Manchester was offered an amount less than other regions offered per capita and when the government further refused to provide what was necessary they made a fuss about it. The government is spaffing billions at Dido Harding and her mates that she's brought in, and hundreds of millions at their other chums who have recently set up dodgy companies. We've got Jenrick handing his own constituency £25m. If they refuse to give a necessary £5m to help their own people in hardship then that shows their true colours. It's indefensible in the greater context of how the government has acted during this pandemic. They are acting out of spite, not necessity.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Manchester was offered an amount less than other regions offered per capita and when the government further refused to provide what was necessary they made a fuss about it. The government is spaffing billions at Dido Harding and her mates that she's brought in, and hundreds of millions at their other chums who have recently set up dodgy companies. We've got Jenrick handing his own constituency £25m. If they refuse to give a necessary £5m to help their own people in hardship then that shows their true colours. It's indefensible in the greater context of how the government has acted during this pandemic. They are acting out of spite, not necessity.
Dear Lord - not video games! Won't somebody think of the children...
It's been my only form of exercise and enjoyment outside since we restarted it, so I've been quite thankful for it.
But yeah, reading people getting fitness issues long-term from the virus etc. gets me a bit nervous when we're rising like we are now.
Whatever, there's little point in arguing when that is your point of view.
Absolutely, I've read Private Eye for over 30 years since I was 13 or 14 when I picked up my dad's copy. I actually stopped reading it When Boris took power, I just feel we are now beyond satire and have entered a truly dark place as a country.
I suspect they won't have enough resources to protect the most vulnerable, because members of the central government continue to behave like a bunch of cnuts.
Yeah it is either not widely known or not widely cared about. It's only anecdotal but I know a few who fall into the latter. They read about it and don't seem that shocked by it, and without the shock there's no outrage. It is fecking outrageous.
I agree with the general point but they didn't offer 60m and then downgrade it to 22m. That's just political spin. The 22m is there for the public health aspect, it's a separate fund for a separate set of tasks. The 60m or 80m or what they're negotiating over is for businesses, coming from a separate fund for a separate purpose and is in addition to it. I think legislatively it makes a difference and presumably there's an administrative component. Not that it makes a huge difference to the people but the distinction is being blurred for political warfare.
Sad times, that it has come to that. I couldn't stomach reading it at times during Brexit, this is worse probably. The pandemic updates from M.D. are still very good reading, though.
Possibly, but, the point is, they have gone into tier 3 smartly without pissing about. Manchester should have gone in at least 7 days ago and now will have it imposed upon them, putting lives at risk. It is a purely political move.
Khan, in London, requested tier 2, and that with the threat of an expansion of the Congestion Zone, which would really kill London.
In other words the government had the power 7 days ago but spent a week doing nothing before then setting tier 3. The rest is political theatre from the government.
So you are complaining that central Government was trying to get local Government on board rather than imposing it upon them? fecking hell
So you are complaining that central Government was trying to get local Government on board rather than imposing it upon them? fecking hell
Well if you're posing that question you're also accepting that the delay was the governments decision. Glad we've cleared that up.
Let's move on to motive. You say because they wanted to get them on board. What does that even mean? In practical terms that is.
And was that more important than the risks caused by the delay which you're so keen to flag?
Right. So what I presume has happened is that local authorities have put together a bunch of plans and costings for mitigating the worst consequences of new lockdowns. In response the government seems to have produced a series of lowball offers that don't even meet the lower bounds set by such plans; successfully gambling that local authorities will have to take what's on offer or stand accused of "playing politics with people's lives".
It strikes me as odd that local authorities angling for sufficient funding are the ones that stand accused of playing politics, while central government appears above this criticism for withholding it in the first place.
Fair play, are the comparisons between other areas still valid. Such as the 41 million?* given to South Yorkshire in comparison to 22million given to us?
The number of people I know of through work that have got COVID or are self isolating in the last month has sky rocketed and its genuinely scary. This virus is everywhere here at the moment. I'm not intending to leave the house unless it's absolutely necessary (work mostly) for the next 6 weeks or more.
You're comparing apples and oranges. £41m for South Yorkshire consists of £11m for test, track, trace (comparison to the £22m), the £30m on top is the business support. The latter is what is Manchester is negotiating.
Isn't that quite a big thing to brush past? You accept that the circumstances South Yorkshire have accepted could leave them without the necessary resources to protect the vulnerable, but you don't even acknowledge why Manchester wouldn't want to accept that, and would feel it appropriate to negotiate to prevent that problem from arising? If their argument was "give us enough money to protect the vulnerable, because the conditions you're imposing on us will inhibit our ability to do so, and here's how much it would cost [presents evidence], and we'll work within these tough but necessary restraints"...wouldn't it be the central government playing political games and putting lives at risk by not meeting those needs, and encouraging a longer negotiation?
My understanding is that they've been a roughly equivalent amount of money for the public health measures (mostly test & tracing) to neighbouring areas, or at least proportionate to the scale of the problem and the resources needed to deal with that scenario. It seems like neither the local nor national governments disagree on that much.
It's the additional funds made available to support businesses and workers that aren't equivalent, as far as I can tell. South Yorkshire are getting proportionately more for that business fund, on a per capita basis, even if they'd agreed to the government's 60m "offer". And I gather that they had to be negotiated up to that number. Burnham wants the c. 80m to make it equivalent, as he understands it, to e.g. South Yorkshire.
So yeah it definitely seems like Manchester is being unfairly treated, albeit it's hard to understand why the government would want to give preferential treatment to South Yorkshire. If they want to be cheap (and invariably they do) then why not be equally cheap. As it's being played out in the political arena different sides are using different numbers and how they've calculated those number isn't the most transparent, so it's hard to say for certain. But it does seem to be disproporationate.
I think they should of got behind the Manchester message and made it a solid United Kingdom wide approach where everyone gets the same amount of help geared towards the size of the population which is covered.
The fact we are openly negotiating deals between different regions in a national pandemic is madness.
Yep, it really does line up with the increased reported numbers, and shuts down all the naysayers who just say it's due to increased testing.
My guess is that they don't like how much coverage Burnham gets and how loud his voice is on futher devolution to the regions. They want to devalue him politically.
It's just the same thing as Trump has been doing in the US. You can't grand stand and blame a virus so you find ways to blame your political opponents instead.
The government can't have been that surprised that a mayor might want to stick up for their citizens rather than meekly accept a cheque (which comes with devolved responsibility and blame).
They've either tried to get Labour signatories to avoid being solely to blame as a party (playing politics) or they've been trying to setup a fight to rally their side (which always works see this thread for proof).
If none of the above was true they'd have made the decision a week ago then given the base money out with further negotiation on specific additional support.
Can't help but laugh at the guardian readers in here. Such a fair and balanced newspaper hehehe.
Extending the half term in the UK was surely an enormous missed opportunity for a circuit breaker type lockdown.
Instead now we face an uncertain winter period with high R number. Struggling to understand the financial metrics or logic of extending local lockdown tier levels which hardly anybody will obey with resultant economic implications and uncertainty over a more wide-ranging national lockdown but shorter in duration to flatten the curve
Instead now we face an uncertain winter period with high R number. Struggling to understand the financial metrics or logic of extending local lockdown tier levels which hardly anybody will obey with resultant economic implications and uncertainty over a more wide-ranging national lockdown but shorter in duration to flatten the curve
What are the figures?
30m for South Yorkshire = £21 per person. +11m (pop 1.4m)
60m for Gtr Man = £21 per person. +22m (pop 2.8m)
None of them are fair or balanced. What's your point? Presumably you either a) don't believe there's any wrong doing taking place or b) don't care.
I assume you can still see from under that boot so I'll go with (b) with a sprinkling of (c) "what about when Labour did X, Y and Z" thrown in for good measure.
Stuff like this should be above party politics and any left v right culture war bullshit. These people are corrupt and are stealing unprecedented amounts of taxpayers money. If you're not angry about that then there's something wrong with you.
If there are any facts in the article you dispute then feel free...
An interesting article on the second waves in Europe, worth reading if you're interested in data - https://www.ft.com/content/b3801b63-fbdb-433b-9a46-217405b1109f
Make super yachts great again.
If you search the article link in the bottom box on http://archive.is/ it may or may not come up for you to read.
Shouldn't be, they're hosting their articles on covid for free. I don't have a subscription to them.
TL;DR:
- Autumn resurgence more muted than spring, due to social distancing etc. Lose that & transmission accelerates
- Mortality rates down in some contexts, but due in part to reduced pressure on healthcare system
- To keep pressure down & outcomes up, gotta control transmission
UK figures - 191 deaths, 26,668 new cases
For those interested in how the disease might be changing/progressing, Italy has published death comparison statistics between the first months and the last.
It's fairly encouraging to see how the stronger and younger you are the better, even moreso than before.
It's fairly encouraging to see how the stronger and younger you are the better, even moreso than before.
| March - May | June - August | |
| Median Age | 77.8 | 81.7 |
| Women | 32.8% | 51.8% |
| Comorbidities: | ||
| 0 | 4.2% | 0.6% |
| 1 | 14.2% | 8.6% |
| 2 | 21.3% | 14.2% |
| 3+ | 60.2% | 76.5% |
| Complications: | ||
| ARDS | 97.3% | 90.8% |
| Renal failure | 22.7% | 24.5% |
| Cardiac | 10.9% | 7.4% |
| Superinfection | 15.2% | 47.9% |
| Treatments: | ||
| Antibiotics | 87.1% | 89.4% |
| Antivirals | 60.9% | 39.4% |
| Steroids | 40.7% | 66.3% |
| Tocilizumab | 4.3% | 7.7% |
| Then | Now | |
| Symptom onset to death | 12 days | 38 days |
| Symptom onset to testing | 5 | 3 |
| Symptom onset to hospitalisation | 4 | 3 |
| Hospitalisation to death | 6 | 26 |
I mean I know @CassiusClaymore stated someone would be along to defend it... but put some effort in lad.
I bet you've not even read it, checked the linked sources or actually...even clicked it.
Last edited:
I have checked recent polls. 37% say they would get vaccine if it was available. I think with 63% unvaccinated we would still be in trouble.Blimey is Poland really that bad?!Think U.K was estimated at 30% of people who were reluctant to take a vaccine for whatever reason.
Any idea for an explanation for that difference in gender?
I'm guessing older victims ---> Bigger share of women at more advanced ages, but still quite a jump.
Overall most of that data seems to indicate better care... Not only better knowledge in how to treat it, but weren't most hospitals in Italy absolute chaos by that first period? Lenght of time to death is suggestive of that, you can hold on to patients for longer when there is no pressure upstream from more patients.
Why “even more so than before”?
All I’m seeing in the data is a trend towards fewer people with co-morbidities getting infected. Which is driving a fairly slight improvement in outcomes.
We always knew that having one or more co-morbidity increased the chance of doing badly. What’s changed?
EDIT: Actually co-morbidity stuff not that simple. Higher % with 3+ and fewer with zero but fewer with 1 or 2. So, hard to interpret.
Time to death is also a lousy way to work out if the outcomes really are better. Might just be a higher chance of getting on a ventilator. Any mortality %?
Last edited:
I'm just presenting the numbers. The published research doesn't attempt to explain the why. I suspect its a combination of many factors from better treatment to the most unhealthy patients already being dead.
That data is purely deaths. There is nothing about mortality rates in there.