Me? I admit there are people I dislike but I generally like people. Actually I think you're talking about yourself 

As I've said, sometimes you have to do what is right. Lock down was right - the best bad option. And if the virus hasn't weakened I fear lock down  will be back (if in some other form given what we've learnt about who is most vulnerable). And if lockdown isn't back then terrific news for the health of all of us! I then 'look forward' to the return (and more so) of particulate pollution, smog and ever faster planetary degradation. Any good news? I for one will be using the bike to get to work more

Beware of calling people liberal - I prefer to call myself 'Not led by far right rubbish read in The Mail and Spiked' but I admit that's not exactly a catchy moniker

I was talking about me (in the third person, a bad sign)

The lack of pollution has been a massive plus out of a s**t situation - it's been very pleasant to ride around lately, the odd lunatic driving at excessive speed aside. That's sadly crumbling away now and the cynic in me suspects that for all the comments in the media about better air quality we'll stumble back to where we were and ignore the consequences.

I don't think I called you liberal, just that I suspect me and my liberal views are rather closer to your views than my views are to MMs A point he demonstrated very well when he linked to something from the Daily Mail.

---

But that wouldn't be manifested in a rise in the R rate so quickly would it?

 

 

... no, we have got the  ramp in R   due to the post VE Day  slackening off   to look forward to.  I reckon  what we are seeing now is due to the "fraying" of the "Stay at Home" regime.

This really does fall into the "no Sh*t Sherlock" category

---

But that wouldn't be manifested in a rise in the R rate so quickly would it?

I don't know, but R is a guesstimate based on not just recorded tests, but observations of behaviour and human contacts. Clearly SAGE have seen people mixing, and using public transport much more and taken that into account

 

---

Wasn’t the weekend before VE also warm. If I remember correctly the lockdown was really starting to fray.

The R1 will certainly be up this week. I’ve just done a run, it is like typical Friday evening round here. Albeit pubs closed

---

So the actual words from Sage is that the R number is between 0.7 and 1.0.

---

PS! Out of interest exactly how do you "shag a flag"

I could a post a video from one of my regular "pleasure" sites, if Brian would allow it?

 

---

Coronavirus: Funding for homeless scheme will not be extended

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-52637283

The government will not extend funding to help rough sleepers in England stay off the streets amid the coronavirus pandemic, it has confirmed.

Councils were given £3.2m in March to provide emergency shelter for homeless people, with many housed in hotels.

A leaked report seen by the Manchester Evening News revealed the government has "drawn a line'" under the scheme.

___

It seems more and more stories like this are trickling out. Rather than learning and doing things differently, we revert to type.

It seems many in the Tory party are now well and truly bored of Lockdown. I cant see the homeless socially distance.

---

So the actual words from Sage is that the R number is between 0.7 and 1.0.

Yes, which is higher than last week. It has risen.

---

 

I don't know, but R is a guesstimate based on not just recorded tests, but observations of behaviour and human contacts. Clearly SAGE have seen people mixing, and using public transport much more and taken that into account

 

The R rate:

"This is calculated on a two-step process.

Firstly, information about deaths is used with information about the progression of Covid-19 to estimate the number of infectious people.

Secondly, the day-by-day changes in the numbers of infectious people are used to estimate R."

---

So the actual words from Sage is that the R number is between 0.7 and 1.0.

Yes, though they tend to be conservative so as not to upset Cummings, so it probably is close to 1

---

 

Yes, which is higher than last week. It has risen.

It has but you said it was at 1.....

---

Coronavirus: Funding for homeless scheme will not be extended

 

Shocking

I'm sure Maunder will be along soon to explain why its necessary

---

 

It has but you said it was at 1.....

OK, but it said on the news banner between 0.7 and 1. So it could be 1, 0.9, 0.8 or 0.7. So I am not wrong either.

---

 

Shocking

I'm sure Maunder will be along soon to explain why its necessary

Well let's face it - they don't need it as much as all those furloughed workers with houses do they?

---

 

I could a post a video from one of my regular "pleasure" sites, if Brian would allow it?

 

I suspect it would be flagged as inappropriate. 

---

 

OK, but it said on the news banner between 0.7 and 1. So it could be 1, 0.9, 0.8 or 0.7. So I am not wrong either.

It is wrong to say that it is definitively at 1.0 though, isn't it? That was not what was reported. The difference between 0.7 and 1 is massive as well, within 2 generations of spread 100 infectious people at R=1 will have infected 200 more, whereas 100 infectious people at R=0.7 will only have infected 119 more, and the difference between the two figures will continue to increase more and more quickly...

BREAKING: Sage confirm that the R rate has been rising all week and is at 1

and that doesn't yet include recent relaxes to the lockdown since Sunday so expect it to keep rising.

---

 

I suspect it would be flagged as inappropriate. 

Where's JB when you need him....this could run and run 

---

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption. I think the evidence is Covid19 kills 1% of those it infects (with the caveat we now know better who the 1% are). Without a lockdown I think there would be up to 1% death (so that's 700k or so in the UK) and within a month or two.

 

You've not answered my question though have you? You were asking MM to place a value on a life. I'm asking you to confirm why a covid life saved is worth more than another life lost. We know that will be happening and is - see the paper headlines about the cancer patient today. You're saying it's dangerous to pick who to save but lockdown is doing that on a grand scale.

 

Your point about we know who it affects now (which we did at the time from experience abroad anyway) is interesting. So is the harm of locking down for all age groups better than locking down just the vulnerable groups?

Yes I was and am asking MM to put a value on life. I ask because (revealingly?) he wont do that, and because it is indeed a very, very, very  difficult question. My answer is lockdown was better than the alternatives and that I feel deeply uncomfortable when people are told they have to take the risk of getting this virus.

I'm 62, I work in a school - sometimes with student, but mostly outdoors. What risk should I be made to take? That is the question I ask MM but in a different form. I guess my risk is, I dunno, if I catch it, 1-3% of dying, if people start spreading it my risk of catching it will rise from close to negligible now to ...I don't know! But, MM wants us to go back to work - what risk of losing my life does he think I should take? 2%, 5%, 10%, 25%? I doubt he'll answer. What risk would he take (he wont say).

I'll also say I get the argument I'm 'getting paid to do nothing' (though most people is school are working to some extent - I will be tomorrow if in isolation). Fwiw, I've been careful enough that I, perhaps, could manage without work but I also enjoy my job and wouldn't like to lose it. It's any coercion I don't like and it's (that damn question again) how much risk is it fair to ask people to take???????

Fwiw I don't think the lockdown is causing death so much as people's fear of going to the hospital and catching C19 is.

---

10,024 in hospital down from 11,041 yesterday and down 13% from last Friday