bantams
Member
Known as Bantams on UKPR
Posts: 196 
|
Post by bantams on Dec 21, 2021 23:33:34 GMT
Ah yes, it all went down hill for the Saxons after they adopted Christianity. Given your new found gender identity I am sure you will be a follower of Eostre!  I was just asking a question, not actually making a choice! 🙂 Anyway, I am interested about how Christianity took over/merged with pagan practices. For instance, a few years ago we visited Spreyton in the middle of Dartmoor where some of my ancestors were from (including Peter Davey from the 'Uncle Tom Cobley' song). We visited the old church and saw a memorial plate to one of my great-uncles killed in WWI, but what was particularly interesting to me was that the bosses on the wooden trusses holding up the roof had pagan images such as the Green Man and the three hares. I make no judgement on the validity of the various beliefs, just interested in the overlap. Christmas trees, reintroduced by Albert have no Christian meaning and certainly not mistletoe! There's a long held belief that Albert introduced Xmas trees to us but, in reality, it was Queen Charlotte who brought the idea from Germany some 80 years before. Originally they used a large Yew bough but some years later she came up with the idea of potting up a Yew tree & bringing it indoors. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 21, 2021 23:35:09 GMT
YG article covering a few important polling points mentioned on UKPR2 but useful to see in a summary piece:
- '56% of the British public think that they are not ready for Government (while 24% believe that they are)
- Labour still have not managed to make any significant in-roads with the British public regarding who would best handle the economy- 20% of 2019 Conservative voters currently do not know who they would vote for next time, and 5% would abstain. A mere 6% are telling us that they would vote Labour instead- Starmer and Labour’s public opinion profits are clearly built on shaky foundations'yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/21/starmer-and-labour-are-ahead-public-are-not-convinThe question is does Starmer a/ take the polling opportunity to try (if he can) to finish fixing 'internal' issues while the focus is all on 'Anyone But Boris', b/ solidify those 'shaky foundations' with some actual policies (ie create a reason for some of the 20% of DKs from CON'19 to switch to LAB from DK), c/ do nothing and hope CON hold on to Boris as leader into GE'24 with the Corbyn issue magically fixing itself? I'd like to see a/ or b/ but if I was putting money on it then probably c/ (IMO of course). I'm not entirely surprised by the findings, and they point clearly to some of the things Labour need to do now to consolidate the marked change in the political weather. Their polling improvement is primarily down to disillusionment and anger with the incumbents and they've been the main beneficiaries. This is classic two party politics in a way. Blue down Red up, although blue defectors have found a variety of sanctuaries and they're not all red. But what's changed now, I think, and why it may be significant in the long time, is that the antipathy towards the incumbents is sufficiently deep, and plunged at such a startling rate, that it will give Labour an opportunity to be heard. When you're getting a hearing it's much easier, assuming you get it right, to change public perceptions quite quickly. That said, as the polling data you share indicates, Labour have some hard yards to tread. I'm sure Starmer and his new team know this well. Still that work is a bit more enjoyable and fulfilling when you're 8 points ahead in the polls and enjoying some momentum!Morale is a key political ingredient too. And don't forget that just the mere fact of not being Johnson, or Sunak in time, might be quite a useful thing as the wear and tear of incumbency bites yet harder and gathering economic woes erode the perception of economic competency. You can keep buggering on but it gets hard when it feels like the audience is filing out of the theatre. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 21, 2021 23:36:26 GMT
Anyway, I am interested about how Christianity took over/merged with pagan practices.
An interst we share. What a lot of people overlook is the pantheistic aspects of Catholism and early Christian belief, which allowed for the adoption of many pagan beliefs and practices. What is discernable in Christianity is the trend/tendency to de-emphasies/demote, or in some case even demonise, the feminine. Eostre is a case in point - a great goddess becomes a bunny rabbit!
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 21, 2021 23:37:21 GMT
@ graham Many of the changes relate to developments of what already existed
Well you can say that of the prior period as well - we can always go back to the invention of language and the wheel! Anyway, but the question was the impact on peoples lives - while a piece of knowledge/decision can be found/made it may take a couple of generations for its effect on people lives in general to be realised. For example, some women may have become enfranchised in 1918, but their lot for the most part was still to be a domestic one way up to 1967. In your pub in 1967, there would still have been areas in which women would not be welcome/able to enter and most would still be at home anyway. Women may have made some gains in WW2 in terms of the work place, but that was savagely curtailed after the war and in 1950's women had been put back into their 'domestic role'. In relation to childcare / job opportunities / etc the gains that have been made have materialised post '67 - and there is still a very long way to go till we actually get equality. In the 60's the notion that the UK would cease to exist would not have been seen as likely - whereas now it is a distinct possibility. Some may have seen changes to demograhics coming - but they hadn't happened yet, the actually changes and their impact have largely occured post 70's in terms of age and immigration. No prior generation has had such easy, continual and quick access to information and communications. Also this is now truly global - I struggle to find such an example of such a rapid change in human history (and in principle as an historian I am as far as you can get from a modern exceptionalist). There may have been supermarkets - but the range of food types has virtually exploded since the 80's. I very much doubt you would be able to get Choi Sun anywhere outside of China town in '67. 1912 was very far from being primative, it was just an earlier phase of History, as is 1967. One absolutely massive change that has not been mentioned yet, which does has a massive effect on people lives but they may not be cognisant of it, is capital flows. In the modern economic system it flows far more freely than it ever did in 1967! Lululemon
In 1967 Barbara Castle was a leading member of the Labour Government - and was widely spoken of as the likely first woman Prime Minister in the UK. Alas that did not happen - but in 1968 she became Employment Secretary and introduced the Equal Pay legislation in the years immediately following.
|
|
|
|
Post by moby on Dec 21, 2021 23:38:27 GMT
I wonder if I might crave the indulgence of some of you of a certain age! I have always been blessed with a very good memory - particularly in relation to distant events.The downside is that vivid detailed recall of them tends to lull me into feeling they took place 'just a few years ago' or 'quite recently'. In three weeks time I will be 67.5 years old. A few nights ago in a pub discussion with a few friends, I mentioned this - and went on to point out that 67.5 would have been the normal male life expectancy in the UK as late as mid-1967, and further suggested that that was not all that far back. I received the support of one of those present but four others rather dissented. I made my case based on where the world was in mid-1967 - - the Vietnam War was in full swing - Harold Wilson had already been PM for over 2.5 years - we were two thirds through the 'swinging sixties' with the Beatles actually folding within three years - it was barely 2 years before man landed on the moon -domestic appliances were already widespread and we lived in a motorised society - colour TV was imminent - Francis Chichester was at the end of his round the world trip in Gipsy Moth - the 'Permissive Society' had largely arrived as reflected in attitudes to premarital sex etc - attitudes to authority were clearly changing with much less deference evident compared to circa 1957 Nobody present was persuaded to change their views , but all did agree with my assertion that there has been far less dramatic change since 1967 than in the same period prior to that year - ie life changed far more dramatically on a day to day basis 1912 - 1967 than from 1967 - to the present day. I would be interested to read the opinions of other on this! Interesting. My own view is that change is speeding up. This is particularly technology-driven. For instance computers even in big business were an expensive novelty and by no means universal. It's difficult now to imagine any business larger than a sole trader existing without computer assistance. Never mind the more recent developments of smartphones. In 1967 you had to wait months for BT to fit a landline. There were only 3 or 4 TV Channels, no Internet, no satnav. The internet is probably the greatest leap forward since the printing press. Totally agree, the world wide web caps every other change by a mile because it affects so many different aspects of our lives. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 21, 2021 23:40:07 GMT
barbara and others I think the pictures of Boris and co enjoying after hours chillax / wind down are only likely to offend those already offended. Whilst I'm sure drinking and inevitable indiscretions in and around working hours is now frowned upon, there is no doubt that many, many decisions about corporate life are still made over drinks. Probably more in fact with the growth of corporate hospitality events. Those with commitments outside working hours are possibly even more excluded from those! I don’t think the issue is that they are have a relaxed drink after work, it’s that they had explicitly disallowed the rest of the country from doing the same at this time. Yes I agree that's the politically damaging result of this. My original point was that whilst the idea of people having meetings with bottles of wine might seem a ludicrously transparent excuse to many, I do think it's messier here and that a culture where people work late and later work comes with booze as standard wouldn't surprise me at all. That said, the tangential discussion it sparked has been of far more value than the original "ah yeah but" was! |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 21, 2021 23:44:21 GMT
Diehards who would back the proverbial chocolate teapot if it was Tory leader. @james e It would be fun but a definite first in world history if an incumbent leader got 0% saying they were doing well  Francois Hollande did manage to get his approval rating into single digits before he decided not to seek re-election. Even tho the French tend to be rather harsher on their politicians than the British, it was still an astonishing achievement. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 21, 2021 23:46:34 GMT
Cassetteboy.....he's from here in Swansea (I've not actually met him, but, have it on good authority that he's about a mile from me) @mark Sorry if I've said this before but greetings from a former Uplands voter! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 21, 2021 23:47:47 GMT
I wonder if I might crave the indulgence of some of you of a certain age! I have always been blessed with a very good memory - particularly in relation to distant events.The downside is that vivid detailed recall of them tends to lull me into feeling they took place 'just a few years ago' or 'quite recently'. In three weeks time I will be 67.5 years old. A few nights ago in a pub discussion with a few friends, I mentioned this - and went on to point out that 67.5 would have been the normal male life expectancy in the UK as late as mid-1967, and further suggested that that was not all that far back. I received the support of one of those present but four others rather dissented. I made my case based on where the world was in mid-1967 - - the Vietnam War was in full swing - Harold Wilson had already been PM for over 2.5 years - we were two thirds through the 'swinging sixties' with the Beatles actually folding within three years - it was barely 2 years before man landed on the moon -domestic appliances were already widespread and we lived in a motorised society - colour TV was imminent - Francis Chichester was at the end of his round the world trip in Gipsy Moth - the 'Permissive Society' had largely arrived as reflected in attitudes to premarital sex etc - attitudes to authority were clearly changing with much less deference evident compared to circa 1957 Nobody present was persuaded to change their views , but all did agree with my assertion that there has been far less dramatic change since 1967 than in the same period prior to that year - ie life changed far more dramatically on a day to day basis 1912 - 1967 than from 1967 - to the present day. I would be interested to read the opinions of other on this! Interesting. My own view is that change is speeding up. This is particularly technology-driven. For instance computers even in big business were an expensive novelty and by no means universal. It's difficult now to imagine any business larger than a sole trader existing without computer assistance. Never mind the more recent developments of smartphones. In 1967 you had to wait months for BT to fit a landline. There were only 3 or 4 TV Channels, no Internet, no satnav. The internet is probably the greatest leap forward since the printing press. But there are still many people who do not have the Internet - and have no wish to gain access to it. I suspect that covers several million UK citizens. I am sure these people would notice the removal of their TV and Radio sevices , the availability of gas and electricity , -and the provision of indoor bathrooms etc - far more than mobile phones or access to the Internet. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 21, 2021 23:51:00 GMT
@ graham
In 1967 Barbara Castle was a leading member of the Labour Government - and was widely spoken of as the likely first woman Prime Minister in the UK. Alas that did not happen - but in 1968 she became Employment Secretary and introduced the Equal Pay legislation in the years immediately following.
And she was truly exceptional, and had to be to get to where she did. She was one of only 26 wome MPs at that time. Today we have 223 women MPs, with Priti Patel and Liz Truss, which shows us that now it is possible for women to be just as inept and mediocre as men and get into high office. Progress of a sort!
|
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Dec 21, 2021 23:52:37 GMT
But what's changed now, I think, and why it may be significant in the long time, is that the antipathy towards the incumbents is sufficiently deep, and plunged at such a startling rate, that it will give Labour an opportunity to be heard. When you're getting a hearing it's much easier, assuming you get it right, to change public perceptions quite quickly. That said, as the polling data you share indicates, Labour have some hard yards to tread. I'm sure Starmer and his new team know this well. Still that work is a bit more enjoyable and fulfilling when you're 8 points ahead in the polls and enjoying some momentum! Morale is a key political ingredient too. And don't forget that just the mere fact of not being Johnson, or Sunak in time, might be quite a useful thing as the wear and tear of incumbency bites yet harder and gathering economic woes erode the perception of economic competency. You can keep buggering on but it gets hard when it feels like the audience is filing out of the theatre. Yes, and early signs are the new team are capable of getting a hearing and maybe making the weather. Nevertheless I think Starmer needs to put some urgent priority on establishing and communicating what Labour is for. At present that is not defined even within the party, with the Corbynites saying - often publicly to my intense frustration - that he's Blair without the charisma. I don't believe that's correct, but even if it was, it's best to get it out there and we all need a vision we can get behind, even if imperfect. Been reading the 'introduce yourself' thread where there's scepticism about quotes, so I've edited the quote, rather inadequately |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 21, 2021 23:58:51 GMT
@ graham In 1967 Barbara Castle was a leading member of the Labour Government - and was widely spoken of as the likely first woman Prime Minister in the UK. Alas that did not happen - but in 1968 she became Employment Secretary and introduced the Equal Pay legislation in the years immediately following.And she was truly exceptional, and had to be to get to where she did. She was one of only 26 wome MPs at that time. Today we have 223 women MPs, with Priti Patel and Liz Truss, which shows us that now it is possible for women to be just as inept and mediocre as men and get into high office. Progress of a sort! In academic terms she was far from being exceptional - a Third class honours degree hardly placed her in the same league as Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, Roy Jenkins, Anthony Crosland, Richard Crossman and quite a few others. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 0:03:06 GMT
um ...is it just my lack of logic? Surely any restrictions worth bringing in after Christmas would (a) work a lot better now and (b) likely to be too late then? So it's basically now or never. No point "watching the data" I don't think it's that exclusive - surely it can be the case that the situation doesn't require an active change right now, but that that could change by next week? I'm leaving the house and it's raining, do I need to put my umbrella up? No, it's not raining enough for that. 30 minutes later it's raining more, and I put my umbrella up - yes it's true to say that if I'd put it up straight away I'd be drier now than I am, but I'd also have been lugging an open umbrella around for half an hour I didn't need it... |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 22, 2021 0:11:01 GMT
graham I would say for a 1) be a women 2), form her background to get to Oxford during 20/30's by definition makes her exceptional.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 22, 2021 0:12:41 GMT
Happy Winter's solstice from a very dark and cold PSRL. Yep, days starting to get longer again. The true meaning of Christmas and the reason why Christians appropriated the old festival, even if they were out by a few days. Many farmers are, however, celebrating the solstice Stonehenge style - slaughtering pigs, digging pits and dumping the meat in the pits. Brexit has rejuvenated the Neolithic period! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 22, 2021 0:18:45 GMT
graham I would say for a 1) be a women 2), form her background to get to Oxford during 20/30's by definition makes her exceptional. She was the daughter of a senior Tax Inspector - and came from a fairly comfortable middle class background. I say that as a great admirer of Barbara Castle - which is why I mentioned her. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 0:21:11 GMT
graham A very long time ago I wrote a paper on choosing the timeframe. Depending how you would want to do it (like 1912-1967), you can create a radical change narrative, or just the opposite, an incremental one - in order that... It needed ... (Like the German military of WW1 needed the huge expansion of the 1890-1910 period). As it attacked both the institutionalist and the path dependency approaches, no journal published it, but the conference paper is still cited. I used the example of the collapse of state socialism in Hungary. If you used 1990, it is all radical change, but if you looked at path dependency, you could go back to 1962 (at least) and the changes wouldn't be radical in 1990. It is an epistemological problem that has to be transparent. Neither narrative are false or right, just needs transparency both in the analysis and in the conclusion. And it is also about framing. Gender equality - can you do it without the 1890s, when in cities women worked until they got married (and the first birth happened quite late already then)? Can you discuss the radical vs incremental change in the skill level among workers without discussing the emergence of trade unions of unskilled workers? The problem is obviously there as various British governments have been trying to create a public skill formation system at least since the 1950 (including the current apprenticeship attempt) - is it incremental or there are leaps? Can one discuss the influence of the stock markets on British companies and the globalisation of shareholder capitalism in the form of radical change (let's say 1987) or incremental changes (as the new upstarts don't fit in the narrative)? It is not a criticism, it is just a fundamental problem about human thinking. We want both radical demarcations and incremental changes (and nature actually is like this - there is no change that happens in less than 1 on the power of minus 27 of a second), but it is not possible in one narrative. So transparency of the argument and the conclusion are the crucial attributes.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,336
|
Post by Danny on Dec 22, 2021 0:21:51 GMT
However, prevention of death is the raison d'ĂŞtre of the vaccination programme. You cannot deny what a wonderful success that has been. So why are we still under restrictions? |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 0:25:58 GMT
graham I would say for a 1) be a women 2), form her background to get to Oxford during 20/30's by definition makes her exceptional. She was the daughter of a senior Tax Inspector - and came from a fairly comfortable middle class background. I say that as a great admirer of Barbara Castle - which is why I mentioned her. I don't have the stats to hand but I'd be prepared to bet there were a lot of Tax Inspectors in the late 1920s and that incredibly few of their daughters went to Oxford. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 22, 2021 0:29:17 GMT
Anyway, I am interested about how Christianity took over/merged with pagan practices.An interst we share. What a lot of people overlook is the pantheistic aspects of Catholism and early Christian belief, which allowed for the adoption of many pagan beliefs and practices. What is discernable in Christianity is the trend/tendency to de-emphasies/demote, or in some case even demonise, the feminine. Eostre is a case in point - a great goddess becomes a bunny rabbit! Great to find some common ground, even if it is totally unrelated to polling! I understand that even the halo that is depicted in much Christian art was originally from Osiris. There is certainly some difficulty with the feminine angle, particularly in Catholicism I think, thanks to their weird decision (around 1000AD from memory) to decide that priests should be celibate. And yet they venerate the Virgin Mary far more than Protestants do. All these man-made doctrines of whatever church just become excuses to disagree with each other. My stepson came up with the answer in his teens (echoing Jesus' second commandment). He knew a little bit about theology and philosophy and said "It all boils down to 'Just be nice to each other'". If only! Organised religion has provided the excuse for many wars and persecutions. If we were just nice to each other what a world it would be! |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 22, 2021 0:32:34 GMT
She was the daughter of a senior Tax Inspector - and came from a fairly comfortable middle class background. I say that as a great admirer of Barbara Castle - which is why I mentioned her. I don't have the stats to hand but I'd be prepared to bet there were a lot of Tax Inspectors in the late 1920s and that incredibly few of their daughters went to Oxford. She did not come from a deprived background. She almost certainly would have had far more input and support from her parents whilst growing up during the 1920s than I - from an upper working class background - received in the 1960s, given that both my parents left school at 14. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 22, 2021 0:37:13 GMT
Interesting. My own view is that change is speeding up. This is particularly technology-driven. For instance computers even in big business were an expensive novelty and by no means universal. It's difficult now to imagine any business larger than a sole trader existing without computer assistance. Never mind the more recent developments of smartphones. In 1967 you had to wait months for BT to fit a landline. There were only 3 or 4 TV Channels, no Internet, no satnav. The internet is probably the greatest leap forward since the printing press. But there are still many people who do not have the Internet - and have no wish to gain access to it. I suspect that covers several million UK citizens. I am sure these people would notice the removal of their TV and Radio sevices , the availability of gas and electricity , -and the provision of indoor bathrooms etc - far more than mobile phones or access to the Internet. Several million? Really? Well I suppose are always those left behind serving a niche market - e.g. Walsall saddlemakers, but I bet they use computers in their businesses. The question was about changes in society and even if a few are unable or unwilling to use technology themselves, evrything they do will be affected by it unless they live in a cave. Computerised tills in shops at the most basic level. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2021 0:39:04 GMT
And yes, your points on comparative death causes and COVID rates in South Africa are valid, but that's also part of the problem. Better vaccine rate in the UK, better age profile in SA, much worse weather right now in the UK, lack of any warning of the Omicron wave in SA, it's hard to be clear how much these various factors cancel each other out. Currently SA are showing a 76% weekly increase in COVID deaths, off as you say a much higher % increase in cases a few weeks ago. But with our much higher levels of COVID, a 76% increase in weekly death rate here would be a lot more problematic, and particularly if continued for many weeks (SA haven't reduced their case rates, merely potentially got them to hold steady at the new much higher levels). Just to help, I posted the graphs on the covid thread. if you care to examine when the surge in cases and surge in deaths occur, its really very close together. Deaths start no more than a week after the rise in cases, and rapidly track the same profile as the total of cases. If you care to look at UK data, the same happens here. With only a weeks delay from surge of cases to surge of deaths, its remarkable theres nothing to see here yet. Yes, if you squint hard enough you can see anything. Your description of the data is stretched beyond recognition - to take just one example, there was a precipitous increase in UK cases that started around mid December 2020. Deaths didn't rise at all until into January, whereupon they accelerated a week or two in to reflect the dramatic rise in cases several weeks before. www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/Put another way, given that no-one has suggested that it's remotely typical for people to catch COVID and die of it a week later, what makes you think that this minimal time lag you've found makes any sense? |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 22, 2021 0:39:34 GMT
@ graham In 1967 Barbara Castle was a leading member of the Labour Government - and was widely spoken of as the likely first woman Prime Minister in the UK. Alas that did not happen - but in 1968 she became Employment Secretary and introduced the Equal Pay legislation in the years immediately following.And she was truly exceptional, and had to be to get to where she did. She was one of only 26 wome MPs at that time. Today we have 223 women MPs, with Priti Patel and Liz Truss, which shows us that now it is possible for women to be just as inept and mediocre as men and get into high office. Progress of a sort! I see your Priti Patel and raise you a Diane Abbott (though admittedly she's only been Shadow anything so far). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
|
Post by steve on Dec 22, 2021 6:09:44 GMT
EOR
On the subject of precipitous change.
The precipitous decline in case numbers in South Africa continues.
The seven day average case rate is now down 17%.The three day fall is 45%
Which on the face of it is good news if omicron rises peaks and then steeply declines all within 5 weeks , without major changes in restrictions and a mortality rate that's now highly likely to remain significantly below that in the UK now , then it's reasonable to assume that those restrictions weren't necessary to change the outcome.
While of course there's something to be said for a precautionary response it can also appear alarmist when it's proved the thing you were responding to.really wasn't a major problem in the first place but rather a extremely rapid way of acquiring additional covid immunity.
The South African authorities assertion that international response was disproportionate appears to have significant justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 22, 2021 6:42:19 GMT
Morning all. Justreading reports from New York of numerous cases of Omicron recombined with Delta from the genetic sequencing. Some are suggesting that this is contamination, others that there is genetic development between the two, but no one knows yet what this means.
As I've said so many times before, we need to stop imagining this virus is a static enemy. Omicron won't stay the same, and it may already have changed into something worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 7:24:36 GMT
guymonde"...with the Corbynites saying - often publicly to my intense frustration - that he's Blair without the charisma." Bloody hell. When you think what the right of the party publicly said about Corbyn, that's pretty f*cking rich, don't you think?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
|
Post by steve on Dec 22, 2021 7:26:26 GMT
Alec
Thanks for today's Cassandra report.
It's actually rather more likely given the pathology of previous coronavirus that it will change into something better.
But never let a glimmer of optimism interrupt the unremitting gloom.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,622
|
Post by steve on Dec 22, 2021 7:27:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 7:29:54 GMT
um ...is it just my lack of logic? Surely any restrictions worth bringing in after Christmas would (a) work a lot better now and (b) likely to be too late then? So it's basically now or never. No point "watching the data" I don't think it's that exclusive - surely it can be the case that the situation doesn't require an active change right now, but that that could change by next week? I'm leaving the house and it's raining, do I need to put my umbrella up? No, it's not raining enough for that. 30 minutes later it's raining more, and I put my umbrella up - yes it's true to say that if I'd put it up straight away I'd be drier now than I am, but I'd also have been lugging an open umbrella around for half an hour I didn't need it... The disease is rife now. To use your analogy, it's pouring now and we are getting soaked with umbrellas ignored and in a couple of weeks if we start unfurling some of us may well still die of pneumonia. A hell of a lot more than if we just used the umbrellas we are carrying anyway, or take shelter from the rain. |
|
