't afford to isolate for a couple of weeks. My point is that a lot of people who don't comply would be able to
Of those in school Year 12 to 24 years old, the highest percentage testing positive was among those who are employed.
(The figure was highest for students back in October: most students who caught Covid within a shared student residence: Report)
Now: how about you provide the facts and figures, sources etc, on which you base your assertion that "the majority of the 90%/80% are not obliged to go to work for the reasons I haved already stated". You have not in fact stated any reasons: you have merely stated unfounded speculations. If you can produce
Students at Nottingham University were very compliant when they had an illegal rave.
You are talking about a rave that was over seven months ago, when we'd just come out of the first lockdown and the Government thought numbers were low enough to run Eat Out to Help Out. There were reports of three or four more raves at that time. It seems the authorities cracked down on them and there've been no reports of any happening that I can find since. There aren't a lot of outdoor raves in the winter as I understand it.
Since you now want facts, figures, sources, etc: how many cases of Covid were transmitted at those raves? For comparison: five hundred cases have been reported at the DVLA alone.
Police action to shut down the raves was immediate. Little to nothing has been done to make workplaces safe.
Comments
Whither Starmer?
All things considered I would expect Labour to be doing a lot better in mid term
Also if Labour doesn't criticise Johnson Johnson's doing an ok job, and if they do criticise Johnson they're not pulling together.
Nationalising test and trace would, however.
But then people wouldn't be able to make a pigs' ear of running TalkTalk and then go on to trouser a fortune lousing up Test and Trace. Come on, what's the point of these things if some spiv, I mean experienced and talented government appointee, can't make a few quid out of it?
Oh yes.
I think your observation that 'anyone but Corbyn would have won' is bollocks is spot on. It's a lot more complex than that. However your depiction of Starmer here is way off. He eviserates Johnson every week at PMQs. Even our new Speaker (who looks so soft compared to his predecessor) has rebuked the Prime Minister for not answering questions. The problem is that PMQs does not connect with the majority of the public.
There is a media battle to win (as always) but Starmer is a very accurate and effective critic of Johnson.
AFZ
I think this points to the poverty of building a strategy around being 'forensic', and in all other ways showing that you are ready to be capitals B team.
While I agree with your point, it's unfortunately a very limited one.
Labour should be talking to people - something I appreciate is made more difficult in Covid times - to show there's a different way. But no one knows what Labour stands for now. There's nothing to support or reject.
We all know that Johnson is a charlatan - even the die-hard Tories do - but Labour have to turn up at some point. They are currently AWOL in the country's hour of need.
I think the tone was set early on in the selection of the ministers to be part of the Shadow C-19 Committee - the then omission of Education was problematic on multiple levels.
And on schools alone their policies have been pretty terrible -- constant, but unspecific, demands that schools open, without pushing for the sorts of policies that would make schools safer (in this they seem to be running scared of being seen to agree with the teaching unions). They were briefing that schools should open the day before the latest Government u-turn.
Also, if you feed this kind of thing to 'Red Wall' voters for the next few years, don't be surprised if they decide that immigration is their number one issue, and then vote for the party that looks and sounds toughest.
Test and trace is OK. Problem is that you can't force people to isolate
2. For the last ten months many people have been saying that the lack of support for people who need to isolate has resulted in many of them being unable to do so. It was only a few weeks ago that the government finally announced plans to provide a pittance to those needing to self-isolate - whereas what's needed would be covering a significant portion of lost salary (something akin to the 80% of furlough), plus legislation that would prevent them from being fired for not going into work.
It isn’t good enough now, and while one in five people required to isolate and unable to work from home receive no sick pay or wages the system will remain inadequate.
Quite apart from the inexplicable bypassing of the pre-existing system for testing and tracing of infectious diseases, there’s a blindness about how impossible self-isolation is for some people if it means the loss of a fortnight’s pay.
Universal Credit’s no help because it takes five weeks to arrive, and many low-paid workers are likely not to have the facilities at home to be able to go through the online application process.
There’s been a real lack of joined up thinking here which still hasn’t been resolved ten months after the first lockdown began.
[Cross-posted with Alsn Cresswell]
The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.
Employers can demand that employees come in to work, without repercussions.
Employers can forgo safe working environments without repercussions.
Guardian report: 2945 complaints about workplaces imposing unsafe working practices between 6 and 14 January: no enforcement notices issued. 97000 complaints since the start of the pandemic: one in a thousand have resulted in some kind of improvement. No company has been prosecuted.
The DVLA is just the most prominent example.
Further, people who are self-employed and can't work from home can't both isolate and also earn money to live on or "take responsibility for feeding their families". The amount of money the government has made available to support such people is pitiful in relation to the need.
Bozzie the Bumblewimp and his Chumocrats have a lot to answer for - or will have, if we all live long enough to bring them to book...
I once heard that only about 10% were isolating. I do not believe that the other 90% would lose pay if they did isoltate. Many would be
Retired
Furloughed
Unemployed and on benefits
Already being paid to work from home
Getting full pay even though not at work
Even if your numbers were correct, and that's generous as I suspect a doctor with a very small camera would be required to show us where you got them from, that would not actually contradict the statement "The problem is that you can force people not to isolate.", nor all the examples thereof which followed.
The Dragonlets' school, being a primary school, works on the basis of a positive case in the class bubble equals isolation. They have had a bubble "burst" six times this school year, including two go in the last few days (key worker children's classes haven't been merged). Dragonlet 1's has gone three times! I believe that most of the cases were teaching staff, but some parents last term could potentially have had children stuck at home for a good three weeks due to overlaps. I am very glad I am on maternity leave or things could be very complicated with work. (You're not supposed to use any outside childcare to cover it but I suspect some people will inevitably have to farm out to families.)
I have some nice charts which clearly show otherwise. Will post soon.
When you say 10% are isolating do you mean 10% of people who've been told a contact tests positive, or 10% of people in the country?
If you're talking about people who've been in contact with someone who tests positive you're skewing your sample towards people who have more contacts than average anyway. People who are retired or furloughed or paid to work from home or so on are already less likely to be doing things that bring them into contact with other people. If most of the transmission is through workplaces as suggested in the article that I linked to and others, then most of the people who're told they test positive will be people who have to go to workplaces.
That is simply untrue. No one is choosing not to believe you. You are choosing not to support your arguments.
Again.
I know you struggle with links but even being precise about the source would be helpful.
Mostly because then it's possible to look at said report and weigh up how good the evidence is to support it.
For example, I could easily assert that compliance is really good, I read it somewhere.
As it happens, I read it in the Guardian. Now, I know some doubt that particular paper's reliability. Whether I do or not doesn’t change the fact that with all media reports of science, I want to read the actual publication. In this case it's from University College London.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jan/lockdown-compliance-improving-low-take-covid-tests-worrying
They estimated 'majority' lockdown compliance to be 96%. If you want we can discuss the validity of their methology.
But "I heard it on a political show on some channel" does not actually take us any further forward.
So 0/2.
No one is choosing not to believe you.
There is something you can do about it.
AFZ
From the article that @alienfromzog linked:
Which is almost the opposite of your statement. Based on the UCL study, 49% of people who develop Covid symptoms isolate properly, 38% isolate partially, and 13% don't isolate at all. You will note that younger adults and wealthier people are more likely to isolate - these are the groups who are more likely to be able to work from home, less likely to have caring responsibilities for children or elderly relatives, and so on.
It's worth pointing out that whilst imperfect compliance with lockdown and quarantine rules is worse than correct compliance, it's still better than no compliance. @Arethosemyfeet compared the person who was told to isolate popping out for a masked, distanced trip to get groceries vs a person who continues to work coming into close contact with large numbers of people. We agree that the first person should have someone else do their shopping - I'd argue that the government should provide access to a grocery shopper when it tells you to stay home - but the first person is less bad than the second.
I am not going to argue with 20% I suspect that the figure varies. Even 20% compliance means 80% non compliance and not all these people will be obliged to go out to work.
And you know 20% is the right figure because?
And you know that because?
I have access to, and am trained in the use of such instruments. However, as to the rest of your post, I could not comment.
The best figures I can find suggest that back in autumn when there was no lockdown the three biggest sources of transmission between households were: schools and universities; care homes; and workplaces. Everything else combined came in at less than workplaces. Alienfromzog's figures show students are more compliant than most of the population though it's hard to be fully compliant in a hall of residence. Care home residents don't go out much.
That suggests that now schools are closed more than half the transmission is through workplaces.
That's a daft question. Not everyone goes out to work these days Not guessing. Merely basing it on the figures you quoted I don't want suggestions. I want facts and figures, sources etc. Students at Nottingham University were very compliant when they had an illegal rave
But the question was specifically around people who said they weren't able to afford to self isolate, in the context of the 10% figure which you seemingly pulled out of your fundament.
Given the nature of work done by people on zero hour contracts and the fact that workplaces are -- after schools -- one of the largest sources of infection, people who are aren't able to afford to self isolate are likely to make up a disproportionate amount of those infected or told to self isolate.
But the headlines are this:
1. Shutdowns work.
2. Mr Johnson's government has totally and utterly failed us.
http://alienfromzog.blogspot.com/2021/01/covid-data-january-2021.html
AFZ
Quite possibly....
What I said was that 90% did not comply. 10% did. I have accepted that it might be 80%/20% because the rate varies. The majority of the 90%/80% are not obliged to go to work for the reasons I haved already stated.
I have already said that a lot of people can't afford to isolate for a couple of weeks. My point is that a lot of people who don't comply would be able to
Office of National Statistics Report (The figure was highest for students back in October: most students who caught Covid within a shared student residence: Report)
Now: how about you provide the facts and figures, sources etc, on which you base your assertion that "the majority of the 90%/80% are not obliged to go to work for the reasons I haved already stated". You have not in fact stated any reasons: you have merely stated unfounded speculations. If you can produce
You are talking about a rave that was over seven months ago, when we'd just come out of the first lockdown and the Government thought numbers were low enough to run Eat Out to Help Out. There were reports of three or four more raves at that time. It seems the authorities cracked down on them and there've been no reports of any happening that I can find since. There aren't a lot of outdoor raves in the winter as I understand it.
Since you now want facts, figures, sources, etc: how many cases of Covid were transmitted at those raves? For comparison: five hundred cases have been reported at the DVLA alone.
Police action to shut down the raves was immediate. Little to nothing has been done to make workplaces safe.