shurlock

Current level and rate are critical to understanding when a second wave might occur. Just as importantly they reflect the impact of past behaviour and actions, not least how successful they were. Level and rate are time-dependent. Keep up.

Whatever that means apart the sound of you stewing in your own juices. Still no answer to the second question and the crux of the matter. Last chance pal as I’ve got better things to do than embarrass you.

2 months ago now Still no answer to the second question.

Well significantly longer than idiots who facetiously ask how the second wave is coming along. HTH. Given the current level of new infections (in double digits) and R number in London (less than 0.5 the last time I looked), it could be quite a while -of course that’s dependent on the majority of people continuing to act responsibly and not following the cues of a minority.

Hard to tell pal as Easter was more than a month ago while there was a long, specific discussion on here of London parks (with photos) from 10-12 days ago (check the post history). Needless to say, I clearly qualified things by saying “if”, as i couldn’t be sure (you do know what “if” means). Now do you want to take a stab at the second question as your little friend seems to be struggling.

So no response to the second question

Of course, it was Either way, the second and substantive point holds. Any thoughts or are you keep them strawmen coming, little fella.

This makes no sense pal. First, if by the idiots in London’s parks, you’re referring to the pics in Hackney (coinciding with media leaks that Johnson was going to relax the lockdown), it was only 10 days or so ago. Not a month. Second, we were never going to see a second wave immediately, even with idiots taking liberties. Take London: thanks to the effectiveness of the lockdown (which fwiw many Londoners started observing before it was formally introduced), the number of infections (level) and r number (rate) in the capital have both been suppressed to the point that where the virus is virtually nonexistent today. Needless to say, a gradual return to normality and previous levels of social interaction (thankfully not the case as most people are exercising care) will only ensure it starts to spread again (relative to people not acting like dîckheads) and given London’s starting point, there will be a considerable lag before we see large aggregate impacts. Any more strawmen?

Paul Calf was very good.

This rises to nearly 50% among industrial and consumer discretionary companies. https://www.ft.com/content/182abd48-d00a-469f-bc62-a331e29024cc

In the eyes of his base, it’s all about winding up the ‘lefties’, the specifics -never mind the implications for US democracy- have never really mattered. You see subtle forms of that same culture war and abdication of moral judgment over here.

Or maybe just look at a properly designed survey based on a larger sample: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020 I see Ian Woan has tested positive -always remember him turning it on for Forest against us.

The PD isn't legally binding -in the same way the EU is under no obligation to give the UK the same deal as Canada despite what angry, ruddy faced Brexiters say. At least the EU can point to a PD which shows the UK fully accepted that unlikelihood. I mentioned bad faith only because its been creeping in Frosty's language in recent days and the ramblings of Brexiters who think that there's a chance they'll be able to withhold paying the divorce bill.

She was a breath of fresh air today.

Keep running around in circles, telling yourself sweet nothings that convince nobody but bore everyone -all while demonstrating your complete inability to debate the substance. Unless you're willing to offer an argument (or response to) how Johnson was not acting in bad faith when he misrepresented to the British public the agreement he reached or 'made' (or whatever bloody shorthand you want to use) with the EU in October 2019 (and is being implemented today), then there's no point in indulging your little hard-on for me (I note it has been getting more and more bizarre in recent weeks). Otherwise you are free to derail these threads by yourself pal.

I can't speak for Baird; but the basic gist of his argument and its interpretation was clear. Trust you not to see the woods for the trees.

You're incredibly naive -well we all know that already- if you don't think misrepresenting what the UK agreed with EU to the British public also had consequences for UK-EU relations. Johnson raised unrealistic expectations regarding the WA and the need for checks, limited his room for manoeuvre with the EU in a scenario where it needed to be implemented (as the UK has to do today) and set up the EU as a scapegoat and the bad guy if things failed (i.e. claims of EU acting unreasonably rather than the EU simply enforcing the terms of the WA).

Eh? Johnson was trying to sell the WA to the British public which had been agreed with the EU. Good faith would have implied fronting up about the consequences of the withdrawal agreement -not shamelessly downplaying the requirements for border checks which cast the UK as unreliable partner in the eyes of the EU, raising doubts whether the UK would honour the WA, irrespective whether it was passed by Parliament or not. It certainly spooked the EU at the time and has become a much greater fear over time.

Baird's basic meaning is clear. The WA was passed by Parliament in Jan 2020; however, critically, the UK reached an agreement with the EU on the WA in mid October 2019. We're discussing bad faith in EU-UK relations; the second date is the relevant one in this specific context. What subsequently happened in Parliament doesn't change the fact that the UK and EU initially 'made' an agreement (in your words). That it was 'signed' in Jan was largely dotting the is and crossing the ts of what was already agreed with the EU in October. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration Johnson campaigned on the basis of getting the WA through Parliament and mispresented its contents particularly regards the Irish border and the need for customs and regulatory checks which have subsequently plagued negotiations. Hence the understandable charge of bad faith. https://www.ft.com/content/bd804d91-e498-45b5-9adf-08eab3d9b439 Try and debate the substance little Westie, however challenging it is for you. Did Johnson misrepresent the contents of the Withdrawal Agreement?

Baird mentioned sign up to something; you understood it to mean that no agreement has been made. Is the Withdrawal agreement an agreement? Has the UK signed up to/made it? There's your answer little Westie. Again if you'd been following the news, you'd also know that Johnson repeatedly stretched the truth during the election campaign regarding the need for checks in the Irish sea as required under the WA, again as alluded to by Baird.

The clue is in Withdrawal Agreement, little Westie.

Some might say it’s bad faith to ignore or not implement the PD. Of course the EU made it abundantly clear in the PD that it wouldn’t be offering the UK the same deal as Canada without additional requirements (requirements which UK negotiators recognised and accepted at the time but are now dishonestly pretending that they’ve been foisted on the UK out of the blue).

Old paddy minford, widely considered a joke in the economics profession, still doesn't understand how WTO rules work...

This makes for particularly depressing reading: https://voxeu.org/article/excess-mortality-england-european-outlier-covid-19-pandemic Agree we shouldn't stop listening to experts, though is an area where the evidence base is unsettled and evolving and equally qualified experts can come to differing conclusions.

What do you make of the UK’s excess mortality figures to date? The government believes excess mortality is the best metric to assess the impact of covid-19 and the most reliable for the purposes of cross-country comparison.