I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
I answered the question.
I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.
Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:
Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.
There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.
But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.
AFZ
Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.
Oh dear.
As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.
AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
Telford: That doesn't answer my question
AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
Let me be clear about this. It not safe to have covid positive people in schools. To pretend that I implied this is disgusting
Then I didn't understand your point at all.
If you agree that the current measures in place in English schools are not sufficient to prevent the transmission of Covid-19, then why does it matter whether the Covid-positive teachers were infected at school, or in the pub? How does it change how you should respond to the situation?
Let me be clear about this. It not safe to have covid positive people in schools. To pretend that I implied this is disgusting
Then I didn't understand your point at all.
If you agree that the current measures in place in English schools are not sufficient to prevent the transmission of Covid-19, then why does it matter whether the Covid-positive teachers were infected at school, or in the pub? How does it change how you should respond to the situation?
It is important that Teachers follow the guidelines both on duty and off duty.
It is important that Teachers follow the guideline both on duty and off duty.
That doesn't answer my question in any way, but do you have any evidence that the infected teachers weren't following government advice in regard to, for example, pubs and restaurants?
I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.
So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.
Never the less I am polite and respectful
No. You're not.
An example would be appreciated.
Completely ignoring meaningful content or questions in people’s posts can be construed as disrespectful, as can passive agression.
You lot are very unforgiving
You manage to be very unforgivable. You claim you want to engage honestly, and then manifestly don't.
I poked a little gentle fun at a minor typo. Your feelings were so hurt by this that you couldn't bring yourself to read the rest of the post in case poor widdle Telford's feelings are hurt again. My hunch is that you did read the rest of the post, realised that you couldn't answer it in any convincing manner, or even evade the issue like you do most of the time, so decided to try and weasel* your way out of responding.
*With apologies to weasels, whose good name I shouldn't tarnish by association.
It is important that Teachers follow the guideline both on duty and off duty.
That doesn't answer my question in any way, but do you have any evidence that the infected teachers weren't following government advice in regard to, for example, pubs and restaurants?
Do you think that they got infected from someone outside or from another teacher ?
I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.
So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.
Never the less I am polite and respectful
No. You're not.
An example would be appreciated.
Completely ignoring meaningful content or questions in people’s posts can be construed as disrespectful, as can passive agression.
You lot are very unforgiving
You manage to be very unforgivable. You claim you want to engage honestly, and then manifestly don't.
I poked a little gentle fun at a minor typo. Your feelings were so hurt by this that you couldn't bring yourself to read the rest of the post in case poor widdle Telford's feelings are hurt again. My hunch is that you did read the rest of the post, realised that you couldn't answer it in any convincing manner, or even evade the issue like you do most of the time, so decided to try and weasel* your way out of responding.
I never said that my feeling were hurt. Do you really really think that I am hurt by all the things you lot say? When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
I also get the impression that other posters are encouraged to attack me to get some sort of brownie points.
I had a sneaking feeling that there was a name for @Telford's mode of operation (answering a question with another question).
From somewhere on the Magic Electric Interweb:
This method of answering questions with questions, in order to let the questioner realize that he can find the answer by reasoning (Socrates would say that the answer was in him all along), is called maieutics (the related adjective being maieutic ).
Bow, bow, to the mighty Socratic-inspired intellect!
When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
When was the last time that was mentioned? Well, other than when you mentioned it just now. I've not seen mention of it for a long time, not since we changed the name to a less shouty form.
When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
When was the last time that was mentioned? Well, other than when you mentioned it just now. I've not seen mention of it for a long time, not since we changed the name to a less shouty form.
I thought it was a storm in a tea cup but my daughter got it changed for me. Things have not gone well ever since. My daughter persuaded me to join the forum. She said it was very friendly. I realsied that peopl,e would disagree with me on a number of issues but I was shocked at the vitriol
"Well leave then" I can hear you and others shouting. I have hopes that things might improve for me eventually.
When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
When was the last time that was mentioned? Well, other than when you mentioned it just now. I've not seen mention of it for a long time, not since we changed the name to a less shouty form.
I thought it was a storm in a tea cup but my daughter got it changed for me. Things have not gone well ever since. My daughter persuaded me to join the forum. She said it was very friendly. I realsied that peopl,e would disagree with me on a number of issues but I was shocked at the vitriol
"Well leave then" I can hear you and others shouting. I have hopes that things might improve for me eventually.
Please, please, please understand that it is not that people disagree with you that is the problem. It always has been and remains your obnoxious behaviour. As soon as you stop that things will 'improve for you' very rapidly.
I listened a BBC interview with the sister of Tony Abbott (if I have it right). They discussed that he's entitled to his views and went on a quite a bit about that. What they didn't seem to get to is that he's entitled to his views and that those might mean he was unsuitable for a consulting or negotiating role. That there can be consequences to certain views.
I'm remembering some past discussions of, say couples' counsellors who have views against same-sex couples. They're entitled to their views as well, but they may be unsuitable for employment to counsel couples in positions requiring them to serve the general public.
This isn't that hard is it?
False equivalence. Ones ability to negotiate a trade deal is not directly affected by ones views on unrelated matters, whereas if one is counselling couples then ones views on whether those couples should even exist are very much relevant.
This isn’t about whether his beliefs affect his ability to do the job or not, it’s about punishing him for having those beliefs in the first place. You all could at least be honest about that.
Also, how a person is viewed in toto affects how others react, and hence, in something like making deals, this affects their ability to do the job. There is a personal as well as a technical element.
In any case, it's not a punishment not to be given a job.
When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
When was the last time that was mentioned? Well, other than when you mentioned it just now. I've not seen mention of it for a long time, not since we changed the name to a less shouty form.
I thought it was a storm in a tea cup but my daughter got it changed for me. Things have not gone well ever since. My daughter persuaded me to join the forum. She said it was very friendly. I realsied that peopl,e would disagree with me on a number of issues but I was shocked at the vitriol
"Well leave then" I can hear you and others shouting. I have hopes that things might improve for me eventually.
Please, please, please understand that it is not that people disagree with you that is the problem. It always has been and remains your obnoxious behaviour. As soon as you stop that things will 'improve for you' very rapidly.
I agree with orfeo, and am trying to make that point. Abbott is awful, and we are very glad not to have him around, but he is really, really incompetent. As in, he makes BJ look sane and capable.
Welcome to Hell, Telford, and congrats on being the new chew toy. Just for clarity, that wasn't me being friendly, as I am not in the habit of being friendly to trolls, especially trolls as demonstrably stupid as you are.
When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
When was the last time that was mentioned? Well, other than when you mentioned it just now. I've not seen mention of it for a long time, not since we changed the name to a less shouty form.
I thought it was a storm in a tea cup but my daughter got it changed for me. Things have not gone well ever since. My daughter persuaded me to join the forum. She said it was very friendly. I realsied that peopl,e would disagree with me on a number of issues but I was shocked at the vitriol
"Well leave then" I can hear you and others shouting. I have hopes that things might improve for me eventually.
Please, please, please understand that it is not that people disagree with you that is the problem. It always has been and remains your obnoxious behaviour. As soon as you stop that things will 'improve for you' very rapidly.
Your could stop frequenting Hell for a start. It is specifically designed to be unfriendly.
If I want to discuss Boris Johnson I have to.
Other Boards are available.
Is that your definition of Friendly
In Hell, if you annoy the Hell out of people (heh heh) they will let you know, with startling clarity.
Other boards are more forgiving. You were doing well on the Heaven joke thread, but if you, erm, lay eggs in Hell they tend to be picked up and thrown back.
Your could stop frequenting Hell for a start. It is specifically designed to be unfriendly.
If I want to discuss Boris Johnson I have to.<snip>
If you want a serious discussion about Boris Johnson (or anything/one else) then Hell is not the place for it. As it says at the entrance
Got a complaint, a rant or a personal argument to settle? Add it to the uproar – so long as you have an infernally thick skin to match.
Warning: visiting Hell is optional for everyone apart from the Hell Hosts. If you choose to read a thread in Hell, you may encounter language that you find offensive. You must read the Hell Guidelines before diving in.
If you want a serious discussion Purgatory is the place for it. As it says at the entrance
Pull up a chair, get your brain in gear, and prepare for some serious time in Purgatory. This is our proper debate space for theology, ethics, politics, science, tech and culture.
If your topic of choice isn’t already being discussed, then you can start a thread on it.
I agree with orfeo, and am trying to make that point. Abbott is awful, and we are very glad not to have him around, but he is really, really incompetent. As in, he makes BJ look sane and capable.
Welcome to Hell, Telford, and congrats on being the new chew toy. Just for clarity, that wasn't me being friendly, as I am not in the habit of being friendly to trolls, especially trolls as demonstrably stupid as you are.
I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
I answered the question.
I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.
Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:
Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.
There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.
But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.
AFZ
Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.
Oh dear.
As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.
AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
Telford: That doesn't answer my question
AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
Just to return to this; do you not see that this paper (among many, but for various reasons this one is really good) shows VERY GOOD evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between timing of lockdown and number of deaths? Hence my surprise that you said I hadn't answered your question.
It is debatable who is primarily responsible but surely someone in government is responsible for the huge misstep?
Is it the Secretary of State for Health? That's a more complex question.
I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
I answered the question.
I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.
Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:
Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.
There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.
But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.
AFZ
Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.
Oh dear.
As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.
AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
Telford: That doesn't answer my question
AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
Just to return to this; do you not see that this paper (among many, but for various reasons this one is really good) shows VERY GOOD evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between timing of lockdown and number of deaths? Hence my surprise that you said I hadn't answered your question.
It is debatable who is primarily responsible but surely someone in government is responsible for the huge misstep?
Is it the Secretary of State for Health? That's a more complex question.
AFZ
A total lockdown would not have been respected after so few deaths. However I have already stated elsewhere that we were too slow to officially shut pubs, clubs and sporting events
I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
I answered the question.
I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.
Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:
Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.
There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.
But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.
AFZ
Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.
Oh dear.
As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.
AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
Telford: That doesn't answer my question
AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
Just to return to this; do you not see that this paper (among many, but for various reasons this one is really good) shows VERY GOOD evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between timing of lockdown and number of deaths? Hence my surprise that you said I hadn't answered your question.
It is debatable who is primarily responsible but surely someone in government is responsible for the huge misstep?
Is it the Secretary of State for Health? That's a more complex question.
AFZ
A total lockdown would not have been respected after so few deaths. However I have already stated elsewhere that we were too slow to officially shut pubs, clubs and sporting events
Round about half-term, by which time many schools will be closed again?
(I won't put money on it - I might need £££ come Brexshit, assuming there's any bread to buy...)
Many schools/year groups/classes are already being sent home., less than a week after they went back.
Hancock is on the TV every day - looking more and more tearful on each occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were heading for his own personal health crisis. 🤔
I just want to spell this out for the avoidance of any doubt.
As I (now) understand you; your argument is that an earlier lockdown would have made little or no difference because compliance would have been so poor. Please forgive me and correct me if I've got that wrong. That's an interesting point, worthy of discussion. However, that's not what you said at all. Nor have you supported that assertion.
Let's take this one step at a time.
There is overwheming evidence that behaviour affects the rate of transmission of infectious diseases. This is especially true of Covid-19. As I mentioned, there is some proper maths behind this but I've been thinking it through again; put simply the exponential growth of the pandemic occurs unless and until something changes. Across the world, you can track the stopping of Covid with government interventions (Lockdowns) to force behavioural change on the national level.
I asserted (with a promise to follow up in detail - and because I couldn't be bothered to go back and find the links I have previously posted on the Covid thread) that the timing of lockdown is critical in preventing deaths.
You then asked me "What's the evidence that timing of Lockdown affects the number of deaths"
I provide such evidence.
You claim it does not answer your question.
I now understand why: your question was entirely different to what you said; Your question is would an earlier lockdown resulted in sufficient behavioural change to have the desired effect?
For what it's worth that's worthy of discussion but my short answer is that there was clear and powerful images from Italy, Spain and France; it would have been a very easy sell for the government to show the British people why an early lockdown would save lives and massively reduce the overall economic cost.
I don't think there would have been initial compliance issues, I think that compliance issues are more likely with a prolonged lock-down - i.e. when people get fed-up with the restrictions. I cannot point to any direct evidence for that, it's just my initial hypothesis - what I think.
Ultimately though, the government decided not to act. An effective lockdown would have saved lives. By deciding not to try rather than go for a lockdown with appropriate public education, they made a decision that meant that thousands more people died than might not have done and thus I don't think your argument (now I understand it) absolves the government from this responsibility. Which was my underlying point here.
I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.
Problem is that what you said is not true.
Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?
If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.
Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?
Yes
So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.
I answered the question.
I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.
Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?
As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.
So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.
Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:
Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.
There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.
But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.
AFZ
Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.
Oh dear.
As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.
AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
Telford: That doesn't answer my question
AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
Just to return to this; do you not see that this paper (among many, but for various reasons this one is really good) shows VERY GOOD evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between timing of lockdown and number of deaths? Hence my surprise that you said I hadn't answered your question.
It is debatable who is primarily responsible but surely someone in government is responsible for the huge misstep?
Is it the Secretary of State for Health? That's a more complex question.
AFZ
A total lockdown would not have been respected after so few deaths. However I have already stated elsewhere that we were too slow to officially shut pubs, clubs and sporting events
Ahhh. Moving the goal posts.
I disagree. I have merely repeated what I have said before. I have now read your long post and I tend to disagree with your conclusions.
I now understand why: your question was entirely different to what you said; Your question is would an earlier lockdown resulted in sufficient behavioural change to have the desired effect?
For what it's worth that's worthy of discussion but my short answer is that there was clear and powerful images from Italy, Spain and France; it would have been a very easy sell for the government to show the British people why an early lockdown would save lives and massively reduce the overall economic cost.
I don't think there would have been initial compliance issues, I think that compliance issues are more likely with a prolonged lock-down - i.e. when people get fed-up with the restrictions. I cannot point to any direct evidence for that, it's just my initial hypothesis - what I think.
Probably more suited to Purgatorial than Hellish climes, but I think the evidence is that with some exceptions initial compliance would have been quite good. There's certainly evidence that prior to the official lockdown there was already a quite significant voluntary reduction in social contact - pubs, restaurants etc were seeing poor trade, people who could were working from home more etc. For most people the problems with social distancing related to lack of government provided structure - until there was a furlough scheme people couldn't stop going in to work, people weren't going to stop sending children to school until the schools closed etc. There were some compliance issues in the first week or two of lockdown (we saw the pictures of people gathering in parks etc) so it can be safely assumed that that would have been the case if lockdown had started a couple of weeks earlier - although, again, maybe an earlier lockdown would have sent a stronger "this is important" message that would lead to more compliance than the delayed "it's more important to hold the Cheltenham festival" message. Even with the gatherings in parks etc the lockdown had the desired effect of bringing R below one in the community stopping the exponential growth in cases (though, of course, not stopping the spread entirely, nothing would be able to do that) - the biggest problem was that policy decisions to ensure maximum number of hospital beds available resulted in an introduction of the virus into care homes where it ran riot, which maintained the rapid increase in cases and deaths.
We'd have also managed to maintain lockdown compliance longer with proper enforcement; most people seem to be aware of people not complying and there being no police intervention, and very few fines issued. The big knock to compliance was when Dom Cummings broke several of the rules* and got away with it.
* "Work from home where possible", and he was regularly in the office talking to people he could have phoned, Zoomed or emailed.
* "Do not visit a second home", and he went to his parents second home (technically it wasn't mentioned, but still ...)
* If you develop symptoms go home immediately and do not leave", he rushed home then went back into work, and then left home to drive to Durham
* the least said about taking an eye test the better ...
Do you think that they got infected from someone outside or from another teacher ?
The odds are rather in favour of it being a non-teacher, don't you think? But again, I'm struggling to find the relevance. Government policy doesn't prevent teachers from having family members who aren't teachers, and it doesn't prevent teachers from having friends who aren't teachers. Nor does it require teachers to only dine in restaurants operated and staffed by teachers.
Round about half-term, by which time many schools will be closed again?
(I won't put money on it - I might need £££ come Brexshit, assuming there's any bread to buy...)
Many schools/year groups/classes are already being sent home., less than a week after they went back.
Hancock is on the TV every day - looking more and more tearful on each occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were heading for his own personal health crisis. 🤔
Yes indeed - the closures are beginning to happen in this area. I was being optimistic about half-term (mid-October sometime?)...
Poor Hancock could do with a break, preferably a long one, and in a country which would require him to quarantine for a fortnight when he returns...nothing personal, you understand, but yes, the man Does Not Look Well...
Comments
I did not need to see the world's stats which did not prove your statement
No. You're not.
An example would be appreciated.
Then I didn't understand your point at all.
If you agree that the current measures in place in English schools are not sufficient to prevent the transmission of Covid-19, then why does it matter whether the Covid-positive teachers were infected at school, or in the pub? How does it change how you should respond to the situation?
Completely ignoring meaningful content or questions in people’s posts can be construed as disrespectful, as can passive agression.
It's also a way of sucking people in, so that the wind up can continue.
Perhaps you are rather unfriendly. but you are nowhere near the worst
It is important that Teachers follow the guidelines both on duty and off duty.
You lot are very unforgiving
That doesn't answer my question in any way, but do you have any evidence that the infected teachers weren't following government advice in regard to, for example, pubs and restaurants?
The problem is that people respond when he yanks their chains, which encourages him to be a bit of a yanker.
I think you overshot by two letters at the start of that last word.
No. You're not.
Ah yes, the heresy of cheap grace. You must forgive me and condone my bad behavior, whilst I remain unrepentant.
Any response to my earlier post yet?
You manage to be very unforgivable. You claim you want to engage honestly, and then manifestly don't.
I poked a little gentle fun at a minor typo. Your feelings were so hurt by this that you couldn't bring yourself to read the rest of the post in case poor widdle Telford's feelings are hurt again. My hunch is that you did read the rest of the post, realised that you couldn't answer it in any convincing manner, or even evade the issue like you do most of the time, so decided to try and weasel* your way out of responding.
*With apologies to weasels, whose good name I shouldn't tarnish by association.
Do you think that they got infected from someone outside or from another teacher ?
I never said that my feeling were hurt. Do you really really think that I am hurt by all the things you lot say? When I first came onto this forum I made the mistake of having my name in capiotals. I have never been forgiven for shouting.
I also get the impression that other posters are encouraged to attack me to get some sort of brownie points.
The post beginning with what words ?
From somewhere on the Magic Electric Interweb:
This method of answering questions with questions, in order to let the questioner realize that he can find the answer by reasoning (Socrates would say that the answer was in him all along), is called maieutics (the related adjective being maieutic ).
Bow, bow, to the mighty Socratic-inspired intellect!
My apologies, I had missed your post @6:15pm.
So you didn't read the paper or didn't understand it?
Stop courting martyrdom...
I thought it was a storm in a tea cup but my daughter got it changed for me. Things have not gone well ever since. My daughter persuaded me to join the forum. She said it was very friendly. I realsied that peopl,e would disagree with me on a number of issues but I was shocked at the vitriol
"Well leave then" I can hear you and others shouting. I have hopes that things might improve for me eventually.
Other Boards are available.
Please, please, please understand that it is not that people disagree with you that is the problem. It always has been and remains your obnoxious behaviour. As soon as you stop that things will 'improve for you' very rapidly.
AFZ
P.s. mild-moderate pique is not vitriol.
Read above. Human rights are part of trade deals.
In any case, it's not a punishment not to be given a job.
Obnoxious ? If I want to discuss Boris Johnson I have to.
Is that your definition of Friendly
Welcome to Hell, Telford, and congrats on being the new chew toy. Just for clarity, that wasn't me being friendly, as I am not in the habit of being friendly to trolls, especially trolls as demonstrably stupid as you are.
In Hell, if you annoy the Hell out of people (heh heh) they will let you know, with startling clarity.
Other boards are more forgiving. You were doing well on the Heaven joke thread, but if you, erm, lay eggs in Hell they tend to be picked up and thrown back.
And that, my friends, is how you engage the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Or the less parallel universe where I called myself "Abbott's Lovechild" instead.
Great advice from him today -
"Don't kill your gran."
What would we do without him?
He is way, way out of his depth, poor sap.
How is commending Heaven, Purgatory, All Saints, The Circus unfriendly? If you want civility, go where civility is mandated.
As AFZ has already pointed out, seem to take umbrage at everything.
Or as someone or other said, with what measure you mete it shall be measured to you again.
It's a free forum - you don't have to stay in Hell...
Indeed.
Any bets on when he’s thrown under the bus?
(I won't put money on it - I might need £££ come Brexshit, assuming there's any bread to buy...)
Thanks for that.
The use of insults is allowed but not compulsory. I apologise to you for that comment. I thought you were refering to other forums.
Just to return to this; do you not see that this paper (among many, but for various reasons this one is really good) shows VERY GOOD evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between timing of lockdown and number of deaths? Hence my surprise that you said I hadn't answered your question.
It is debatable who is primarily responsible but surely someone in government is responsible for the huge misstep?
Is it the Secretary of State for Health? That's a more complex question.
AFZ
A total lockdown would not have been respected after so few deaths. However I have already stated elsewhere that we were too slow to officially shut pubs, clubs and sporting events
Ahhh. Moving the goal posts.
Many schools/year groups/classes are already being sent home., less than a week after they went back.
Hancock is on the TV every day - looking more and more tearful on each occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were heading for his own personal health crisis. 🤔
I just want to spell this out for the avoidance of any doubt.
As I (now) understand you; your argument is that an earlier lockdown would have made little or no difference because compliance would have been so poor. Please forgive me and correct me if I've got that wrong. That's an interesting point, worthy of discussion. However, that's not what you said at all. Nor have you supported that assertion.
Let's take this one step at a time.
There is overwheming evidence that behaviour affects the rate of transmission of infectious diseases. This is especially true of Covid-19. As I mentioned, there is some proper maths behind this but I've been thinking it through again; put simply the exponential growth of the pandemic occurs unless and until something changes. Across the world, you can track the stopping of Covid with government interventions (Lockdowns) to force behavioural change on the national level.
I asserted (with a promise to follow up in detail - and because I couldn't be bothered to go back and find the links I have previously posted on the Covid thread) that the timing of lockdown is critical in preventing deaths.
You then asked me "What's the evidence that timing of Lockdown affects the number of deaths"
I provide such evidence.
You claim it does not answer your question.
I now understand why: your question was entirely different to what you said; Your question is would an earlier lockdown resulted in sufficient behavioural change to have the desired effect?
For what it's worth that's worthy of discussion but my short answer is that there was clear and powerful images from Italy, Spain and France; it would have been a very easy sell for the government to show the British people why an early lockdown would save lives and massively reduce the overall economic cost.
I don't think there would have been initial compliance issues, I think that compliance issues are more likely with a prolonged lock-down - i.e. when people get fed-up with the restrictions. I cannot point to any direct evidence for that, it's just my initial hypothesis - what I think.
Ultimately though, the government decided not to act. An effective lockdown would have saved lives. By deciding not to try rather than go for a lockdown with appropriate public education, they made a decision that meant that thousands more people died than might not have done and thus I don't think your argument (now I understand it) absolves the government from this responsibility. Which was my underlying point here.
AFZ
I disagree. I have merely repeated what I have said before. I have now read your long post and I tend to disagree with your conclusions.
We'd have also managed to maintain lockdown compliance longer with proper enforcement; most people seem to be aware of people not complying and there being no police intervention, and very few fines issued. The big knock to compliance was when Dom Cummings broke several of the rules* and got away with it.
* "Work from home where possible", and he was regularly in the office talking to people he could have phoned, Zoomed or emailed.
* "Do not visit a second home", and he went to his parents second home (technically it wasn't mentioned, but still ...)
* If you develop symptoms go home immediately and do not leave", he rushed home then went back into work, and then left home to drive to Durham
* the least said about taking an eye test the better ...
The odds are rather in favour of it being a non-teacher, don't you think? But again, I'm struggling to find the relevance. Government policy doesn't prevent teachers from having family members who aren't teachers, and it doesn't prevent teachers from having friends who aren't teachers. Nor does it require teachers to only dine in restaurants operated and staffed by teachers.
Yes indeed - the closures are beginning to happen in this area. I was being optimistic about half-term (mid-October sometime?)...
Poor Hancock could do with a break, preferably a long one, and in a country which would require him to quarantine for a fortnight when he returns...nothing personal, you understand, but yes, the man Does Not Look Well...