shurlock

As I say, thanks for clarifying matters. There’s no situation (within the range of Coronavirus-related outcomes) in which you would support an extension, even if the government claimed it was in the interests of the UK and Brexit. I know Brexiters who think that kind of inflexibility in the face of an epic economic shock is completely mental but your position is noted. It’s in black and white.

Thanks for clarifying beyond doubt your position Les. As you say, you are a Conservative Party member and voter and generally supportive of the current Government. From that, its not inconceivable to envisage a situation where the government changed its policy and you supported it due to party loyalty. In such a situation, you might also give the Government whose Brexit credentials are impeccable the benefit of the doubt and accept it was seeking an extension for the right reasons - in the interests of both the UK and Brexit itself. Or you might decide that regardless of the circumstances or party loyalties, any extension was completely unjustifiable. Which turns out to be your position. Noted.

Good to have it on the record in black and white. A rambling post apart, that wasn’t too hard, was it? Of course, it’s still far from clear what your position would be if government policy changed and it decided that an extension was desirable -given the ambiguities in your position but I don’t want to confuse you any further pal

I’m not asking what the government’s position is - I’m asking if you think it’s sensible.

Do you think an extension to the transition period is sensible in the present circumstances?

Remember we're talking about arch-swivels like Les here.

Hasn't Anthony Fauci said something similar? Your boyfriend Trump is obviously being advised by the wrong people.

How’s the pound faring at this time of stress - surely investors must flocking to it relative to the doomed euro? I know you love your chats. The EU is not a federal state: health policy is almost exclusively determined by member states. The EU can only intervene to complement the actions of member states. Perhaps you want the EU to do more in in this area in which case I assume you want more power to it? Likewise the rules of Schengen aren’t absolute - they've always allowed for temporary réintroductions of border controls when there is a threat to public policy and/or internal security. All these years frothing and railing against the EU and you still don’t know the basics.

So why did you cite/respond to an article that was all about the UK’s approach of herd immunity (a terrible approach in the article’s view)? And then claim the WHO supported the UK’s approach? Any reasonable person would assume you were responding to the points in the guardian article. Perhaps you responded to the guardian article and its critique of herd immunity for the kicks? Or perhaps you didn’t actually bother to read or understand the article you were attempting to refute? #classicwestie

First and trivially that’s from Feb 29 (two weeks is a long time) and second and more importantly where in the extract does it provide support for ‘herd immunity’ as a policy approach or goal? It’s a series of recommendations for international travel. By contrast and fwiw, a WHO spokesperson has already questioned the idea of herd immunity given we don’t know enough about the virus in immunological terms. #classicwestie

Another open letter (4 and counting): https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfxKs8sYwHSLwhtQGP_oar1SJwfKtkXwCIJXAXKAsJfGYKF2w/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1

For the benefit of some, there have been three letters - each bringing something distinctive to the table given the problem is inherently multidisciplinary. -one signed by mathematicians and biostatisticians who are experts in modeling complex, dynamic systems and how phenomena like pandemics are likely to spread through the population; -one signed by behavioural scientists who can talk credibly about the behavioural assumptions underpinning the government’s strategy - namely the idea of social fatigue, the idea that, if implemented too early, measures limiting social contact will be undermined just when they are most needed because the public will find it difficult to stay the course and accept long-term restrictions on its behaviour; -and a third letter signed by the country’s main professional body of immunologists who understand at a biological level how immune systems work and interact with viruses like covid-19, so can evaluate the government’s emphasis on herd immunity.

You mentioned behavioural scientists and then linked to a letter signed by mathematicians and biostatisticians. They are completely different. I think you’re the one who needs to be clearer pal.

They are all credible in their respective fields. You need to talk to your friends a bit more (like your Jewish mates), if you don’t understand the relationship between statistics, mathematics and epidemiology. Certainly mentioning behavioural scientists and linking to a letter signed by another group of experts in the same breath suggests you’re a bit confused about these different disciplines and branches of expertise.

You’re not up to date then: there have been three open letters (never mind the expertise informing the WHO and other national governments approaches). The letter signed by behavioural scientists is only one of them and questions only one pillar of the government’s strategy around social fatigue (on which they’re perfectly qualified to speak).

Yes many are Jamie. Epidemiology has its heart an understanding of statistics, dynamic modeling and complex systems. So mathematicians, network scientists and statisticians are in their element. By contrast, and paradoxically, ordinary doctors are less qualified to talk about this area.

You can also add an open letter from the British Society for Immunology which is the main professional body in the field (and an open letter from behavioural scientists/psychologists questioning the assumption of “behavioural fatigue”).

Exactly. And let’s be clear: while scientists will provide significant input/advice, it will usually be in the form of a menu of choices/options from which the PM will still ‘choose’. Likewise the PM will be critical in defining the problem and it’s constraints to which experts will then find the best solution(s) from all feasible solutions.

What's she done?

Leicester aren't catching City - virus or no virus.

Looks like Johnson has done a U-turn and will table legislation to ban mass events from next weekend.

Isn’t paying bribes or bungs the definition of corruption?

Frankly if a player can’t get into our current team, it’s unlikely a European club will want to buy them without an initial loan. That’s especially the case where we’re loading up on young players without much track record. In future, it points to buying slightly more established players from richer leagues (Italy, Spain and Germany) who might be more expensive but provide some insurance value in terms of ease of exit or sale should they not pan out. It also points to more Danso-type deals - in an alternate universe where Les and Ross arrogance and hubris are still running amok, you could easily imagine us buying that type of player. In that sense, it’s good to see we’ve learned our lessons.

Cheers Uncle Les and Wee Ross for all that deadwood.

Relatively speaking, the UK isn’t doing a bad job. The US is the worrying one. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/covid-19-testing/