The government is in no way to blame for the pandemic. However they are totally accountable (or should be) for the response.
We are cursed with possibly the least able Prime Minister to deal with this crisis. I spent a lot of 2019 saying that again and again and again and kept being told yeah but Corbyn. It's possible I was and am wrong but I am seriously worried that I'm not. Whatever Corbyn's faults - he would be light years better right now. As would almost anyone.
The mounting criticism has been accompanied by an old quote from Mr Johnson from 2006, in which he said that the fictional Mayor Vaughn from the Stephen Spielberg movie Jaws was a 'hero'.
An MP at the time, Mr Johnson told an audience at Lloyd's in London that "The real hero of Jaws is the mayor".
"A gigantic fish is eating all your constituents and he decides to keep the beaches open.
"OK, in that instance he was actually wrong. But in principle, we need more politicians like the mayor -- we are often the only obstacle against all the nonsense which is really a massive conspiracy against the taxpayer".
This one quote explains so much. " . . . but in principle . . . " is a phrase that can hide a vast array of wrongheadedness. For those who haven't seen Jaws, or for whom it's been a long time, the relevant scene can be viewed here.
I didn't go shopping over the weekend since I knew it would be insane, so I arrived at the grocery store at 7 am when they opened (usually they open at 6). After 20 minutes going around collecting things, I am now in line for the checkout, which wraps around to the back of this fairly large store. I don't know if I'll be on time for work in 28 minutes!
Here is a Slate article about how this crisis is showing how stupid, arbitrary, and unnecessary so many of our rules are, with the following examples: TSA is allowing people to take 12 oz containers of hand sanitizer on airplanes, waiving the usual 4 oz limit for that one thing.
That's not what this says at all.
What this says is risk management, which is basically math.
The 4 oz liquid rule is intended to prevent plane-destroying quantities of liquid explosive (eg. TATP) being carried on. The odds that your plane will be targeted by a suicide bomber are rather slim, but in normal situations, it's just inconvenient to have to plan for not having more than that with you.
Under the current conditions, reducing the ability for people to keep their hands and environment sanitized is more dangerous than the suicide bomber that probably doesn't exist. When the enhanced risk due to COVID-19 is reduced, the math changes back again.
Just went to the supermarket (London), no bread, potatoes, vegetables. I bought some frozen chips. How can this continue? What is an old lady going to do for food? Cake, I suppose.
Just went to the supermarket (London), no bread, potatoes, vegetables. I bought some frozen chips. How can this continue?
It won't continue.
Supply and demand in grocery stores is usually pretty finely balanced (especially for perishables - stores don't want to keep milk, bread, meat, and veg on their shelves for very long.) They plan for normal periods of elevated demand (eg. the runup to Christmas), but didn't plan for this. If the whole country buys 25% extra with their weekly shop, you have instant empty shelves. It doesn't have to be crazy hoarding - just everybody buying a little extra at the same time.
But so long as the supply chain keeps running, food will keep arriving in the stores, and all those people who just filled their pantries won't need to fill them again.
Here is a Slate article about how this crisis is showing how stupid, arbitrary, and unnecessary so many of our rules are, with the following examples: TSA is allowing people to take 12 oz containers of hand sanitizer on airplanes, waiving the usual 4 oz limit for that one thing.
That's not what this says at all.
What this says is risk management, which is basically math.
The 4 oz liquid rule is intended to prevent plane-destroying quantities of liquid explosive (eg. TATP) being carried on. The odds that your plane will be targeted by a suicide bomber are rather slim, but in normal situations, it's just inconvenient to have to plan for not having more than that with you.
Nope. The rule is intended* to make suicide bombers divide their liquid explosives between several different 4 oz. containers rather than fewer larger containers. I'm not sure that distinction is all that beneficial. This just illustrates that providing security is hard but enforcing a set of rules is easy, so large bureaucracies like the TSA opt for the latter over the former.
*Like Dan Kois I'm skeptical of the amount of intentionality behind these regulations, but give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument.
Yesterday (March 15) was a big day for COVID-19. It was the first time the number of confirmed cases outside China exceeded the number of confirmed cases in China. Of course this assumes that the Chinese are reporting their numbers accurately and that the "outside China" number isn't too terribly depressed by testing failures in various countries. Still, a threshold has been crossed.
Look like an 8am start is advisable. Now worrying about haircut, as suspect barbers are not ultra hygienic, but don't fancy the Chewbacca look.
Buy some cheap electric clippers, and go for prison-chic instead. (hint - operate from rear to front of head, and they'll leave you with a small fringe. From front-to-back = total crew cut). #4 = short haircut, gets more military as the numbers go down from there!
Nope. The rule is intended* to make suicide bombers divide their liquid explosives between several different 4 oz. containers rather than fewer larger containers.
Whilst I'm happy to share your skepticism about the rationality of the authors of such rules, the requirement that all one's 4 oz containers fit in a single quart-size ziplock bag does mitigate this risk.
I'm not particularly defending the TSA rules either - I'm attacking the nonsense argument that says that because you can waive some rule in an emergency, the rule is unnecessary and should automatically be abandoned.
Ambulances in emergencies put on their lights and sirens, and drive through red lights, down the wrong side of the road, and so on. That doesn't mean that the general rule that ambulances (and other traffic) should obey normal road traffic rules isn't important - just that when you've got a patient in a hurry to get to the ER, there's something else more important.
Nope. The rule is intended* to make suicide bombers divide their liquid explosives between several different 4 oz. containers rather than fewer larger containers.
Whilst I'm happy to share your skepticism about the rationality of the authors of such rules, the requirement that all one's 4 oz containers fit in a single quart-size ziplock bag does mitigate this risk.
I'm not particularly defending the TSA rules either - I'm attacking the nonsense argument that says that because you can waive some rule in an emergency, the rule is unnecessary and should automatically be abandoned.
If the quart bag is the limiting factor, why not allow bottles larger than four ounces?
Ambulances in emergencies put on their lights and sirens, and drive through red lights, down the wrong side of the road, and so on. That doesn't mean that the general rule that ambulances (and other traffic) should obey normal road traffic rules isn't important - just that when you've got a patient in a hurry to get to the ER, there's something else more important.
I see the fact that ambulances are equipped with lights and sirens for use when they operate outside normal road safety practices as an admission that those rules do have some rational basis and that steps should be taken to mitigate the dangers when operating outside those practices. The fact that the bottle rule could be abandoned without any such mitigating steps indicates that it wasn't doing much in the first place.
Look like an 8am start is advisable. Now worrying about haircut, as suspect barbers are not ultra hygienic, but don't fancy the Chewbacca look.
Buy some cheap electric clippers, and go for prison-chic instead. (hint - operate from rear to front of head, and they'll leave you with a small fringe. From front-to-back = total crew cut). #4 = short haircut, gets more military as the numbers go down from there!
Thanks, helpful. I think first, I shall cultivate a degenerate hippy look.
French doctor: we are following exactly behind Italy, cases doubling every 3 days. Italian colleagues describe having to choose between treating a 60 year old and a 40 year old. No link, article by Laura Spinney, 'we are ready', Guardian.
The very brief follow conversation can just contain this:
I think a good way of doing it is to imagine that you DO have the virus, & think about changing your behaviour so you don’t give it to someone else.
If minister hasn't got any gadgets to view things on, write it on a little card and hand it to him/her. The author of the quote is Graham Medley, professor of Infectious Disease Modelling.
You can add "may God have mercy" and/or PFO (please f*** off).
What? Like the Prime Minister, only worse (if that be possible)?
I'm not sure of the purpose of giving "strong guidance" but not mandating closures - apart from absolving the government of responsibility for the costs -- which need to be shared across society.
I'm not sure of the purpose of giving "strong guidance" but not mandating closures - apart from absolving the government of responsibility for the costs -- which need to be shared across society.
That's precisely the purpose. Institutions can't escape their duties of care to customers and staff and the potential exposure to being sued if they don't carry them out well. And the government knows this.
I'm not sure of the purpose of giving "strong guidance" but not mandating closures - apart from absolving the government of responsibility for the costs -- which need to be shared across society.
That's precisely the purpose. Institutions can't escape their duties of care to customers and staff and the potential exposure to being sued if they don't carry them out well. And the government knows this.
From a financial perspective I suspect it'll mean that it won't be an insurance event -- so institutions will carry the can.
I can't do it, as my legs aren't nimble enough, but the Wuhan Shoe Shake is rather fun...and brings a little light relief to a deadly serious situation... https://youtube.com/watch?v=zf5tGGD_6kA
I am, however, practising the namaste/namaskar bow.
Yesterday after service, I had my thumb tucked into the girdle of my robe behind my back, so I wouldn't automatically put my hand out! I can't believe the minister - up thread quoted - would've dealt so insensitively with the whole hand-shaking business. Whatever his private views might've been, it's so disrespectful, especially to the anxious and truly vulnerable, to say nothing about growing potential risk.
Appears the guy I work for has come down with it, on return from a ski trip last week (Austria). Doing OK, at home, feels like shit, sleeping a lot, no test as not in hospital.
Boris's recent speech (which, for Boris who I have little time for, was IMV fit-for-purpose) included the line 'now is the time for *everyone* to stop non-essential contact with others'. He went on to mention work from home where possible, no pubs, clubs and restaurants, etc. I don't know whether to understand this as no longer meeting a friend, one at a time, in their house, who has no symptoms. Your views?
I think that would depend largely on whether either of you had vulnerable people at home to protect--elders with conditions, and so forth. Also on whether it's basically "I'm seeing you and no one else," as opposed to "I'm seeing a different friend every single day." Basically like the old STD contagion link diagrams.
I note the upcoming three month restriction, looks like it may be - over 70 + anyone normally eligible for a free flu jab for health reasons. In which case that’ll be me housebound for three months.
Will need to get into a working from home routine.
He went on to mention work from home where possible, no pubs, clubs and restaurants, etc. I don't know whether to understand this as no longer meeting a friend, one at a time, in their house, who has no symptoms. Your views?
Meeting friends one-at-a-time, each of which then goes on to meet all their other friends one-at-a-time, doesn't help slow the spread of the virus. You need to not have social contact between your family and people outside your family. If you've got one friend you hang out with all the time, classing them as "your family" and spending time with them, but neither of you spends time with anyone else is OK.
(It seems like people are infectious well before they show any symptoms, so "no symptoms" is pretty meaningless.)
In addition to our lockdown, Macron has just announced the closure of the EU's outer borders and within Schengenland. It's not clear to me whether that allows travel between the UK and Schengenland.
France is taking an excellent approach imo. Macron has told the nation he wants no company to be exposed to the risk of collapse as a result of the pandemic. He has also said gas, electricity and water bills are to be suspended – as are rents – and the state will guarantee companies’ loans with a €300bn package.
Uk media are reporting that EU has said, due to the transition period - travel ban will not apply to the U.K.
Looking at Eurostar and Brittany Ferries sites right now, it's not clear how that works in practice. Also not clear to me whether borders within Schengenland will close (those that aren't already...).
France is taking an excellent approach imo. Macron has told the nation he wants no company to be exposed to the risk of collapse as a result of the pandemic. He has also said gas, electricity and water bills are to be suspended – as are rents – and the state will guarantee companies’ loans with a €300bn package.
That’s socialism. 👏🏼👏🏼
As opposed to Boris Johnson, who by refusing to order venues to close is withholding financial protection for them.
San Francisco is mostly shutting down as of midnight tonight--until April 7th. It's a public health order. ."Stay home except for essential needs." I'm listening to a news conference right now--the mayor, health experts, and a few others.
I'm not sure about other areas, but I think other areas in the region may be doing the same.
I think I'll do my neighborhood errands *today*, and take a bit of a walk. I've been inside close to two weeks, and I have cabin fewer.
I feel like we're in a 1970s post-apocalyptic/disaster movie.
@NOprophet_NØprofit .... there are (oh so many ) times in my life when just saying nothing is preferable😅
With a long stare maybe. I get you.
Some bright-spark told me today that if you spell "COVID" backwards you can spell "divoc", and then he used it in a couple of helpful sentences: "what divoc are you thinking?", and "what the divoc is going on?" .
Girlguiding UK is cancelling all meetings from tomorrow.
Today Asda was out of milk, apart from pint bottles and the organic stuff, eggs, and frozen veg, but most other perishable stuff was still fairly plentiful.
"The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government."
""We were expecting herd immunity to build. We now realise it’s not possible to cope with that." Professor Azra Ghani, chair of infectious diseases epidemiology at Imperial, told journalists at a briefing on Monday night."
Does anyone think the general population will have any increase in sympathy toward refugees as a result of the disruption caused by the pandemic? What we are experiencing so far is extremely minor compared to what they face for months or years on end.
Comments
A possibly relevant example:
This one quote explains so much. " . . . but in principle . . . " is a phrase that can hide a vast array of wrongheadedness. For those who haven't seen Jaws, or for whom it's been a long time, the relevant scene can be viewed here.
That's not what this says at all.
What this says is risk management, which is basically math.
The 4 oz liquid rule is intended to prevent plane-destroying quantities of liquid explosive (eg. TATP) being carried on. The odds that your plane will be targeted by a suicide bomber are rather slim, but in normal situations, it's just inconvenient to have to plan for not having more than that with you.
Under the current conditions, reducing the ability for people to keep their hands and environment sanitized is more dangerous than the suicide bomber that probably doesn't exist. When the enhanced risk due to COVID-19 is reduced, the math changes back again.
It won't continue.
Supply and demand in grocery stores is usually pretty finely balanced (especially for perishables - stores don't want to keep milk, bread, meat, and veg on their shelves for very long.) They plan for normal periods of elevated demand (eg. the runup to Christmas), but didn't plan for this. If the whole country buys 25% extra with their weekly shop, you have instant empty shelves. It doesn't have to be crazy hoarding - just everybody buying a little extra at the same time.
But so long as the supply chain keeps running, food will keep arriving in the stores, and all those people who just filled their pantries won't need to fill them again.
Nope. The rule is intended* to make suicide bombers divide their liquid explosives between several different 4 oz. containers rather than fewer larger containers. I'm not sure that distinction is all that beneficial. This just illustrates that providing security is hard but enforcing a set of rules is easy, so large bureaucracies like the TSA opt for the latter over the former.
*Like Dan Kois I'm skeptical of the amount of intentionality behind these regulations, but give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument.
Buy some cheap electric clippers, and go for prison-chic instead. (hint - operate from rear to front of head, and they'll leave you with a small fringe. From front-to-back = total crew cut). #4 = short haircut, gets more military as the numbers go down from there!
Whilst I'm happy to share your skepticism about the rationality of the authors of such rules, the requirement that all one's 4 oz containers fit in a single quart-size ziplock bag does mitigate this risk.
I'm not particularly defending the TSA rules either - I'm attacking the nonsense argument that says that because you can waive some rule in an emergency, the rule is unnecessary and should automatically be abandoned.
Ambulances in emergencies put on their lights and sirens, and drive through red lights, down the wrong side of the road, and so on. That doesn't mean that the general rule that ambulances (and other traffic) should obey normal road traffic rules isn't important - just that when you've got a patient in a hurry to get to the ER, there's something else more important.
“ You are not afraid to shake my hand are you?”
(Not posted in hell, coz I m trying to cut back in my swearing right now)
If the quart bag is the limiting factor, why not allow bottles larger than four ounces?
I see the fact that ambulances are equipped with lights and sirens for use when they operate outside normal road safety practices as an admission that those rules do have some rational basis and that steps should be taken to mitigate the dangers when operating outside those practices. The fact that the bottle rule could be abandoned without any such mitigating steps indicates that it wasn't doing much in the first place.
I hope it was 'YES! Because you're as much of a Poor Perishing Sinner, subject to the ills of the flesh, as the rest of this Miserable Company!'
Or words to that effect.
You should have licked his face.
Thanks, helpful. I think first, I shall cultivate a degenerate hippy look.
I'd probably have a very brief follow-up conversation with him/her, and maybe send this https://twitter.com/CatrinNye/status/1238471533821124608
The very brief follow conversation can just contain this:
If minister hasn't got any gadgets to view things on, write it on a little card and hand it to him/her. The author of the quote is Graham Medley, professor of Infectious Disease Modelling.
You can add "may God have mercy" and/or PFO (please f*** off).
My answer was to :
* Not return the smile
* take two steps backwards
* clasp both hands firmly to my body.
* gaze into the far far distance then suggest that we al had places to go to.
Utter utter numpty
In their defence.......?
er......
No.
There was No defence possible
I'm not sure of the purpose of giving "strong guidance" but not mandating closures - apart from absolving the government of responsibility for the costs -- which need to be shared across society.
That's precisely the purpose. Institutions can't escape their duties of care to customers and staff and the potential exposure to being sued if they don't carry them out well. And the government knows this.
Our World In Data
AFZ
From a financial perspective I suspect it'll mean that it won't be an insurance event -- so institutions will carry the can.
Someone said the same to me. I replied “I’m protecting you from my viruses, not the other way round.” and taught him the elbow bump.
He didn’t know what to say.
Nice one.
I can't do it, as my legs aren't nimble enough, but the Wuhan Shoe Shake is rather fun...and brings a little light relief to a deadly serious situation...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zf5tGGD_6kA
I am, however, practising the namaste/namaskar bow.
Boris's recent speech (which, for Boris who I have little time for, was IMV fit-for-purpose) included the line 'now is the time for *everyone* to stop non-essential contact with others'. He went on to mention work from home where possible, no pubs, clubs and restaurants, etc. I don't know whether to understand this as no longer meeting a friend, one at a time, in their house, who has no symptoms. Your views?
Will need to get into a working from home routine.
Meeting friends one-at-a-time, each of which then goes on to meet all their other friends one-at-a-time, doesn't help slow the spread of the virus. You need to not have social contact between your family and people outside your family. If you've got one friend you hang out with all the time, classing them as "your family" and spending time with them, but neither of you spends time with anyone else is OK.
(It seems like people are infectious well before they show any symptoms, so "no symptoms" is pretty meaningless.)
That’s socialism. 👏🏼👏🏼
Looking at Eurostar and Brittany Ferries sites right now, it's not clear how that works in practice. Also not clear to me whether borders within Schengenland will close (those that aren't already...).
As opposed to Boris Johnson, who by refusing to order venues to close is withholding financial protection for them.
San Francisco is mostly shutting down as of midnight tonight--until April 7th. It's a public health order. ."Stay home except for essential needs." I'm listening to a news conference right now--the mayor, health experts, and a few others.
I'm not sure about other areas, but I think other areas in the region may be doing the same.
I think I'll do my neighborhood errands *today*, and take a bit of a walk. I've been inside close to two weeks, and I have cabin fewer.
I feel like we're in a 1970s post-apocalyptic/disaster movie.
With a long stare maybe. I get you.
Some bright-spark told me today that if you spell "COVID" backwards you can spell "divoc", and then he used it in a couple of helpful sentences: "what divoc are you thinking?", and "what the divoc is going on?" .
Feel free to make up your own.
Today Asda was out of milk, apart from pint bottles and the organic stuff, eggs, and frozen veg, but most other perishable stuff was still fairly plentiful.
Now being reported on Buzzfeed:
"The UK only realised "in the last few days" that attempts to "mitigate" the impact of the coronavirus pandemic would not work, and that it needed to shift to a strategy to "suppress" the outbreak, according to a report by a team of experts who have been advising the government."
""We were expecting herd immunity to build. We now realise it’s not possible to cope with that." Professor Azra Ghani, chair of infectious diseases epidemiology at Imperial, told journalists at a briefing on Monday night."