Mike doesn`t pick up a further, growing unease about the government - Sunak`s financial package and the consequent effect on public finances. Three politically-savvy people in our village hall today were raging about the news of the furlough extension. I kept quiet - earwigging - and the common view was that Boris has "lost the plot".
Daily Mail comments (I know) very unsupportive. It is of the why should I go to work at risk to pay for others to sit on their arse till October? A reasonable question, even if it obviously more complicated than that. Almost none of the commenters seemed to realise you don't have a choice to be furloughed. Much lazy, feckless bone idle, etc. This is dangerous territory for the Government if it takes hold.
The most liked comment on the Mail's story on this was ''we're going to be paying for this for the rest of our lives''
The people who frequent the Mail online comment section are amazed it will be paid off so quickly?
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
I think the idea there's mass irresponsibility is a myth.
18% are breaking the rules according to this evening's press briefing.
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Oh dont be so miserable- Driving anywhere is not a cause of transmission . In fact the more you drive the less likely you are to see anyone you know at the end of it so less likely to mix. Lots of misery and judging of others on here tonight.
PB has been laughable on this matter.
Prior to the changes of rules, people taking a short drive to a beauty spot were lambasted because “they might break down”.
I don’t have a car but a do own a bike. Presumably I shouldn’t use it in case I fall off?
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
Pre lockdown. When the government tried to suggest what people should do. It failed. They went to the pub. They went to the Dales. They went to the coast.
Too many of our fellow citizens will only listen when someone is about to whack them with a big stick.
Starmer is more popular than Johnson at this moment, can he convert it into a election lead
Lol - can't wait for a "forensic" chat down the pub. Said nobody ever.
You might choose to chat with a stereotypical Etonian twat at the pub, and maybe find his inability to communicate quirky and amusing, but that doesn't mean that he should be PM. Give me a slightly less amusing professional anytime than a rank amateur who is nothing more than an international laughing stock.
Name the last "forensic" PM that won an election.
Gordon Brown was "forensic" off the end of the spectrum - got pumped at the polls.
Gordon Brown would make The Clown look competent. I always thought we would never see a worse PM than Brown in my lifetime. I was wrong, but this time, this completely unsuitable egocentric entitled twat is wearing a blue rosette. Public opinion will quickly catch up. Even your blinkers might start to fall off after another year of bluster, buffoonery and back-of-a-fag-packet incompetence from no.10. Any Tories with any analytical skill are shit scared of Starmer. He will slowly and surely make the public realise the obvious - Johnson is a charlatan and an incompetent, and a disgrace to the Conservative Party and the office he currently holds.
Not keen then.
Anything to do with Brexit maybe
Well, I could write an essay on that, but no, not entirely. His dishonest position on that subject is one factor, but the main reasons are substance and competence. This crisis has proved most Johnson-sceptic's worst fears were underestimates. I don't like Gove's views on Brexit, but at least the man has shown some competence in the departments he has run. Johnson is a car crash.
You have your view on Boris and it is shared by many
However, on covid I will give him the benefit of doubt and had no problem with his speech
The government are making mistakes and as I have said I reject the freedom of the road granted to the English, it is wrong
Time will tell and Boris will either win through or not, but he has an 80 seat majority so he has four years if he wants them, and his health holds up which I am not sure is a given, to succeed in taking the country through this crisis
The tragedy is that we now have one of the worst death rates in the world. It smacks of incompetence from a leadership that is not up to the job. The fact that you wish to give him the benefit of the doubt is probably virtuous, but how bad does it have to be before you might start to think it might happen to have something to do with his poor grasp of detail and general bad leadership?
Nobody is in a position to state with confidence that the UK has one of the worst death rates (from the virus) in the world. There is not enough (reliable) data.
Interesting how Boris fans have moved from "we're doing so much better than Italy and Spain" to to "the data can't be trusted" in a few short weeks!
Quick response. I'm not a Boris fan and didn't vote Tory at last election (LD actually as least bad option). If there was going to be a serious attempt to compare the effectiveness of governments/public authorities internationally then these are some of the things that would have to be analysed: 1. How data gathered and reliability. Excess deaths (very lagging ) would be a key indicator where available. 2. Population size. 3. The make up of each national population in terms of factors that affect clinical outcomes such as age, fitness / obesity, ethnic mix. The weighting of these also depends on painstaking analysis and scientific papers many yet to be published. 4. How virus spread started in each country. 5. Social and spatial considerations such as population density and transport modes and use.
There are probably more factors. Won't stop partisan point scoring and premature ejaculation of conclusions. Could be we are doing badly, could be we aren't.
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
Pre lockdown. When the government tried to suggest what people should do. It failed. They went to the pub. They went to the Dales. They went to the coast.
Too many of our fellow citizens will only listen when someone is about to whack them with a big stick.
Wow. The voice of true authoritarianism.
We truly have a dark future if that's your view.
Behave like Swedes and get treated like Swedes.
Behave like turnips and expect a bit of authoritarianism.
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
Pre lockdown. When the government tried to suggest what people should do. It failed. They went to the pub. They went to the Dales. They went to the coast.
Too many of our fellow citizens will only listen when someone is about to whack them with a big stick.
Wow. The voice of true authoritarianism.
We truly have a dark future if that's your view.
Behave like Swedes and get treated like Swedes.
Behave like turnips and expect a bit of authoritarianism.
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Even if there is a risk , teachers presumably expect supermarket and construction workers to take the risk - Are teachers really wanting to admit that education is non essential and therefore trivial? Hope not !
Asian and American students will pay tens of thousands for a university education. Europeans will pay a few thousand, and yes the UK is still in Europe. Which societies will win?
Though US student debt is the next sub prime...
The Dave Ramsey show is a mind-blowing insight into US student debt:
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
Pre lockdown. When the government tried to suggest what people should do. It failed. They went to the pub. They went to the Dales. They went to the coast.
Too many of our fellow citizens will only listen when someone is about to whack them with a big stick.
Wow. The voice of true authoritarianism.
We truly have a dark future if that's your view.
Behave like Swedes and get treated like Swedes.
Behave like turnips and expect a bit of authoritarianism.
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Even if there is a risk , teachers presumably expect supermarket and construction workers to take the risk - Are teachers really wanting to admit that education is non essential and therefore trivial? Hope not !
And many schools are already open
My son is in head of IT (not teaching) and says his school has never been busier
Have we yet seen any comments from sensible Trade Union leaders?
I've seen the stuff from Mary Bousted (previously NUT heavily influenced by SWP for many years), and presumably FBU, UCU etc incoming, and McCluskey who bought Corbyn's Labour, and the boss of the TUC saying exactly what she has always said (big government, micromanagement, everything proceduralised to the nth, and more money for my members).
"“While the ‘Roadmap’ does have clear logic and science behind it, the lack of detail in the strategy leaves members deeply worried.
"The health, safety, and wellbeing of all children and staff in schools, colleges and nurseries must be paramount.
"It is also essential that a reliable test, track and trace system is in place before schools and nurseries can accept more pupils and children.
"Success of this strategy requires teachers, support staff, early education and childcare workers, and parents to be confident that they and all pupils will be safe. It is therefore essential that there is transparency about the scientific and medical evidence on which the decisions and guidance are based and that they are clearly and quickly communicated.
"Although we appreciate the logic of the recently published guidance, we have a number of concerns about the practicalities, and how some aspects can be achieved.
"The aspiration that all primary children will have a month of education before the end of this academic year is, we believe, unrealistic, and reduces the phase period to three weeks. It also increases the planning burden on schools and staff, increasing their already demanding and large workload."
These are not pinko lefties. Used to be called PAT (Professional Association of Teachers)
For the avoidance of doubt, Voice is perhaps the least militant union in the history of the trade union movement... I've even seen it argued that since they refuse to engage in industrial action, they're not a "union" at all! (Hence the original moniker of "professional association" rather than "union".)
Whilst Voice – the union for education professionals reserves and recognises our legal right, and respects the right of others to take part in lawful industrial action, we do not support any form of industrial action (including but not limited to strike action) that is injurious to education or to the interests or welfare of those children, pupils and students in our care.
They even thought it prudent to add in the following clarification (dwell for a moment on how astonishing it is that this was felt to be needed):
Whilst Voice members do not take industrial action that is damaging to education, previous involvement in industrial action while a member of another union will not prevent you from becoming a member of Voice if you decide to change your union.
I was in ATL which was by some way the least hardline of the non-PAT unions where I was working, but very much a minority sport in any staff room I was a member of. I don't recall ever meeting someone in the PAT, the general consensus was that there was safety in numbers - and in teaching, the main attraction of union membership is armour-plating your backside in case something goes awry that could end your job or career, so having a union rep around, particularly a well-regarded one, was crucial. ATL has merged into the NUT now to form the NEU so I think Voice is the last "soft-line" education union left.
Whoever in government thinks it is a good idea to open up driving in England to anywhere else in England and in particular the beaches and parks including the Lake district is making a huge error
Travel should have been within a set limit, maybe 10 miles, and this policy is just wrong
I expect their ratings to sink futher if I am right and this is another self inflicted own goal like Hancock's 100, 000 tests
Maybe we should trust the people to do the right thing.
Bozo tried that. They went on the lash.
Sorry? The public have surprised the government by complying with the lockdown to a far greater extent than they (the government) were expecting.
Pre lockdown. When the government tried to suggest what people should do. It failed. They went to the pub. They went to the Dales. They went to the coast.
Too many of our fellow citizens will only listen when someone is about to whack them with a big stick.
Wow. The voice of true authoritarianism.
We truly have a dark future if that's your view.
Behave like Swedes and get treated like Swedes.
Behave like turnips and expect a bit of authoritarianism.
They are meeting tommorow, so not exactly holding things up. A clear set of health and safety conditions to make a return possible would seem a very sensible first step.
Unions are generally very good at Health and Safety. An employer who pressed workers into working in unsafe conditions would surely be quite vulnerable to the legal eagles. Some potentially very expensive suits.
Its the don't engage message. Why. Nobody is asking them for this to start tomorrow.
The message should be further details are coming, but lets try and see if we can make this work, in the meanwhile liaise with school management in order to flag up potential issues early.
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Even if there is a risk , teachers presumably expect supermarket and construction workers to take the risk - Are teachers really wanting to admit that education is non essential and therefore trivial? Hope not !
The key issue is that if you want to risk manage by social distancing, it works on construction sites. It works in supermarkets, and you can put Perspex screens around the checkouts.
It really, really doesn't work in schools.
Most primary kids are too exuberant. I've got one in Year 2, and she understands the situation really well, and she will inevitably run up and hug her teacher when she returns, because it's what seven year olds do. And somewhere in the country, an asymptomatic Year 2 will do that and set off a cluster of infections. That might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
Some secondary kids are too horrible. There have been cases already of people dying because they have been spat on. There are some teenagers who are nasty enough to either do this deliberately, or do it as a joke that kills people. Again, that might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
By all means, open up schools. But don't think you can apply the same risk management to schools that you can to other workplaces. Children don't work like that. Getting them to wear PPE for chemistry experiments is hard enough!
Golf courses fully booked for days in advance of opening tomorrow. People just want to get out now . Boris doing better than authoritarians in the other home nations
I’m not sure there will be a great rush to go out, I wonder how many people have become agoraphobic over the past 7 weeks. I know my parents have. I can’t see them going out for months. An anecdote i have noticed the roads have been quieter since Boris’s announcement and I go for an hour walk every evening, normally I will see 10-15 people, the last two nights I have not seen a seen another person out walking.
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Even if there is a risk , teachers presumably expect supermarket and construction workers to take the risk - Are teachers really wanting to admit that education is non essential and therefore trivial? Hope not !
The key issue is that if you want to risk manage by social distancing, it works on construction sites. It works in supermarkets, and you can put Perspex screens around the checkouts.
It really, really doesn't work in schools.
Most primary kids are too exuberant. I've got one in Year 2, and she understands the situation really well, and she will inevitably run up and hug her teacher when she returns, because it's what seven year olds do. And somewhere in the country, an asymptomatic Year 2 will do that and set off a cluster of infections. That might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
Some secondary kids are too horrible. There have been cases already of people dying because they have been spat on. There are some teenagers who are nasty enough to either do this deliberately, or do it as a joke that kills people. Again, that might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
By all means, open up schools. But don't think you can apply the same risk management to schools that you can to other workplaces. Children don't work like that. Getting them to wear PPE for chemistry experiments is hard enough!
Golf courses fully booked for days in advance of opening tomorrow. People just want to get out now . Boris doing better than authoritarians in the other home nations
I’m not sure there will be a great rush to go out, I wonder how many people have become agoraphobic over the past 7 weeks. I know my parents have. I can’t see them going out for months. An anecdote i have noticed the roads have been quieter since Boris’s announcement and I go for an hour walk every evening, normally I will see 10-15 people, the last two nights I have not seen a seen another person out walking.
The colder it is the fewer people I see. There's a lot of fair weather walkers, give me a downpour or a blizzard and I'm happy (not high winds, though, I hate high winds).
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
More to the point “don’t engage with planning” is entirely negative
If they can’t reach agreement on safety protocols then advising against a return to work is one thing. Not planning is just about negotiating leverage.
Am I alone in thinking that we could start shipping out some of the elderly infected from the care homes into the Nightingale hospitals a) try and save their lives, and b) stop the virus transfer in the homes? I thought we had a lot of capacity at the moment.
Caveats about us amateurs thinking we can solve this duly made, I think broadly speaking this approach would work. We have lots of empty buildings and spare capacity. Anything we do for Covid sufferers has still got to be far cheaper than paying half the country's wages. Comparatively, we could send them all to luxury spa hotels to recover. You would end up getting best practise treatment very quickly.
Get everyone working, seperate out Covid from the rest of the NHS, and fund as many spaces as are needed.
Golf courses fully booked for days in advance of opening tomorrow. People just want to get out now . Boris doing better than authoritarians in the other home nations
I’m not sure there will be a great rush to go out, I wonder how many people have become agoraphobic over the past 7 weeks. I know my parents have. I can’t see them going out for months. An anecdote i have noticed the roads have been quieter since Boris’s announcement and I go for an hour walk every evening, normally I will see 10-15 people, the last two nights I have not seen a seen another person out walking.
I'm not agoraphobic - I still like being outside and went for a long walk on the Bank Holiday enjoying open vistas.
I am though definitely nervous around strangers. I don't like people being nearby in the supermarket. I can't imagine being able to endure sitting next to a stranger on a train, or in a cinema.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
"The disclosure of the bleak economic predictions, which would suggest that Britain's finances are in their weakest state since the immediate aftermath of the Second World War,"
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
This is what the peasant wagons are looking like in Manchester this week.
No masks?
I'm in no way convinced that masks will catch on.
You'd see I'm laughing but the mask hides it.
Masks are just the new normal now - irrationally. Mask-billionaires will no doubt be on tv soon displaying their wisdom.
Strong social consequences though.
Whenever I see someone wearing a mask I think "nob".
It's socially isolating, dystopian and a bit twattish.
Yes, but it is good manners to wear one.
I think it's the exact opposite.
Good manners to infect your fellow travellers?
It's a view.
No. It's good manners to wash your hands, not cough or sneeze over others, stay at home if you're unwell and treat others with respect.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
Surely there is a misunderstanding - it seems that a mask protects other people better than it does the wearer, hence other folks' comments on your posts.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Even if there is a risk , teachers presumably expect supermarket and construction workers to take the risk - Are teachers really wanting to admit that education is non essential and therefore trivial? Hope not !
The key issue is that if you want to risk manage by social distancing, it works on construction sites. It works in supermarkets, and you can put Perspex screens around the checkouts.
It really, really doesn't work in schools.
Most primary kids are too exuberant. I've got one in Year 2, and she understands the situation really well, and she will inevitably run up and hug her teacher when she returns, because it's what seven year olds do. And somewhere in the country, an asymptomatic Year 2 will do that and set off a cluster of infections. That might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
Some secondary kids are too horrible. There have been cases already of people dying because they have been spat on. There are some teenagers who are nasty enough to either do this deliberately, or do it as a joke that kills people. Again, that might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
By all means, open up schools. But don't think you can apply the same risk management to schools that you can to other workplaces. Children don't work like that. Getting them to wear PPE for chemistry experiments is hard enough!
Then why the school my son heads the IT open
Thinking about the primary school mine go to...
The school building is open for the children of key workers. That (I imagine) is manageable because there is a reasonable excess of space. In theory you could have more children in, but you couldn't open up to 3 year groups out of 7 (R, 1 and 6) tomorrow. That will eventually look different, as the case count falls, and 1 June is possible but very optimistic.
The staff are therefore supervising children on-site, keeping in touch with the rest by phone and email and planning and marking work. I don't envy them.
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
We knew that when the Government didn't take the opportunity to ram home a no smoking message.
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
Am I alone in thinking that we could start shipping out some of the elderly infected from the care homes into the Nightingale hospitals a) try and save their lives, and b) stop the virus transfer in the homes? I thought we had a lot of capacity at the moment.
Caveats about us amateurs thinking we can solve this duly made, I think broadly speaking this approach would work. We have lots of empty buildings and spare capacity. Anything we do for Covid sufferers has still got to be far cheaper than paying half the country's wages. Comparatively, we could send them all to luxury spa hotels to recover. You would end up getting best practise treatment very quickly.
Get everyone working, seperate out Covid from the rest of the NHS, and fund as many spaces as are needed.
The Nightingales are not normal hospitals. They are set up for people on ventilators and sedated.
There’s not reasonable privacy and security or staffing for infected but mild patients
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
This truly is the oddest virus, start smoking to save your life
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
Am I alone in thinking that we could start shipping out some of the elderly infected from the care homes into the Nightingale hospitals a) try and save their lives, and b) stop the virus transfer in the homes? I thought we had a lot of capacity at the moment.
Caveats about us amateurs thinking we can solve this duly made, I think broadly speaking this approach would work. We have lots of empty buildings and spare capacity. Anything we do for Covid sufferers has still got to be far cheaper than paying half the country's wages. Comparatively, we could send them all to luxury spa hotels to recover. You would end up getting best practise treatment very quickly.
Get everyone working, seperate out Covid from the rest of the NHS, and fund as many spaces as are needed.
The Nightingales are not normal hospitals. They are set up for people on ventilators and sedated.
There’s not reasonable privacy and security or staffing for infected but mild patients
That's good information, but I was not necessarily referring to the current Nightingale set up (though they may be the best starting point to develop it from). I am talking about specific Covid hospitals being assigned/developed.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese? It appears some research has conditioned on other factors like that:
Studies from the USA and France have adjusted for other factors - including, crucially, age - and found that the significant protective effect still holds. The working hypothesis is that nicotine is responsible.
But the writer is actually a bit tentative about the idea. However he quotes knee-jerk rejection by "authorities":
When asked about the smoking- coronavirus link on television recently, the celebrity doctor Xand van Tulleken said "I haven't looked into this particular piece of research but I would discount it completely. It is definitely wrong." Public Health England’s only contribution has been to assert that smokers who contract Covid-19 are 14 times more likely to die from it, based on a tiny Chinese study which included just five smokers.
the very old are 10,000 times more likely to die of this than the young. exacly 5 (five) people under 30 have died of this. Please all put this in perspective. gender, bame, working status, deprivation. These are rounding errors versus the age thing. this kills old people, and not young people. once we get that we can figure out the right response.
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
That’s not true. If he loses confidence of the public, we’re all in for a rough ride. He requires consent for his policies to work.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
I am not a smoker (could count the times I've had a cigarette on the fingers of one hand, but it can't be dismissed out of hand that this virus just doesn't find smoky tar-filled lungs as salubrious a location to settle and make babies as non-smoky lungs. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
This is what the peasant wagons are looking like in Manchester this week.
No masks?
I'm in no way convinced that masks will catch on.
You'd see I'm laughing but the mask hides it.
Masks are just the new normal now - irrationally. Mask-billionaires will no doubt be on tv soon displaying their wisdom.
Strong social consequences though.
Whenever I see someone wearing a mask I think "nob".
It's socially isolating, dystopian and a bit twattish.
Really? Nob?
I assume they are just following guidelines
A couple of weeks ago in Tesco there was a chap at the checkout with what looked like a full nuclear suit on with two air filters. He parked near me and he got in his car with the gear still on and drove off.
Looking out for the health and safety of their members.
How very dare they!
Nah. Risk is utterly minimal.
Brain-dead unions flexing their muscle at the expense of the kids for their usual political bullshit.
Minimal? Spending your day indoors with 30 kids unable to practice social distancing who don't show symptoms.
Kids under 10 don't really carry or transmit. Plus schools are already supposed to be dealing with 20% kids at present under *full lockdown* measures.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
More to the point “don’t engage with planning” is entirely negative
If they can’t reach agreement on safety protocols then advising against a return to work is one thing. Not planning is just about negotiating leverage.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese? Sorry Andy - I mixed up the blockquotes when replying.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I don't think smokers are less likely to be obese. But there is likely to be a confounding factor, such as many smokers succomb to lung diseases 10 years earlier on average, so there is an "excess of clean lungs" in the over 70 group.
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
That’s not true. If he loses confidence of the public, we’re all in for a rough ride. He requires consent for his policies to work.
Of course he doesn't
If you take that to the logical conclusion unpopular governments would not be able to govern
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
I agree with that - but it has to be very likely that he will be less popular in 2024 than he is at the moment.
This is what the peasant wagons are looking like in Manchester this week.
No masks?
I'm in no way convinced that masks will catch on.
You'd see I'm laughing but the mask hides it.
Masks are just the new normal now - irrationally. Mask-billionaires will no doubt be on tv soon displaying their wisdom.
Strong social consequences though.
Whenever I see someone wearing a mask I think "nob".
It's socially isolating, dystopian and a bit twattish.
Really? Nob?
I assume they are just following guidelines
A couple of weeks ago in Tesco there was a chap at the checkout with what looked like a full nuclear suit on with two air filters. He parked near me and he got in his car with the gear still on and drove off.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
This is what the peasant wagons are looking like in Manchester this week.
No masks?
I'm in no way convinced that masks will catch on.
You'd see I'm laughing but the mask hides it.
Masks are just the new normal now - irrationally. Mask-billionaires will no doubt be on tv soon displaying their wisdom.
Strong social consequences though.
Whenever I see someone wearing a mask I think "nob".
It's socially isolating, dystopian and a bit twattish.
Really? Nob?
I assume they are just following guidelines
A couple of weeks ago in Tesco there was a chap at the checkout with what looked like a full nuclear suit on with two air filters. He parked near me and he got in his car with the gear still on and drove off.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
We knew that when the Government didn't take the opportunity to ram home a no smoking message. Heavens! You're good at reading between the lines!
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
I am not a smoker (could count the times I've had a cigarette on the fingers of one hand, but it can't be dismissed out of hand that this virus just doesn't find smoky tar-filled lungs as salubrious a location to settle and make babies as non-smoky lungs. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
The 82% less likely is an incredible figure though. If they said taking vitamin D made it 82% less likely to be hospitalised with Covid then I imagine holland and Barrett would have a bit of a queue outside
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
20% tax on capital gains of primary residence.
Based on what? The sale value or the profit made? If profit, adjusted for inflation?
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
I agree with that - but it has to be very likely that he will be less popular in 2024 than he is at the moment.
It depends on the outcome of covid down the line to be fair
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
20% tax on capital gains of primary residence.
Now that is brave
No one would move....it would block the housing market over night.......
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
I agree with that - but it has to be very likely that he will be less popular in 2024 than he is at the moment.
It depends on the outcome of covid down the line to be fair
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
We knew that when the Government didn't take the opportunity to ram home a no smoking message. Heavens! You're good at reading between the lines!
I am. Said it at the time when PBers were saying the Gov't. should take the opportunity to stop people smoking.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
Have we yet seen any comments from sensible Trade Union leaders?
I've seen the stuff from Mary Bousted (previously NUT heavily influenced by SWP for many years), and presumably FBU, UCU etc incoming, and McCluskey who bought Corbyn's Labour, and the boss of the TUC saying exactly what she has always said (big government, micromanagement, everything proceduralised to the nth, and more money for my members).
"“While the ‘Roadmap’ does have clear logic and science behind it, the lack of detail in the strategy leaves members deeply worried.
"The health, safety, and wellbeing of all children and staff in schools, colleges and nurseries must be paramount.
"It is also essential that a reliable test, track and trace system is in place before schools and nurseries can accept more pupils and children.
"Success of this strategy requires teachers, support staff, early education and childcare workers, and parents to be confident that they and all pupils will be safe. It is therefore essential that there is transparency about the scientific and medical evidence on which the decisions and guidance are based and that they are clearly and quickly communicated.
"Although we appreciate the logic of the recently published guidance, we have a number of concerns about the practicalities, and how some aspects can be achieved.
"The aspiration that all primary children will have a month of education before the end of this academic year is, we believe, unrealistic, and reduces the phase period to three weeks. It also increases the planning burden on schools and staff, increasing their already demanding and large workload."
These are not pinko lefties. Used to be called PAT (Professional Association of Teachers)
For the avoidance of doubt, Voice is perhaps the least militant union in the history of the trade union movement... I've even seen it argued that since they refuse to engage in industrial action, they're not a "union" at all! (Hence the original moniker of "professional association" rather than "union".)
Whilst Voice – the union for education professionals reserves and recognises our legal right, and respects the right of others to take part in lawful industrial action, we do not support any form of industrial action (including but not limited to strike action) that is injurious to education or to the interests or welfare of those children, pupils and students in our care.
They even thought it prudent to add in the following clarification (dwell for a moment on how astonishing it is that this was felt to be needed):
Whilst Voice members do not take industrial action that is damaging to education, previous involvement in industrial action while a member of another union will not prevent you from becoming a member of Voice if you decide to change your union.
I was in ATL which was by some way the least hardline of the non-PAT unions where I was working, but very much a minority sport in any staff room I was a member of. I don't recall ever meeting someone in the PAT, the general consensus was that there was safety in numbers - and in teaching, the main attraction of union membership is armour-plating your backside in case something goes awry that could end your job or career, so having a union rep around, particularly a well-regarded one, was crucial. ATL has merged into the NUT now to form the NEU so I think Voice is the last "soft-line" education union left.
I thought the Farmers' Union was the least militant union. At one stage they were the only union with a Conservative Party affiliation.
the very old are 10,000 times more likely to die of this than the young. exacly 5 (five) people under 30 have died of this. Please all put this in perspective. gender, bame, working status, deprivation. These are rounding errors versus the age thing. this kills old people, and not young people. once we get that we can figure out the right response.
It leaves a lot of younger people with life limiting disabilities....kidney, heart, vascular etc....
It may not whack them in one go, but it fucks them up, and fucks up their lives and fucks the lives of people who are left caring for them....
But good point and very well presented comrade.....
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Beware comparative statistics in medical information. 82% less likely? What is the reference group? What are the actual underlying numbers?
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
One thing that Boris Johnson did on Sunday night was unite a lot of very moderate Welsh people against him. Many of us may not be big fans of Independence but given his apparent disdain to us Welsh there has definitely been a backlash over this side of Offa's Dyke. I dont think Plaid will benefit either. The previously unheard of Mark Drakeford has suddenly got a profile and comes over, despite lacking charisma, as someone straight forward and decent. Which is more than can be said about the Prime minister.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
I am not a smoker (could count the times I've had a cigarette on the fingers of one hand, but it can't be dismissed out of hand that this virus just doesn't find smoky tar-filled lungs as salubrious a location to settle and make babies as non-smoky lungs. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
The 82% less likely is an incredible figure though. If they said taking vitamin D made it 82% less likely to be hospitalised with Covid then I imagine holland and Barrett would have a bit of a queue outside
Vitamin D supplements are not terribly reliable. Supplements give you the precursors to Vitamin D. Sun is much better. Funny you should mention it, as it is also a huge factor.
Depressing times tonight. Looks like the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be a mirage.
How do you mean? I'm not seeing anything unusual in today's figures - test positive rate dropped to a new low, and death rate still seems on track to drop below 100/day at the same projected dates (26th for hospital deaths, 7th of next month for excess mortality).
Of course things can change with the loosening, plenty of pitfalls there, but we won't see those in the stats for a couple of weeks at least.
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Beware comparative statistics in medical information. 82% less likely? What is the reference group? What are the actual underlying numbers?
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?
Tim, your calculations relate to "those who are in their 20s". How about doing the calculation for those in their 80s? Not that I am convinced by this smoking protects idea enough to buy BAT!
p.s. still getting bugged by the blockquote mess-up, sorry!
In the last week, two meta-analyses combining findings from the scientific literature have been published. One of them suggested that smokers are 78 per cent less likely to ‘have an adverse outcome’ from Covid-19. The other suggested that smokers are 82 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with the disease in the first place. This is an enormous protective effect, if true.
But is it? As you might expect, the medical establishment is not exactly punching the air with joy at this news and every alternative explanation is being thoroughly explored. There are certainly reasons to be sceptical. Some of the studies have not yet been peer-reviewed and most of them rely on crude comparisons between the number of smokers with Covid-19 and the number of smokers in the general population.
Beware comparative statistics in medical information. 82% less likely? What is the reference group? What are the actual underlying numbers?
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?
Especially if you assume 35-40 become life long smokers with all the health consequences
Taxes will certainly increase. I suspect many people will accept that, although it wont affect the multi millionaire Tory donors who have already salted their money in off shore tax havens. Stuff like abolishing winter fuel allowance, triple pension lock, NI for pensioners could be done now, perhaps by the time of the next GE many affected wil not be around.
I realise this is probably tantamount to clubbing seals or dissing the Queen, but personally i don't have that high an opinion of the NHS. The depressing testing anecdotes mentioned here ring very true with my experience of a typical large organisation bureaucracy in the country, i.e. slow and often downright incompetent.
A relative received a large 6 figure sum in compensation when her husband died unnecessarily and the NHS admitted liability. My mother went through years of at times unbelievable bungles and incompetence including 2 years of misdiagnosis followed by 3 cancelled operations once they had eventually decided what was wrong, and and then to top it all off a district nurse accidentally removing an implant without her knowledge when she finally had it implanted at the 4th attempt. This resulted in her in the end having to have her leg amputated below the knee.
And my daughter has regular physio and associated appointments for a minorish ailment but i have lost count of the number of missed, cancelled and incorrectly booked (yet yawningly widely spaced) appointments over the last 3-4 years. Left hand and right hand are unacquainted, even my teenage daughter asks "why do i have to repeat myself and seemingly start from scratch every time i see a new doctor"
I could go on. Suffice to say, mainly lovely people (clearly with some excellent ones) but a frankly crap system. indeed a system which literally no other country on earth has chosen. I know it is now our national religion, but religions are based on faith and not facts it seems to me.
To what extent is our high death rate down to the NHS being a bit rubbish? I genuinely don't know the answer .
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
I agree with that - but it has to be very likely that he will be less popular in 2024 than he is at the moment.
It depends on the outcome of covid down the line to be fair
It could go either way
Serious question. The Tory party can be pretty ruthless when a leader falls out of favour. Can you see Boris Johnson blotting his copy book to the extent he is forced out. Is his own party imay be more likely to unseat him than Labour?
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
End the NI break for pensioners. Out of date and time to get rid.
Agree. My Dad still works and benefits heavily from this. Really no need when people his age are likely to rely on the NHS more the others. Politically 'brave' though.
20% tax on capital gains of primary residence.
Now that is brave
No one would move....it would block the housing market over night.......
It's a big few weeks coming up for the government. We need to see real progress on dealing with COVID 19 by end May in terms of reducing infection rates, hospitalisations and deaths, together with some genuine progress on loosening social restrictions ie as a minimum allowing one household to engage freely with another household from 1 June.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
You don’t have that much time.
Popularity and unpopularity is part of politics, but only 6 months into this parliament Boris has no need to be looking at the opinion polls either way
I agree with that - but it has to be very likely that he will be less popular in 2024 than he is at the moment.
It depends on the outcome of covid down the line to be fair
It could go either way
That might well determine the extent of the decline in his popularity but unlikely the fact of it. Virtually all PMs would be on a 'high' in the aftermath of a big electoral victory, and in addition Johnson has been buoyed by the desire for rallying around in a spirit of national unity to combat Covid together with a wave of sympathy for his own plight having been struck by this virus.It is very likely to be a matter of how far his popularity falls - and how quickly it comes about.
I think the smoking thing partly comes from a big data scientist study of medical records. I am just a layperson but I've seen a number of epidemiologists referring to 'collider bias'. I think it's that they've adjusted for every factor under the sun that it blocks the pathway for it (and hypertension) to death. So it is still very much a risk factor but that risk factor is also associated with other risk factors (I think).
Comments
Sounds good.
Prior to the changes of rules, people taking a short drive to a beauty spot were lambasted because “they might break down”.
I don’t have a car but a do own a bike. Presumably I shouldn’t use it in case I fall off?
We truly have a dark future if that's your view.
The only time I would is if I had to, ie in hospital or on public transport
But as I hope to avoid both (am in lockdown and do not go shopping) it is rather irrelevant to be fair
1. How data gathered and reliability. Excess deaths (very lagging ) would be a key indicator where available.
2. Population size.
3. The make up of each national population in terms of factors that affect clinical outcomes such as age, fitness / obesity, ethnic mix. The weighting of these also depends on painstaking analysis and scientific papers many yet to be published.
4. How virus spread started in each country.
5. Social and spatial considerations such as population density and transport modes and use.
There are probably more factors. Won't stop partisan point scoring and premature ejaculation of conclusions. Could be we are doing badly, could be we aren't.
So the idea it's bloody dangerous is absurd. Look at the risk stats. Teachers are one of the lowest risk professions.
Only 2-3% of key workers are sending kids to school. If they don't want to let me have one of the slots of that 17-18% headroom. I volunteer.
Behave like turnips and expect a bit of authoritarianism.
Mary Berry. Dame Judi Dench. Stephen Fry. Gareth Southgate.
"Wear a mask. It's what National Treasures do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VgrOUuklHk
It's a view.
I need to dash - all the best CR
My son is in head of IT (not teaching) and says his school has never been busier
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1260307673884561413?s=19
https://www.voicetheunion.org.uk/about-us/industrial-actionstrike
Whilst Voice – the union for education professionals reserves and recognises our legal right, and respects the right of others to take part in lawful industrial action, we do not support any form of industrial action (including but not limited to strike action) that is injurious to education or to the interests or welfare of those children, pupils and students in our care.
They even thought it prudent to add in the following clarification (dwell for a moment on how astonishing it is that this was felt to be needed):
Whilst Voice members do not take industrial action that is damaging to education, previous involvement in industrial action while a member of another union will not prevent you from becoming a member of Voice if you decide to change your union.
I was in ATL which was by some way the least hardline of the non-PAT unions where I was working, but very much a minority sport in any staff room I was a member of. I don't recall ever meeting someone in the PAT, the general consensus was that there was safety in numbers - and in teaching, the main attraction of union membership is armour-plating your backside in case something goes awry that could end your job or career, so having a union rep around, particularly a well-regarded one, was crucial. ATL has merged into the NUT now to form the NEU so I think Voice is the last "soft-line" education union left.
Covering your face with a mask is a bit rude and lazy, scares children, and prevents basic daily quality social interactions.
The message should be further details are coming, but lets try and see if we can make this work, in the meanwhile liaise with school management in order to flag up potential issues early.
It really, really doesn't work in schools.
Most primary kids are too exuberant. I've got one in Year 2, and she understands the situation really well, and she will inevitably run up and hug her teacher when she returns, because it's what seven year olds do. And somewhere in the country, an asymptomatic Year 2 will do that and set off a cluster of infections. That might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
Some secondary kids are too horrible. There have been cases already of people dying because they have been spat on. There are some teenagers who are nasty enough to either do this deliberately, or do it as a joke that kills people. Again, that might be the right thing to do statistically, but do you want to live near that cluster?
By all means, open up schools. But don't think you can apply the same risk management to schools that you can to other workplaces. Children don't work like that. Getting them to wear PPE for chemistry experiments is hard enough!
Income tax - workers have benefited from furlough and pensioners from lockdown as they are most at risk - its fairer to put it on income tax than NI
State pension freeze - entirely reasonable, pensioners have done well out of triple lock.
Maybe some other things should be included eg restrict tax relief on pension contributions to basis rate, will save a huge amount of money
If they can’t reach agreement on safety protocols then advising against a return to work is one thing. Not planning is just about negotiating leverage.
Get everyone working, seperate out Covid from the rest of the NHS, and fund as many spaces as are needed.
I am though definitely nervous around strangers. I don't like people being nearby in the supermarket. I can't imagine being able to endure sitting next to a stranger on a train, or in a cinema.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/12/can-afford-ignore-growing-link-nicotine-covid-19-survival/
(Pay-walled) Snippet:
I assume they are just following guidelines
Could it be because smokers are less likely to be obese?
Cue
HYUFD. Boris will not increase taxes, manifesto etc, etc, etc
The school building is open for the children of key workers. That (I imagine) is manageable because there is a reasonable excess of space. In theory you could have more children in, but you couldn't open up to 3 year groups out of 7 (R, 1 and 6) tomorrow. That will eventually look different, as the case count falls, and 1 June is possible but very optimistic.
The staff are therefore supervising children on-site, keeping in touch with the rest by phone and email and planning and marking work. I don't envy them.
If this doesn't happen the government severely risks losing the goodwill and support of the people. And I say this as a gentle and moderate Government supporter.
We knew that when the Government didn't take the opportunity to ram home a no smoking message.
There’s not reasonable privacy and security or staffing for infected but mild patients
This truly is the oddest virus, start smoking to save your life
I'd think if they've not controlled for age then the fact smokers die younger could be a factor too?
WHO has been saying the opposite -
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/11-05-2020-who-statement-tobacco-use-and-covid-19
But it's also a question of whethjer it's the smoking or the nicotine.
Will be interesting to see the conclusion. I did wonder if part of it was that the vulnerable sniokers had been killed off already ...
It appears some research has conditioned on other factors like that: But the writer is actually a bit tentative about the idea. However he quotes knee-jerk rejection by "authorities":
I don't like people covering their face.
Period.
I am not a smoker (could count the times I've had a cigarette on the fingers of one hand, but it can't be dismissed out of hand that this virus just doesn't find smoky tar-filled lungs as salubrious a location to settle and make babies as non-smoky lungs. It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
Sorry Andy - I mixed up the blockquotes when replying.
I don't think smokers are less likely to be obese. But there is likely to be a confounding factor, such as many smokers succomb to lung diseases 10 years earlier on average, so there is an "excess of clean lungs" in the over 70 group.
If you take that to the logical conclusion unpopular governments would not be able to govern
I'd also add cancelling the extra 20k rozzers to the list.
The 82% less likely is an incredible figure though. If they said taking vitamin D made it 82% less likely to be hospitalised with Covid then I imagine holland and Barrett would have a bit of a queue outside
I think this last comment invalidates anything you say...it's your David Icke moment...get on the meds and fuck off....
It could go either way
Namely that you're not first on the new thread.
I am.
Many people do not like wearing masks
Indeed I will not as it inhibits my copd, though I would have to on public transport or in hospital, both of which I hope to avoid
It may not whack them in one go, but it fucks them up, and fucks up their lives and fucks the lives of people who are left caring for them....
But good point and very well presented comrade.....
Trident isn't making a huge case for itself either at the present time. Not like we can fire it at a disease...
Seriously, this level of debate is shocking....if wearing a mask saves lives, wear a fucking mask and do not fucking moan about it.....
Beware comparative statistics in medical information. 82% less likely? What is the reference group? What are the actual underlying numbers?
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?
Vitamin D supplements are not terribly reliable. Supplements give you the precursors to Vitamin D. Sun is much better. Funny you should mention it, as it is also a huge factor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRwts0iztVs
Of course things can change with the loosening, plenty of pitfalls there, but we won't see those in the stats for a couple of weeks at least.
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?
Tim, your calculations relate to "those who are in their 20s". How about doing the calculation for those in their 80s?
Not that I am convinced by this smoking protects idea enough to buy BAT!
p.s. still getting bugged by the blockquote mess-up, sorry!
I am not dismissing the paper, but let's look at the maths in absolute terms.
Those who are in their 20s have about a 1% chance of hospitalization if they catch the virus.
So 10 in 1000 will require hospitalization.
An 82% reduction in that means that 2 in 1000 smokers in that age group require hospitalization.
So the absolute reduction in risk, not comparative reduction, is from 1% to 0.2%, i.e. a 0.8% reduction in risk.
So, even if one accepts a 100% causality here, for 8 people to be saved hospitalization, 1000 non-smokers would have to take up smoking, or a NNT (number needed to treat) or 125 per 1 saved hospitalization.
Doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?
Especially if you assume 35-40 become life long smokers with all the health consequences
Stuff like abolishing winter fuel allowance, triple pension lock, NI for pensioners could be done now, perhaps by the time of the next GE many affected wil not be around.