I’m pretty sure the US constitution offers no distinctions based upon race or creed. There is a big difference in practice, and that can have a relation from racism and many other factors, but it is still true that deprivation and socioeconomic policy are not exactly the best they could be.

Can I ask why the need to add the reference to “people of color” and “wealthy, white communities”? I don’t see what it added when this issue is socioeconomic which has in New York a link that isn’t necessarily causal to race in every situation. Poor communities tend to be more diverse, but the problem is they are…

I wouldn’t say a readership of tech blogs necessarily implies any level of tech skills in practice.

Masks only work if used properly, most people don’t use them properly.

Survival rate of two weeks on invasive ventilation itself is not good, two weeks under general anaesthesia is incredibly difficult on a human body. By and large there are people that are fit and healthy that occasionally have severe symptoms, but it’s mostly the people with some other complication that under normal…

To be fair in lockdown testing is only valuable in a hospital setting and in a limited degree to allow key workers to return to work. And the latter isn’t even that useful as if you are sick enough to by symptomatic with any disease you are too sick to work and spreading around a normal cold or flu at the minute isn’t…

The vast majority of testing is based on hospitalised people, so it’s only really comparable as a figure based on hospitalised patients. If you were well enough to stay home you didn’t get tested as there was little point.

I’m really not sure the shortage is a thing by the figures I’m seeing. There is a chance the US given its policies may need them, but a lot of countries are already cutting orders for ventilators as they are switching to more balanced and less invasive treatment plans that are reducing the need for invasive…

Most countries already do have those things, it’s the US that is out of step.

Problem is all that costs money. The only way to really guarantee a decarbonisation shift in the current market is for most of the western world to cut checks for new nuclear and massive grid upgrades along with removing any restrictions on offshore renewables.

The problem with that is it assumes the market accurately accounts for all its costs fully, they don’t. Without government to correct market failure the whole free market system eventually ends up shooting itself in the head either financially or because the real world conditions destroy it(both are happening here).

FEAR games were the epitome, you are a bad ass kill everyone super soldier that mows down bad guys with probably the most graceful shooter mechanics there has ever been in a game. And there is still that creepy little girl scaring the bejeesus out of you all the way through.

It isn’t that clear, it is very much dependent on good practice of the user how effective they are. The evidence of the behavioural impact is also a lot less clear on the benefit as without the good practice they can actually make things worse not better.

To be fair the impacts more social than practical the evidence is pretty dubious on the efficacy side. A bit of self conciousness is actually pretty helpful in preventing people over emphasising the benefits of a mask. If you think about it as a social signal to ensure adherence to other policies they work pretty…

It is a bit off kilter with the rest of the developed world that are predominantly paying people not companies, where companies are getting money it is in the form of loans not basically giveaways.

We are well away from hindsight though to say it was wrong, we could well look back in 12 months and compare to the Swedish model and say our response was massively overblown.

Might not have been, it’s only hard to say until you have hindsight. The evidence from Sweden will be interesting given they’ve basically decide to follow that same policy. It isn’t often you can have that level of comparison available with everyone dealing with the same issue.

Other than the PM stating that as policy? What more of a source do you want, while I have personal access to that kind of information the underlying policy documents are not public and likely won’t be for at least 20 years.

That’s ok for the Lancet, it can postulate, UK law requires you to have an evidence base for policy. It is very hard to do any measure restricting freedoms in the UK without clear evidence of necessity. To develop the evidence there is set pace and structure.

That’s been the government policy from the first of the daily briefings so the source is the PM etc have all said that was the case, including Patrick and Chris etc. multiple times. You could say politicians lie, but the rest of government certainly doesn’t, worth noting every civil servant has a duty of impartiality…