Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Could it be even at this late stage that Trump doesn’t become

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 24 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Could it be even at this late stage that Trump doesn’t become the nominee?

The above video is one of a series of hard attacking ads against Donald Trump that are being produced by an apparently well funded Republican organisation called the Lincoln Project. They are aimed at the Republicans and the aim is to raise doubts about the incumbent’s fitness to continue in office and so preventing a second term.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,099
    edited June 24
    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    Sneaky second
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,099
    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    The problem is that it's not up to "Republicans", it's up to the delegates to their convention, and these people are *Trump* delegates, and presumably more committed to Trump than to the Republican Party.

    So to get rid of Trump you need to somehow persuade *Trump* that it's a bad idea for him to run. You might try to persuade him that he's doomed to defeat, but he's not exactly renowned for listening to dispassionate expertise, and he looked doomed last time and still came back and won.

    There's also the possibility of ill health or death, and there is a pandemic raging, but the probability of nature stepping in by November recedes with every month he survives.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,829
    edited June 24
    Good morning folks!
    On topic, I'm waiting to see what 'funnies' Trump comes out with in Arizona, a State where the virus is definitely spreading.

    And we plan to go and see family on Saturday; first time we'll have seen that group of grandchildren in the flesh for ages.
    Does anyone else find that pre-and early teens are not coping well with isolation from their friends? Becoming withdrawn?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    Deferring the election seems to be procedurally almost impossible, unless the Democrats also cooperate. He could of course try to get away with doing things that are obviously illegal, but if he was going to do that it seems more useful to rig it than delay it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,598
    There's 1.07 to lay on Betfair if you're so inclined. I took a little as a saver.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,829

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    That would mean an amendment to the constitution, wouldn't it? Or at least the agreement of 'most' states?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Quick test.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    I am not sure the linked video, and others in the series, are all bad for Trump. First there is nothing new; second, if the contrast is with Biden, or with Pence, the divide is not great.
  • whunterwhunter Posts: 60

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,382

    I am not sure the linked video, and others in the series, are all bad for Trump. First there is nothing new; second, if the contrast is with Biden, or with Pence, the divide is not great.

    Trump is a big part of the problem, Pence might be ineffective but would not be actively helping coronavirus.
    Biden recognised the danger of in JANUARY!
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/nobody-expected-the-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-did.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649
    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 24

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    That would mean an amendment to the constitution, wouldn't it? Or at least the agreement of 'most' states?

    Depends how long you defer it for.

    However, in practice I don’t think it’s possible. If elections could be held in 1864 and 1944 it could only be because there is no real way of postponing them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    And there is no second wave
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    edited June 24
    SCOTUS would be 9-0 against an election delay. I doubt Thomas and Alito let alone Gorsuch and Roberts would entertain such nonsense.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,254
    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460

    I am not sure the linked video, and others in the series, are all bad for Trump. First there is nothing new; second, if the contrast is with Biden, or with Pence, the divide is not great.

    Trump is a big part of the problem, Pence might be ineffective but would not be actively helping coronavirus.
    Biden recognised the danger of in JANUARY!
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/nobody-expected-the-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-did.html
    It is not about the pandemic -- well, this particular video is, but in general the theme is that Trump is at best erratic and unsuited to the Presidency. Trouble is, even if one is persuaded by these campaigns, one look at Pence or Biden is enough to send the average Trump voter scuttling back.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 24
    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,829



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    And if and when they do it will be ruthless
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    ydoethur said:

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    That would mean an amendment to the constitution, wouldn't it? Or at least the agreement of 'most' states?

    Depends how long you defer it for.

    However, in practice I don’t think it’s possible. If elections could be held in 1864 and 1944 it could only be because there is no real way of postponing them.
    The pandemic will not cancel or postpone the election. It will provide cover for even more vote suppression, as polling station capacity is reduced.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    As an alternative take, is there any chance Donald Trump will try to have the election deferred?

    That would mean an amendment to the constitution, wouldn't it? Or at least the agreement of 'most' states?

    Depends how long you defer it for.

    However, in practice I don’t think it’s possible. If elections could be held in 1864 and 1944 it could only be because there is no real way of postponing them.
    The pandemic will not cancel or postpone the election. It will provide cover for even more vote suppression, as polling station capacity is reduced.
    Agree, in a suitably grim and foreboding tone of voice.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Pulpstar said:

    SCOTUS would be 9-0 against an election delay. I doubt Thomas and Alito let alone Gorsuch and Roberts would entertain such nonsense.

    Yeah, but Kavanaugh would be up for it.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,254
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. Redundancies across my industry of 25 - 50% fairly standard now. But interestingly 25% seems to have been the quoted figure for friends in companies in unrelated industries.

    A lot more people waking up to the fact they won't be coming back off furlough.

    You are right that "was it all worth it" will be the mood music of the next few months (before Wave II comes...)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    Countries from Germany to Vietnam got test and trace right, so why didn't England?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/16/germany-vietnam-test-trace-england-coronavirus
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 182
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    It is interesting to see the anecdotes of those PBers who think they have had Covid or know people who have.

    If it turns out that the virus has gone through a large segment of the population asymptomatically then there will be hell to pay (politically) for stopping tests across the population to determine the overall infection rate. The UK only tested people in hospitals.

    Was the lockdown necessary? What would be the political price if people think the lockdown was a mistake?

    The antibody surveys suggest nothing of the sort though.
    CCAD doesn’t show up in antibody tests, though.
    Apart from the absence of a spike in death rates, 2 other factors indicate that whatever bug was around in Dec, it was not Covid-19. The flu survey does viral swabs on people with respiratory symptoms on representative GP practices, and did not find it until late Feb. Secondly the genetic tracing shows that there were multiple introductions from Spain and Italy in late Feb.
    No, it was Christmas Cold Anecdote Disease, like I said.

    Very contagious, though. Apparently patient zero is, or was, a regular here.
    /resurrection

    I was entirely convinced that what my brother in law had in December was CCAD. (or CFAD). I told him so many times.

    But...don't forget...the source of this CCAD has now tested antibody positive. Perhaps he had an asymptomatic case in March or April, but it is a bit of a coincidence!

    Will the antibody test ever become generally available?





  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649
    Trump must go, but what next? Could be brutal For Biden. Four years of clearing up Trumps mess will make re-election hard to achieve. What will Trump do if he loses? Will he retire or carry on in some form, plotting a comeback. Can his gang hold the GOP and win Congress.

    In short winning the White House this November, might not be enough to rid the world of Trump. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. Redundancies across my industry of 25 - 50% fairly standard now. But interestingly 25% seems to have been the quoted figure for friends in companies in unrelated industries.

    A lot more people waking up to the fact they won't be coming back off furlough.

    You are right that "was it all worth it" will be the mood music of the next few months (before Wave II comes...)
    what is your industry?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 24
    Jonathan said:

    Trump must go, but what next? Could be brutal For Biden. Four years of clearing up Trumps mess will make re-election hard to achieve. What will Trump do if he loses? Will he retire or carry on in some form, plotting a comeback. Can his gang hold the GOP and win Congress.

    In short winning the White House this November, might not be enough to rid the world of Trump. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory.

    The advantage of electing Biden, therefore, is that his age makes it most unlikely he will seek re-election.

    He can take the hit, and then someone else come in.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,080
    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,157
    IanB2 said:

    Countries from Germany to Vietnam got test and trace right, so why didn't England?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/16/germany-vietnam-test-trace-england-coronavirus

    Vietnam is an amazing success story:

    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/viet-nam/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180
    Trump looked a very unhappy and defeated soul when coming off his helicopter from Tulsa. It is the first time I honestly wondered if he might decide the game was up. But he is resilient and had set backs when seeking the nomination the last time that would have ended the campaigns of other candidates. A man who can survive the video about pussy grabbing does not embarrass easily.

    I think he will be the candidate. I think that we will see even more of the distortions, dirty tricks and outright lies that we saw with "crooked Hillary". I fear we will see repeats of the nonsense of 600k+ people and one polling station. I remain fearful that this vile man will find a way to win. But, thankfully, it looks increasingly unlikely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 24
    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. Redundancies across my industry of 25 - 50% fairly standard now. But interestingly 25% seems to have been the quoted figure for friends in companies in unrelated industries.

    A lot more people waking up to the fact they won't be coming back off furlough.

    You are right that "was it all worth it" will be the mood music of the next few months (before Wave II comes...)
    Again though, this may have happened despite the lockdown. The world economy has had a major heart attack, and that would have happened whether we, as a country, had locked down or not. New Zealand is pondering 15% unemployment even though their lockdown was short and sharp and is now over.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,080
    malcolmg said:

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. Redundancies across my industry of 25 - 50% fairly standard now. But interestingly 25% seems to have been the quoted figure for friends in companies in unrelated industries.

    A lot more people waking up to the fact they won't be coming back off furlough.

    You are right that "was it all worth it" will be the mood music of the next few months (before Wave II comes...)
    what is your industry?
    I think it is turnips.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Johnson almost certainly would have done and withdrew.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    DavidL said:

    Trump looked a very unhappy and defeated soul when coming off his helicopter from Tulsa. It is the first time I honestly wondered if he might decide the game was up. But he is resilient and had set backs when seeking the nomination the last time that would have ended the campaigns of other candidates. A man who can survive the video about pussy grabbing does not embarrass easily.

    I think he will be the candidate. I think that we will see even more of the distortions, dirty tricks and outright lies that we saw with "crooked Hillary". I fear we will see repeats of the nonsense of 600k+ people and one polling station. I remain fearful that this vile man will find a way to win. But, thankfully, it looks increasingly unlikely.

    I concur. A "normal" politician of his age would bow out rather than risk losing but that isnt him. And if he is not president again he knows he is facing countless state investigations and likely charges for the rest of his life regardless of giving himself a federal pardon. He has nothing to lose.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
    What if Osborne, Gauke and Rudd joined the Lib Dems and the yellow peril Got off the fence took the Orange book path. Would be a curious development in British politics.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Lyndon Johnson quit when he realised he wouldn't get it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    It is interesting to see the anecdotes of those PBers who think they have had Covid or know people who have.

    If it turns out that the virus has gone through a large segment of the population asymptomatically then there will be hell to pay (politically) for stopping tests across the population to determine the overall infection rate. The UK only tested people in hospitals.

    Was the lockdown necessary? What would be the political price if people think the lockdown was a mistake?

    The antibody surveys suggest nothing of the sort though.
    CCAD doesn’t show up in antibody tests, though.
    Apart from the absence of a spike in death rates, 2 other factors indicate that whatever bug was around in Dec, it was not Covid-19. The flu survey does viral swabs on people with respiratory symptoms on representative GP practices, and did not find it until late Feb. Secondly the genetic tracing shows that there were multiple introductions from Spain and Italy in late Feb.
    No, it was Christmas Cold Anecdote Disease, like I said.

    Very contagious, though. Apparently patient zero is, or was, a regular here.
    /resurrection

    I was entirely convinced that what my brother in law had in December was CCAD. (or CFAD). I told him so many times.

    But...don't forget...the source of this CCAD has now tested antibody positive. Perhaps he had an asymptomatic case in March or April, but it is a bit of a coincidence!

    Will the antibody test ever become generally available?





    If you search coronavirus antibody test and your location a good search engine should find options in the £60-120 price range. Not sure if it will eventually be available for everyone free, doubt they have decided that yet.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    ydoethur said:

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
    Ah hem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    ydoethur said:

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
    And Ford wasn't nominated in the first place.

    Have you been drinking?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. Redundancies across my industry of 25 - 50% fairly standard now. But interestingly 25% seems to have been the quoted figure for friends in companies in unrelated industries.

    A lot more people waking up to the fact they won't be coming back off furlough.

    You are right that "was it all worth it" will be the mood music of the next few months (before Wave II comes...)
    Again though, this may have happened despite the lockdown. The world economy has had a major heart attack, and that would have happened whether we, as a country, had locked down or not. New Zealand is pondering 15% unemployment even though their lockdown was short and sharp and is now over.
    Exactly so. There has been a major interruption in supply because of the lockdown but there has also been a major reduction in demand which the newly printed cash of the central banks has only partly filled. The number of industries facing major ongoing disruption is long: aeroplane companies and all related to them, tourism companies, restaurants, cafes, hotels, attractions, etc. etc. They are also major employers of largely unskilled labour which is going to be a particular challenge to replace.

    Even supermarket retail is not completely immune as my daughter sadly found out yesterday. Our spending patterns have been disrupted and will remain so.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,179
    ydoethur said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    I foresaw this. I said the price of a successful lockdown would be everyone would say it wasn’t needed.

    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. We can’t know because if it had run riot we don’t know what the effects would have been. Although Brazil might be about to give some indication. :frowning:

    What I do say is that what has happened up to now will be less important than the way the government manages the recovery. The epic clusterfuck they have made of reopening schools doesn’t fill me with confidence.
    I somehow doubt that most of those saying “the lockdown was unnecessary because look, the virus came down anyway” would also have said that “austerity was unnecessary because look, the deficit came down anyway” (prior to the pandemic).

    Causality seems to exist only dependent on the desire of the speaker.



  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    And if and when they do it will be ruthless
    Why? The Tories have this reputation but when you look at history it’s a myth
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
    Surely in a close election the trick would be to propose someone with cross party support.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    Jonathan said:

    Trump must go, but what next? Could be brutal For Biden. Four years of clearing up Trumps mess will make re-election hard to achieve. What will Trump do if he loses? Will he retire or carry on in some form, plotting a comeback. Can his gang hold the GOP and win Congress.

    In short winning the White House this November, might not be enough to rid the world of Trump. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory.

    Biden will make exactly the same mistake as Obama did and will not persue criminal charges against the corrupt fucks of the previous administration.

    The Trump admin is making people forget how corrupt the GWB admin was and the failure to punish them for their corruption emboldened the GOP.

    And Biden has signalled he will be jusy as soft, if not more so.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
    Ah hem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
    He started, then he withdrew. So he didn’t ‘fight the primaries.’
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
    And Ford wasn't nominated in the first place.

    Have you been drinking?
    Ford was the incumbent president, which was the key point.

    Honestly, has Hyufd hacked your account? I’ll be watching closely to see if you start dissing Radiohead...
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 182

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    It is interesting to see the anecdotes of those PBers who think they have had Covid or know people who have.

    If it turns out that the virus has gone through a large segment of the population asymptomatically then there will be hell to pay (politically) for stopping tests across the population to determine the overall infection rate. The UK only tested people in hospitals.

    Was the lockdown necessary? What would be the political price if people think the lockdown was a mistake?

    The antibody surveys suggest nothing of the sort though.
    CCAD doesn’t show up in antibody tests, though.
    Apart from the absence of a spike in death rates, 2 other factors indicate that whatever bug was around in Dec, it was not Covid-19. The flu survey does viral swabs on people with respiratory symptoms on representative GP practices, and did not find it until late Feb. Secondly the genetic tracing shows that there were multiple introductions from Spain and Italy in late Feb.
    No, it was Christmas Cold Anecdote Disease, like I said.

    Very contagious, though. Apparently patient zero is, or was, a regular here.
    /resurrection

    I was entirely convinced that what my brother in law had in December was CCAD. (or CFAD). I told him so many times.

    But...don't forget...the source of this CCAD has now tested antibody positive. Perhaps he had an asymptomatic case in March or April, but it is a bit of a coincidence!

    Will the antibody test ever become generally available?





    If you search coronavirus antibody test and your location a good search engine should find options in the £60-120 price range. Not sure if it will eventually be available for everyone free, doubt they have decided that yet.
    I thought that the finger prick method (which most of these are) wasn't particularly reliable? I suppose any errors will be false negatives though, which isn't a huge deal.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
    Surely in a close election the trick would be to propose someone with cross party support.
    Yes. But can you really see Pelosi letting the chance slip out of her fingers?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 127

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    It is interesting to see the anecdotes of those PBers who think they have had Covid or know people who have.

    If it turns out that the virus has gone through a large segment of the population asymptomatically then there will be hell to pay (politically) for stopping tests across the population to determine the overall infection rate. The UK only tested people in hospitals.

    Was the lockdown necessary? What would be the political price if people think the lockdown was a mistake?

    The antibody surveys suggest nothing of the sort though.
    CCAD doesn’t show up in antibody tests, though.
    Apart from the absence of a spike in death rates, 2 other factors indicate that whatever bug was around in Dec, it was not Covid-19. The flu survey does viral swabs on people with respiratory symptoms on representative GP practices, and did not find it until late Feb. Secondly the genetic tracing shows that there were multiple introductions from Spain and Italy in late Feb.
    No, it was Christmas Cold Anecdote Disease, like I said.

    Very contagious, though. Apparently patient zero is, or was, a regular here.
    /resurrection

    I was entirely convinced that what my brother in law had in December was CCAD. (or CFAD). I told him so many times.

    But...don't forget...the source of this CCAD has now tested antibody positive. Perhaps he had an asymptomatic case in March or April, but it is a bit of a coincidence!

    Will the antibody test ever become generally available?





    One other thing - recent reports from Italy show the earlier presence of Covid in the sewage (can't remember how early off hand). We have had people looking at UK sewage too, and not seen similar evidence (to my knowledge). Its entirely possible that some of the Christmas bugs were covid, but as others have said it seems likely that not many were, else the spread would have taken off much sooner. Never forget there are LOTS of bugs out there that are not Covid.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    Jonathan said:



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
    What if Osborne, Gauke and Rudd joined the Lib Dems and the yellow peril Got off the fence took the Orange book path. Would be a curious development in British politics.
    We'd call it TIG/CUK II and the voters would show their contempt like last time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    Only covid could stop Trump becoming the nominee.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649
    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
    Surely in a close election the trick would be to propose someone with cross party support.
    Yes. But can you really see Pelosi letting the chance slip out of her fingers?
    Surely the chance would be to be kingmaker not king.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,829



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    And if and when they do it will be ruthless
    There I agree. Ruthless and possibly nasty.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    edited June 24
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    France and Spain needed to be a lot more strict, but Germany and particularly Sweden much less so, in order to produce equivalent changes in behaviour from their populations.

    You are making the mistake of looking at the input, not the output.

    The exception is the US, which has taken a Swedish approach to a population that really needs a Chinese approach.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 10,949
    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    You are assuming against the evidence that social distancing has had limited effect on reducing mortality. That evidence suggests eventually around half a million deaths in the UK (IFR of ca 1%), if people don't change their behaviours to prevent transmission. You are also not considering the counterfactuals. If people choose not to go to the pub regardless of what the government tells them, that pub doesn't get their business. And if they don't modify their behaviour the raging epidemic will wreak its own direct damage on the economy.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649

    Jonathan said:



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
    What if Osborne, Gauke and Rudd joined the Lib Dems and the yellow peril Got off the fence took the Orange book path. Would be a curious development in British politics.
    We'd call it TIG/CUK II and the voters would show their contempt like last time.
    Not sure, with a decent four year run in, an established party brand and some genuinely heavyweight politicians (Not Soubry) it might turn out different.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,577

    DavidL said:

    Trump looked a very unhappy and defeated soul when coming off his helicopter from Tulsa. It is the first time I honestly wondered if he might decide the game was up. But he is resilient and had set backs when seeking the nomination the last time that would have ended the campaigns of other candidates. A man who can survive the video about pussy grabbing does not embarrass easily.

    I think he will be the candidate. I think that we will see even more of the distortions, dirty tricks and outright lies that we saw with "crooked Hillary". I fear we will see repeats of the nonsense of 600k+ people and one polling station. I remain fearful that this vile man will find a way to win. But, thankfully, it looks increasingly unlikely.

    I concur. A "normal" politician of his age would bow out rather than risk losing but that isnt him. And if he is not president again he knows he is facing countless state investigations and likely charges for the rest of his life regardless of giving himself a federal pardon. He has nothing to lose.
    Also, honestly, if you're a professional politician and you reach the top and have a moderately decent chance of staying there, of course you don't quit. It's like a judge resigning shortly after being appointed to the supreme court - why would they?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 24
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
    It is established that if there is no victor in the Electoral College the Presidency is decided by the House, the Vice Presidency by the Senate.

    Now, this is where it gets murky. In theory, if there is no winner from the Presidential election, it then goes to the nominated Vice President. That could be done by the Senate. However, you could argue that if there is no election, there is no Vice President either. Therefore, the House could claim the right to nominate an acting President, and there would be a logic to putting forward the Speaker as third in line.

    Of course, there might be other problems and other solutions. The senate could nominate a rival claimant. In which case, it would end in the Supreme Court. Or Congress could meet in joint session, in which case the Dems would still have a majority. Or Congress itself might be declared not to be valid, as there had been no elections. In which case the only real solution would be for the non-disqualified members of the Senate to vote on matters.

    But my instinct is it would go to the House. That’s the simplest, quickest and most logical route to follow.

    In a sense though this is moot. Because what matters is what Trump understands. The moment he appreciates that if there are no elections he’s more buggered than a reluctant Turkish conscript, it doesn’t matter what subsequent process will be followed - he’ll make damn good and sure there are elections, and as noted upthread, the pandemic actually offers him massive advantages in terms of winning again despite being more out his depth than a midge swimming in the Mindanao Deep.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,388
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
    What if Osborne, Gauke and Rudd joined the Lib Dems and the yellow peril Got off the fence took the Orange book path. Would be a curious development in British politics.
    We'd call it TIG/CUK II and the voters would show their contempt like last time.
    Not sure, with a decent four year run in, an established party brand and some genuinely heavyweight politicians (Not Soubry) it might turn out different.
    It's an interesting thought but if Moran wins it looks like the LDs will be chasing the votes of the Momentum crowd instead.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,056
    Pulpstar said:

    Only covid could stop Trump becoming the nominee.

    Trump isn't going to step down as staying on as POTUS is his best shot at staying out of jail.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 10,949
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    France and Spain needed to be a lot more strict, but Germany and particularly Sweden much less so, in order to produce equivalent changes in behaviour from their populations.

    You are making the mistake of looking at the input, not the output.

    The exception is the US, which has taken a Swedish approach to a population that really needs a Chinese approach.
    I'm not sure that's the case. Germany managed not to lose control, Sweden lost control and France did lose control in parts of the country while other parts have been essentially virus free.

    By "control", I mean keeping the cases to sporadic outbreaks. You can live with those.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,386
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 693
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    And the fact that infections had peaked before the lockdown
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 139
    It seems clear to me that lockdown - both the government sanctioned one and the de facto one that many people had started before the government announcement - has saved many thousands of lives. Of course it has damaged the economy, but doing nothing would have ended up with more damage to both lives and the economy.

    I have one issue with yesterday's announcement: I think opening up pubs, restaurants etc. to indoor use is too risky, and could cause a huge spike (and therefore damage the economy) as people gather to watch football in the pub etc. Social distancing of any sort will go out of the window. Our infection rates are still too high to risk this.

    My suggestion: no indoor use of cafes, restaurants, bars during July or August while the weather is good. Review for September. But allow and encourage outdoor use now by letting all hospitality outlets expand tables and chairs outside as far as possible. Crucially, give local authorities immediate powers to close roads to traffic where appropriate to let pubs, cafes etc. sprawl unhindered across the streets of town and city centres.

    A true continental cafe, pedestrianised culture here in the UK, and environmentally sound. And I think more people would go out and spend safe in the knowledge that transmission outside is much less likely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    Scott_xP said:
    Cummings doesn’t rate anybody. He genuinely thinks he is one of the greatest intellects of our times, the last true polymath.

    The problem, and it is a very big problem, is that he is totally wrong. He is fizzing with imagination and mostly rather bizarre ideas, but is lazy and arrogant and as a result has no idea how to implement them, and as his understanding of the world around him is very limited he genuinely doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions so most of his attempts to implement his policies have been disastrous.

    That’s why he is both a magnificent campaigner, and a rotten administrator whose business ventures all failed, and who kept losing his battles at the DfE, even as he thought he was winning most of them.

    It’s also why he made such a shambles of his personal quarantine.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 35,920
    It's possible (8/1 or 10/1?) which is why I'm laying Trump for nominee a tad at 1.06.

    Value.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,386
    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    Do you know that people have been returning to work since late April or that infections are down 99% ?

    Or is that a bit to real world for the house cowerers ?

    And if you think a second wave is coming then isn't increasing herd immunity now a good idea ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    Alistair said:

    Jonathan said:

    Trump must go, but what next? Could be brutal For Biden. Four years of clearing up Trumps mess will make re-election hard to achieve. What will Trump do if he loses? Will he retire or carry on in some form, plotting a comeback. Can his gang hold the GOP and win Congress.

    In short winning the White House this November, might not be enough to rid the world of Trump. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory.

    Biden will make exactly the same mistake as Obama did and will not persue criminal charges against the corrupt fucks of the previous administration.

    The Trump admin is making people forget how corrupt the GWB admin was and the failure to punish them for their corruption emboldened the GOP.

    And Biden has signalled he will be jusy as soft, if not more so.
    What was Biden's signal? IIUC he's said he won't pardon Trump, and he'd let the Justice Department make the decision independently. I'm sure he won't leave Trump cronies in place, and I'm guessing career prosecutors won't be feeling particularly charitable towards Trump/Guiliani/Barr.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Most of the people talking about wanting entry to the UK stopped in March werent doing so at the time. Of those that did contemperaneously, the vast majority were wanting to stop flights from China, S Korea, Japan, Iran and Italy. Yet the majority of infections came from Spain and France, with only 0.1% from China. And once we locked down flight traffic was down 99% with virtually no tourists, just UK citizens and residents returning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,583
    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Good post. There will be differences of degree but acting like economic catastrophe would not have occurred anyway is just silly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,180

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Indeed. And they are still fighting quarantine for visitors yet. I have just never understood the reluctance to acknowledge the clear risk of those coming from virus hotspots to partake of our hospitality.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,583

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:



    Jonathan said:

    Tories need a Lincoln Project in the UK to fight back against Boris/Cummings divisiveness. The Churchill project perhaps.

    The party will not take action against Boris before next spring and well post brexit transition

    Indeed he may last longer, but that depends on covid and how Boris and Rishi deal with the economy
    The Tories raison d'être is to keep them and their friends in power.

    They won't move against Boris unless and until he looks like losing.
    There are a great many never-Boris Conservatives, many of whom have recently left the party, including some distinguished ex-ministers purged by Boris.

    There might also be some Conservatives who care about Brexit. Unlikely, I know. What Boris and Cummings realise is that, especially since David Cameron did not force Eurosceptics to define Brexit before the referendum, is that most Brexiteers care only for the fact of Brexit, not the nature of it. This includes the Prime Minister himself.

    But it is possible that for one or two Brexiteers, the ones not appointed to the Cabinet to act as human shields, Boris's BINO, aggravated by his tactic of capitulating to the EU while declaring victory (shades of Trump!) might prove a step not far enough.
    What if Osborne, Gauke and Rudd joined the Lib Dems and the yellow peril Got off the fence took the Orange book path. Would be a curious development in British politics.
    We'd call it TIG/CUK II and the voters would show their contempt like last time.
    Not sure, with a decent four year run in, an established party brand and some genuinely heavyweight politicians (Not Soubry) it might turn out different.
    It's an interesting thought but if Moran wins it looks like the LDs will be chasing the votes of the Momentum crowd instead.
    Well, that limits the options of non conservatives who are not far left considerably.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has an incumbent ever failed to get the nomination for the second term?

    Not since the nineteenth century. Arthur, Hayes, Buchanan etc.

    I think the closest anyone came in the twentieth century was Taft, who nearly lost to Roosevelt, and Johnson, who could have lost had he actually fought the primaries.

    But even Ford and Hoover were renominated.
    Ah hem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
    He started, then he withdrew. So he didn’t ‘fight the primaries.’
    How many primaries is one required to have fought to satisfy the condition "fought the primaries"?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    It's a decent article, but overly generous on the motivations of Trump's craven enablers who are aware of how appalling he is.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,386

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Most of the people talking about wanting entry to the UK stopped in March werent doing so at the time. Of those that did contemperaneously, the vast majority were wanting to stop flights from China, S Korea, Japan, Iran and Italy. Yet the majority of infections came from Spain and France, with only 0.1% from China. And once we locked down flight traffic was down 99% with virtually no tourists, just UK citizens and residents returning.
    We were still allowing people to fly to Spain until the middle of March (I know some people who were at the airport on Saturday 14th when their flight was cancelled) even though Spain was known to have a major problem by then.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 10,949
    edited June 24
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    Social distancing put in place before lockdown had a useful effect in that even more people would have lost their live otherwise. However the lateness of our official lockdown did cost thousands of lives. Re came down but still being well over 1 meant the epidemic was growing exponentially. It is also evidenced by comparing our curve with those of other countries, where we had tens of thousands excess deaths.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    edited June 24
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    You say “in practice the House”

    Is that clear? I could see the Senate rejecting Pelosi and Trump arguing that there is deadlock so the incumbent remains in place
    Surely in a close election the trick would be to propose someone with cross party support.
    Yes. But can you really see Pelosi letting the chance slip out of her fingers?
    Surely the chance would be to be kingmaker not king.
    Never underestimate Pelosi’s arrogance and ambition

    Edit: to be clearer, the role of kingmaker requires the self-awareness to understand that you will never be a successful candidate for the role of king. I don’t believe Pelosi has that.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 5,345
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Cummings doesn’t rate anybody. He genuinely thinks he is one of the greatest intellects of our times, the last true polymath.

    The problem, and it is a very big problem, is that he is totally wrong. He is fizzing with imagination and mostly rather bizarre ideas, but is lazy and arrogant and as a result has no idea how to implement them, and as his understanding of the world around him is very limited he genuinely doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions so most of his attempts to implement his policies have been disastrous.

    That’s why he is both a magnificent campaigner, and a rotten administrator whose business ventures all failed, and who kept losing his battles at the DfE, even as he thought he was winning most of them.

    It’s also why he made such a shambles of his personal quarantine.
    Lazy?
    Agree with everything else, but lazy?
    The evidence suggests that Cummings (and Gove) are running the country while Johnson fiddles.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    Scott_xP said:
    We saw this at education where decentralising Dom allowed a couple of Free Schools but for the rest, turned Michael Gove's desk into the largest LEA in the country. Boris and Cummings have centralised power at Number 10 and there it will stay.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    ydoethur said:

    I’ve just been doing a little research.

    Trump’s term ends at noon on 20th January. That is flat, that is final.

    However, there is a loophole that if nobody has been elected president by then, Congress (in practice, the House) can nominate an acting president until such time as an election is held. While this was to deal with deadlocks in the electoral college, it seems valid for the current case as well.

    So, in theory, the election could be postponed and an acting president appointed.

    HOWEVER, as the House is controlled by the Dems, that would not of course be Trump. You would have thought they would nominate Pelosi, or possibly Warren.

    Which means, of course, that Trump will not want to delay the election as it is the only way he can stay in power.

    Edit - all this presupposes the thread header is moot and he is the nominee. I’d love for him not to be, and for Haley or Rice or Rubio, somebody sane, to appear. But I do not see it.

    I think it quite important the he is the nominee, and is soundly defeated.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Most of the people talking about wanting entry to the UK stopped in March werent doing so at the time. Of those that did contemperaneously, the vast majority were wanting to stop flights from China, S Korea, Japan, Iran and Italy. Yet the majority of infections came from Spain and France, with only 0.1% from China. And once we locked down flight traffic was down 99% with virtually no tourists, just UK citizens and residents returning.
    We were still allowing people to fly to Spain until the middle of March (I know some people who were at the airport on Saturday 14th when their flight was cancelled) even though Spain was known to have a major problem by then.
    The whole flight thing is so dumb.

    There should be categorisation of countries from "little or no risk" (requiring self certification and tests, such as South Korea) through medium risk (requiring quarantine) to high risk (no flights).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Indeed. And they are still fighting quarantine for visitors yet. I have just never understood the reluctance to acknowledge the clear risk of those coming from virus hotspots to partake of our hospitality.
    Id certainly support a quarantine for places with hotter spots than us. The reality many wont admit is that the UK was the regional hotspot. Flights swapping our infected people for less infected people from Germany wouldnt have caused an increase here. Id imagine the reason we have gone for a blanket approach is that the US is clearly one of the few countries we would need to block and that will upset Mr Trump. Given his erratic behaviour it is easy to imagine him becoming aware of a UK singling out the US at a press conference and retaliating with "they wont get a trade deal then".
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,386
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Indeed. And they are still fighting quarantine for visitors yet. I have just never understood the reluctance to acknowledge the clear risk of those coming from virus hotspots to partake of our hospitality.
    Globalist sociopaths - restrictions on international travel are anathema to them.

    They think it should be easier to travel from New York to London than from York to London.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    Jonathan said:

    Trump must go, but what next? Could be brutal For Biden. Four years of clearing up Trumps mess will make re-election hard to achieve. What will Trump do if he loses? Will he retire or carry on in some form, plotting a comeback. Can his gang hold the GOP and win Congress.

    In short winning the White House this November, might not be enough to rid the world of Trump. Perhaps a Pyrrhic victory.

    Agreed - getting the Presidency this time around will be receiving a brutal hospital pass.

    Biden, though, is unlikely to stand for a second term.
    And the likelihood is that a Trump loss will lead to some epic infighting amongst theRepublicans.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    whunter said:

    Ah the bliss of being first out of the long-awaited trap ;)

    I too don't think that Trump will be disinvited from standing on the Republican ticket but there's no love lost for him within the party and the way things are going, the Democrats are rightly odds-on to win in November.

    Back in the UK the Gov't have eased restrictions far too rapidly and with an already complacent and ignorant public we are heading for BIG trouble. A serious second wave is now inevitable I fear.

    We can put the Nightingale hospitals into action!
    The public made the decision to ease the lockdown some weeks ago. I'll let you argue amongst yourselves whether it was Cummings or the statue protests that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt nobody was paying attention to government advice any more.

    So, as I predicted weeks ago, we have had a lockdown that has been utterly destructive to the economy (Telegraph yesterday suggested a cost of 165bn to save an estimated 50,000 lives - making the point some here have made that this figure was way in excess of NICE guidelines). But moreover we have had a lockdown that has not worked.

    I'm not going to say all this has been for nothing (based on the above figure of it saving 50k lives) but it has been an obscenely expensive way to do it.

    The question is what next. A second wave is almost certainly coming. We cannot afford a second lockdown - nor can we imagine it will be adhered to if it's implemented.

    Sounds like big trouble ahead for the government.
    With all due respect, that is utter horseshit.

    There have been four basic responses to the CV-19 crisis:

    1. Complete early travel and internal lockdown
    2. Belated - but broadly complete - lockdowns
    3. Belated and half-hearted lockdowns
    4. No (or only targeted) lockdowns

    Now, we can argue about categorisation, but New Zealand is clearly in (1), while Sweden is in (4).

    Economic damage seems to be broadly consistent among the four groups. Sweden's economy has no better PMIs than the UK, and is rather worse than Germany (in group 2) or New Zealand (group 1).

    Second waves, assuming that the community prevalence is relatively well contained (most of Europe, most of Asia) can be largely avoided by rules that limit only a small portion of activity: masks on public transports, restrictions on choirs and nightclubs.

    Those countries that went for (3), such as the US, or (4), such as Sweden are not bouncing back better than those in (1) or (2). And - based on the fact that places like Arizona are now locking down again - seem to be in a worse position.

    Why?

    Because people don't just act according to government advice, they act according to whether they feel safe. If they don't feel safe, there is a de facto lockdown. Which means all the economic damage without actually getting rid of the virus.
    Sweden is a good example of the latter point. They officially had no lockdown. In practice their lockdown seems to be pretty similar to ours because people are scared.

    For me personally, I will be looking at the incidence of this virus in the community. If I am persuaded that there is no sign of it locally I may be fairly relaxed about going to a restaurant or café. If it is still present neither I nor my family will.
    Even within the UK the week before the official lockdown saw tube usage drop to 10% of their historical average, with other public transport at 30-40% usage. Most people were already in their own form of lockdown.
    Absolutely. I was "locked down" over a week before it was officially announced as were many, many others. Those claiming that the lateness of our official lockdown cost thousands of lives just ignore this.
    The reason they obsess about the official lockdown date is because they don't want to mention the lack of restriction on entry to the UK in March.
    Most of the people talking about wanting entry to the UK stopped in March werent doing so at the time. Of those that did contemperaneously, the vast majority were wanting to stop flights from China, S Korea, Japan, Iran and Italy. Yet the majority of infections came from Spain and France, with only 0.1% from China. And once we locked down flight traffic was down 99% with virtually no tourists, just UK citizens and residents returning.
    We were still allowing people to fly to Spain until the middle of March (I know some people who were at the airport on Saturday 14th when their flight was cancelled) even though Spain was known to have a major problem by then.
    The whole flight thing is so dumb.

    There should be categorisation of countries from "little or no risk" (requiring self certification and tests, such as South Korea) through medium risk (requiring quarantine) to high risk (no flights).
    Would you agree the US should be high risk (no flights)?
Sign In or Register to comment.