RugbyRebels

And I should probably assume salaries in Hungary are below ours, so we should stop allowing them to sell to us too if we follow the logic that anyone doing something cheaper is inherently bad. We of course can still sell to them as it should only work in every nations advantage

Donny osmond wrote:Mate, you appear to be losing your shit. I know these are weird and worrying times but really, I think you need to turn off the internet and read a book, lose yourself in a film, start learning a language or an instrument, anything to take your mind off it for a bit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why is it barriers? You can still trade information freely. You just can’t pollute the planet so carelessly whole decimating local industry.

Globalization is something that should work for the many, not the few.

It’s a tariff, ie a barrier. You can call it a green tax but it’s still a tariff/barrier. I’m all for lowering everyone’s carbon footprint and moving away from a model of buying cheap short term goods but, IMO, this is completely the wrong way to do it.

Why?

How do you get massive behavioral change?

Did telling people smoking was bad get them to quit? Or did banning it?
Did giving people transport options get them to ditch the car? Or did adding a tariff?

I’m all for proving alternatives as a first solution, but there’s no way for European companies to compete... and that’s because it’s not a level playing field.

It’s like freight.

Lorry drivers should be paid at least minimum wage in the country of destination, not of Romania or Bulgaria. That would open the market up for river and canal freight.

Canal freight is not succeeding because of a market imbalance. Correct that and you have a solution.

You can freight something by ship all the way from one end of Europe to the other. You don’t need polluting trucks.

You can’t force China to improve workers rights and pay, and you can’t just force people to stop buying stuff from China. So you need to balance the system.

Maybe that means certain luxuries get more expensive because companies can no longer freight goods back and forth between the US and China, but I think that’s a price worth paying.

I agree with charging for the true carbon cost of transport. We need to do this soon (but after we have dealt with Covid19, obviously).

But I can't agree with what is essentially a ban on transporting goods from further than (a completely arbitrary) 1,500 km.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why is it barriers? You can still trade information freely. You just can’t pollute the planet so carelessly whole decimating local industry.

Globalization is something that should work for the many, not the few.

It’s a tariff, ie a barrier. You can call it a green tax but it’s still a tariff/barrier. I’m all for lowering everyone’s carbon footprint and moving away from a model of buying cheap short term goods but, IMO, this is completely the wrong way to do it.

How do you get massive behavioral change?

Did telling people smoking was bad get them to quit? Or did banning it?
Did giving people transport options get them to ditch the car? Or did adding a tariff?

I’m all for proving alternatives as a first solution, but there’s no way for European companies to compete... and that’s because it’s not a level playing field.

It’s like freight.

Lorry drivers should be paid at least minimum wage in the country of destination, not of Romania or Bulgaria. That would open the market up for river and canal freight.

Canal freight is not succeeding because of a market imbalance. Correct that and you have a solution.

You can freight something by ship all the way from one end of Europe to the other. You don’t need polluting trucks.

You can’t force China to improve workers rights and pay, and you can’t just force people to stop buying stuff from China. So you need to balance the system.

Maybe that means certain luxuries get more expensive because companies can no longer freight goods back and forth between the US and China, but I think that’s a price worth paying.

I won’t go in to all of that but will stick to two points:
A) barriers to trade, in what ever form, make people poorer.
B) I live a Ben Youngs pass, ie not far, from a canal and if you think they’re the answer to any question other than “do you fancy a miserable holiday living cheek by jowl with those you spend the rest of the year avoiding by going to the pub?” then I’ll have whatever you’re smoking.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Mate, you appear to be losing your shit. I know these are weird and worrying times but really, I think you need to turn off the internet and read a book, lose yourself in a film, start learning a language or an instrument, anything to take your mind off it for a bit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I wouldn't want to say Donny was flippant about this, I really don't know. But you can consider those on the front line are at serious risk without thinking it isn't serious

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Mate, you appear to be losing your shit. I know these are weird and worrying times but really, I think you need to turn off the internet and read a book, lose yourself in a film, start learning a language or an instrument, anything to take your mind off it for a bit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I wouldn't want to say Donny was flippant about this, I really don't know. But you can consider those on the front line are at serious risk without thinking it isn't serious

Look. You can’t take this seriously unless you post the belief that we’ll all be dead in a matter of weeks.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Mate, you appear to be losing your shit. I know these are weird and worrying times but really, I think you need to turn off the internet and read a book, lose yourself in a film, start learning a language or an instrument, anything to take your mind off it for a bit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I wouldn't want to say Donny was flippant about this, I really don't know. But you can consider those on the front line are at serious risk without thinking it isn't serious

Medical staff treating coronavirus victims are in the front line, and to a lesser extent those dealing directly with the general public. The PM isn't in the front line - he should be in a command bunker (metaphorically). It was stupid (I don't think that word really does it justice) to be out there shaking hands or holding PMQs in a cramped commons chamber.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I wouldn't want to say Donny was flippant about this, I really don't know. But you can consider those on the front line are at serious risk without thinking it isn't serious

Medical staff treating coronavirus victims are in the front line, and to a lesser extent those dealing directly with the general public. The PM isn't in the front line - he should be in a command bunker (metaphorically). It was stupid (I don't think that word really does it justice) to be out there shaking hands or holding PMQs in a cramped commons chamber.

There are maybe some things I'd have chosen they'd have done differently, but you can't not meet with people in that role. Perhaps you can have a small number dial in as we'll see now some of them are having to isolate themselves, but it's not practical for the larger groups they will have to be part of, everything would slow down too much. Because they're having to meet with people who will also be meeting with a lot of people they are at this time on the front line for me albeit in a very different way to some others.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I wouldn't want to say Donny was flippant about this, I really don't know. But you can consider those on the front line are at serious risk without thinking it isn't serious

Look. You can’t take this seriously unless you post the belief that we’ll all be dead in a matter of weeks.

I like beer, wine, girls and rugby. So this falls outside the things I'm prepared to take seriously

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Mate, you appear to be losing your shit. I know these are weird and worrying times but really, I think you need to turn off the internet and read a book, lose yourself in a film, start learning a language or an instrument, anything to take your mind off it for a bit.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess we'll have to disagree on the seriousness of this.

I think we agree completely about the seriousness of it

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Compared to the Plague in London 1665/6 (25% of 400,000 '65 population), Spanish Flu 1918 (200.000 estimated deaths in UK) or even effects of WW1 & 2, it is on a different scale.
We are lucky with medical science, technology & internationalism helping to defeat it.
We have had it cosy all our lives - doesn't make it less scary though, especially with all the unknowns:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52006988

Interesting look at the pragmatic Swedes going their own way... taking it seriously but not panicking. Quote at the end is quite telling and kinda reflects my instincts, which I would add are based on nothing at all

"While Tegnell understands that he will be blamed if Sweden ends up in a similar situation to that of Italy, he refuses to be panicked. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we’re doing,” he says. “I’m not so sure that what we’re doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see.”"

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

UK si'eeation by Region, 28 Mar: (cases/dths.)

Sco: 1245/40
Wal:921/38
NI:324/15
NE/Y: 1497/24
NW: 1253/53
Mid: 2438/67
SW: 649/23
SE: 1727/63
Eas: 1001/29
Lon: 5299/155

Unknown:735/ -

If deaths are spiking at double every 2-3 days, then these new hospitals / mortuaries will be tested.

Donny osmond wrote:Interesting look at the pragmatic Swedes going their own way... taking it seriously but not panicking. Quote at the end is quite telling and kinda reflects my instincts, which I would add are based on nothing at all

"While Tegnell understands that he will be blamed if Sweden ends up in a similar situation to that of Italy, he refuses to be panicked. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we’re doing,” he says. “I’m not so sure that what we’re doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see.”"

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Isn't that the UK strategy of about two weeks ago?

Galfon wrote:UK si'eeation by Region, 28 Mar: (cases/dths.)

Sco: 1245/40
Wal:921/38
NI:324/15
NE/Y: 1497/24
NW: 1253/53
Mid: 2438/67
SW: 649/23
SE: 1727/63
Eas: 1001/29
Lon: 5299/155

Unknown:735/ -

If deaths are spiking at double every 2-3 days, then these new hospitals / mortuaries will be tested.

Think unknown is -/735?

Just thinking back to those figures from Germany. Every explanation I've seen for it stresses the difference in testing. Fair enough we should be doing much more,but I'm confused by how testing explains the difference in mortality rate?

If 1000 Germans test positive for it and 3 die, versus 1000 Brits test positive and 30 die, how does further testing help explain the discrepancy in mortality between groups who have already tested positive? What am I missing?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Interesting look at the pragmatic Swedes going their own way... taking it seriously but not panicking. Quote at the end is quite telling and kinda reflects my instincts, which I would add are based on nothing at all

"While Tegnell understands that he will be blamed if Sweden ends up in a similar situation to that of Italy, he refuses to be panicked. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we’re doing,” he says. “I’m not so sure that what we’re doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see.”"

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Isn't that the UK strategy of about two weeks ago?

Yes it seems to be.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote: Unknown:735/ -
If deaths are spiking at double every 2-3 days, then these new hospitals / mortuaries will be tested.

Think unknown is -/735?[/quote]

The 'unknown locations' was definitely displayed in the 'infections' slot/colour on the graphic, rather than 'deaths'.
I am reading this to be operator/input error i.e default 'none'/'not known' on drop-down, or undecipherable doctor-stylee handwriting on a label..
The testing location will be known obvs. but wuddnae know the lab testing wherabouts - doubt if 100% regionally set up.

Donny osmond wrote:Just thinking back to those figures from Germany. Every explanation I've seen for it stresses the difference in testing. Fair enough we should be doing much more,but I'm confused by how testing explains the difference in mortality rate?

If 1000 Germans test positive for it and 3 die, versus 1000 Brits test positive and 30 die, how does further testing help explain the discrepancy in mortality between groups who have already tested positive? What am I missing?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because greater testing by the Germans is picking up more of the people who only have slight cases. Because we're only testing people who are in hospital/rich, our positives are more likely to be people who have it badly.

The situation is more likely to be 10000 Germans test positive and 30 die, versus 1000 Brits and 30 die.

Puja

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Interesting look at the pragmatic Swedes going their own way... taking it seriously but not panicking. Quote at the end is quite telling and kinda reflects my instincts, which I would add are based on nothing at all

"While Tegnell understands that he will be blamed if Sweden ends up in a similar situation to that of Italy, he refuses to be panicked. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we’re doing,” he says. “I’m not so sure that what we’re doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see.”"

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Isn't that the UK strategy of about two weeks ago?

Yes it seems to be.

When this is all over, I hope there will be an honest appraisal of why so many more people died in the West than in the far East.

Donny osmond wrote:Interesting look at the pragmatic Swedes going their own way... taking it seriously but not panicking. Quote at the end is quite telling and kinda reflects my instincts, which I would add are based on nothing at all

"While Tegnell understands that he will be blamed if Sweden ends up in a similar situation to that of Italy, he refuses to be panicked. “I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ended up about the same way for all of us, irrespective of what we’re doing,” he says. “I’m not so sure that what we’re doing is affecting the spread very much. But we will see.”"

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

This will bite hem in the arse.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: When this is all over, I hope there will be an honest appraisal of why so many more people died in the West than in the far East.

also how quickly China..
1- identified the new Sars-type strain.
2- notified other countries of this.
3- stopped all non-essential air travel out of the region.

Galfon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: When this is all over, I hope there will be an honest appraisal of why so many more people died in the West than in the far East.

also how quickly China..
1- identified the new Sars-type strain.
2- notified other countries of this.
3- stopped all non-essential air travel out of the region.

Absolutely.

And once we have a clear idea of the origin, we need to demand (with trade and travel barriers if need be) China makes reforms to fix this problem (probably its farming sector?).

I think the idea that China have acted perfectly on this is not quite right. They held quite a bit of info back at the start - partly through lack of knowledge and partly through embarrassment - however, their actions since, bar the odd party official and state run media outlet claiming it is a US armed forces plot, seem to have been pretty good.

The issue as with every other fecking virus coming out of China is their live animal markets. I’d imagine this one is serious (and embarrassing) enough for them to do something about it.

Asian populations are very different to our western liberal democracies. S. Korea, Japan, Singapore etc are much better doing as they are told and are more regimented societies. They will be more tolerant of govt diktat than we will. They are also more insular. Big multiples less people in or out of those countries, especially pleasure, so much easier and less susceptible to contain international movement. There are things we could learn from them but it’s a bit apples vs pears.

Re: ze Germans. I’m not sure they are doing any better than the rest of Europe, in anything other than weight of testing, if the attached graph is anything to go by.