Honey Honey

No idea of the clout of the potential new owners. Doesn't matter a great deal anyway. We don't need someone else's wealth to repair what the club means, is and behaves.

£200m upfront. £150m over 5 years according to the Daily Mail. That £150m is what is in the latest legal documents causing today's frenzy.

On a serious note it's the breaking news on skysports

Is this it? Is it happening? Holy fuck! £150m deposit made by PCP capital.

Nearly 60% in France think Macron has handled the crisis badly. Don't assume his "honesty" now is anything but a political strategy.

For a counter point to earlier Ireland post

I read success rate of even the best tests at the minute is only 90%, don't know how true that is though.

Didn't see anything about China in there unless I missed it?

Limitations for sure, especially geography and density. Nationwide lockdowns shouldn't necessarily happen in a country the size of the UK. That's a failure in test and trace. Outbreaks happen in enclaves, regions, small communities then spread. This is what Italy tried to solely lockdown without testing so they had no idea the scale of what was happening. UK shouldn't be considering everywhere opening back up in sync in my opinion. If we had the data you could open the lower risk areas. It will certainly be the case that some towns and cities are currently unnecessarily locked indoors and others don't need another 2 months of lockdown.

Chance for us to see how to come out of lockdown successfully so we can make sure we don't do that.

Click tweet for the thread on how Ireland started locking down 2 weeks before UK, where people were just washing their hands and arguing that we can't shut schools because who will look after kids.

The tweet is just one line from the report, there's a lot more in there. But I recall a big Boris fan telling me we can't lockdown because of the economy. This was when Italy was locking down. The mind boggles at what these people must think of how the economy works in Italy and China. Italy must be a country of only 80 year olds sipping state subsidised coffee and doing fuck all else every day.

Good report on flawed UK scientific advice that led us to this point.

I've found it quite emotional, sad and moving seeing a lot of people on my street out clapping, banging pots and pans, whistling and letting off fireworks. For me it makes the whole thing real and frightening whilst also bringing a sense of purpose for a change. As does walking around the street seeing rainbows and teddy's in the window. It's easy to lock yourself in and live the crisis through the internet watching the numbers coming in.

Only problem with Imperial College London is that in their other work on predictions for UK daily deaths it has been blown out of the water by reality and they told us to put their work in the bin They are also at the heart of the UK's original slow like pace to do anything, famously within 3 days they went from saying we'd be ok for a while to we are fucked right now stay away from all humans. It's the same team. The same professors. Are predictive health scientists the new econo-missed's? I guess if you make enough predictions you'll get one right.

Do they have any 5G masts in that area? On a serious note, there are an estimated 12000 deaths in Madrid so far. If fataility rate is 0.37% then Madrid would have 24000 deaths from 100% infection rate. They're half that now. Madrid would have to have something in the range of 2 to 4 million cases rather than about 400k that the WHO fatality rates would estimate Back of a beer mat estimates obviously

Just proves Nobby Solano was right to go out at night instead

2 years. It turned out to be because my phone vibrated at 1am. All fine now.

The gf isn't talking to me this morning and won't tell me what I've done wrong. I've got a feeling she thinks I'm messaging other women when actually I'm posting on here to you cunts.

Various experts doesn't matter. As I said from the start the advice the government was receiving was mixed. To assume the approach taken was about a disregard for human life is quite an accusation at those involved. The approach was never at any time to do nothing. Even from the very start they did at least something. Let's not conflate what is considered not enough with nothing. It was made clear that the approach was to enact particular protocols at certain times based on assumptions and modelling of when that is best to enact to flatten the curve. The UK locked down around two weeks after deaths in Italy blew up. It is only in that spell when calls for much stronger action actually emerged in the UK. Italy locked down on around 400 deaths, the UK on less than 300. It's France that locked down on less which caused pressure. Herd immunity is an inevitability, a necessity. We have to get there at some point. 70 year olds can't just lock themselves up until they die of something else. The virus is unlikely to die out across the planet of its own accord. The flatten the curve argument is rooted in the notion that herd immunity must be achieved. You'll see some curve flattening models don't actually reduce the number of deaths at all, it spreads them out across a longer period of time. Other curve flattening models take into account excess deaths from a crashed health care system and show flattening the curve does save lives. ICL was modelling that the NHS would not crash any time soon. The governments position was not do nothing it was to lockdown if the NHS approached capacity. The data used in this modelling turned out to be for a different virus. Once it was updated with metrics from China and Italy it showed catastrophic results for life and the NHS almost immediately and so we locked down. I've advocated for South Korea approach but let's get real about timings, we only knew empirically that approach was working when cases plateaued, one week before we locked down. They mobilised testing when Wuhan blew up, we and many others didn't so we are two months behind them. Test and trace is the issue that exists in the UK right now. Mistakes have been made for various reasons. None of which can soundbites do justice for. The attitude towards Italy and Spain was pathetic for sure. We didn't stop flights they carried on. Our current outbreak is not about China it's about Italy and Spain, as is the majority of the countries.

Not quite true on a few levels. They weren't "all" saying herd immunity requires a vaccine. A vaccine is an option to achieve herd immunity, which is in all diseases of which such has occurred in the last 50 years. The original stance was that the virus would keep coming back for years until each community developed herd immunity. No vaccine was mentioned. Lockdown measures were not implemented earlier because they were modelling the impact of each measure and the timing in which to do that. As was said at the time there are negative health consequences with each measure in the modelling. Isolation causes sedation which leads to premature death for those with particular conditions for example. They also noted concern for long term isolation not being followed, suggesting that because of that if they go too early it wont work due to rule breakers. They were waiting for community outbreaks to reach particular levels they modelled to be optimal for the response. They explicitly said the aim was to broaden the peak, flatten it. That goal is no different to the approach today. To say the approach wasn't people centred is to completely miss the argument laid forth by people with decades of experience. The end failure of the early response was really the modelling. It was wrong and missing huge confounding variables. We lost time because of that. We didn't mobilise testing and ventilators earlier because of that, just as the French didn't mobilise in 1938 because they didn't see what was coming.The premise of the argument was built on bad data and that was exposed when published and when available for public scrutiny. Allowing experts from outside SAGE to chip in, putting weight behind those within SAGE and government who disagreed with the premise behind the work. The lesson therefore resides in a slow pace to transparency. That no organisation has a monopoly on expertise in a country like the UK.

The expert advice the government was receiving was mixed. Sweden's current approach is actually what the UK plan started out as. Mistakes are inevitable, correction is the minimum you can ask for. We are fortunate we have that, some don't. Leaders across the world are all benefiting from boosted ratings when they enact hard lockdown. The reason being it is what people want in times of uncertainty. It's what people saw happening elsewhere so wanted here. It's not like any of us are part of the inner expert critique, we back the method we like the sound of the arguments for and we promote them. It's particularly helpful that the governments earlier position supporters weren't very good at defending that approach at the time and didn't understand it. Most of the opponents to the new approach are far right flirting tosspots or contrarian dullards. Not sure how the ONS process data but mustn't be real time. Knowing the ONS they probably estimate.