The Covid-19 serious chat thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

Self-isolating, social distancing, locked down thread split.

[BamBam]

Never stops ministers taking credit if something happens to go right.

It only seems like people want a revolving door because the current government is comprised of the thickest possible planks who are in their positions because they sTaNd uP fOr bReXiT

[jimbopip]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

Mr Blueshorts, speaking as someone with 20-odd years as a GCSE examiner this fecc up was totally predictable and totally avoidable.

OFQAL probably did what they had been asked to do; "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", isn't too far away from the truth. However, the devil is in the detail. What the exam boards want every year from the Examiners is a numerical value for each paper e.g. 74/120, this then allows the Exam Boards to put every student in rank order for each subject. These raw results then are put into grades; the grade boundaries are decided by the Senior Examiners and every year they give a perfect Bell Curve. It's pretty much the same percentage of students in each grade every year. This is called maintaining standards. It ensures that there isn't an "easy paper" where one year 99% of kids get an A* (Level9) at Maths and a "hard paper" the following year where only 6% of kids get a C (Level4) or above.
As a raw statistical model this works well enough: but we don't live in a raw statistical model.
One unintended outcome is that if a large, or statistically significant, number of schools improve their performance their grades will be suppressed to maintain the curve, or other schools which remained at their previous level will see their results dip to maintain the normative distribution curve.

Now all of this makes sense, statistically, when we are talking about institutions. However, it soon becomes flawed when we look at individuals. Even the lowest performing "bog standard" comprehensives will regularly have pupils who achieve excellent results. Lots of "good" schools in affluent neighbourhoods have underperforming pupils, although they may make up a small minority of that year's cohort.
So you design an algorithm which will replicate the normative distribution curve and each school's place in it.
Yes, you may be very accurate in placing that school in it's national ranking BUT you would totally miss the outliers in each school. In this case the outliers are not statistics but human beings who have worked very hard to achieve the best exam results they possibly can.

IF, and it's a big IF, anyone at the Department Of Education had actually paid attention to the details and asked for the exact details of how this algorithm arrived at it's grades on an individual basis the flaws in the system would have been pretty obvious.
"Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", I can't help but feel that supressing "inevitably inflated teacher assessed results" was the prime motivator rather than finding a way to give the fairest and most accurate results for each student.

In short, Tory Education Secretary oversees process where the percentage of A* grades awarded to independent schools increases massively and state school grades fall. But it isn't anyone's fault.

[BamBam]

Now now jimbo, you know Tory ministers aren't actually responsible for anything, the civil servants and independent bodies don't allow the poor little flowers to be involved at all!

[LondonTiger]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

They were told to make sure - above anything else - to ensure that results nationally did not increase too much. They were told to apply a moderation that did not need human checking. they were given bugger all budget to do this job.

I outlined what the approach should have been back in March, but with no exam fees, the Exam boards refused to hire any people and the Govt were unwilling to fund it. (My father is a Chief Examiner with one board - weird career path, squaddie at 17, retired from army at 40 turning down a chance to be military attache in Washington to become a teacher!!).

They could have used an algorithm to identify where institutions were possibly over egging results and then asked for the evidence to be supplied to be validated and moderated by a human experienced in the subject matter. There was plenty of time to do this, but instead around 8 weeks was spent trying and failing to reprocess the data.

Williamson told us everything would be ok, criticised the Scottish Parliament (and Conservatives called for the resignation of the SNP Education Minister) and stated categorically on Saturday that there would be no U turns on this. However in the face of the criticism, the noise and the realisation that the algorithm had actually punished some candidates to correct the over marking in small (often independent) schools he backed down.

Right now our Government (and it is fair to include non political members, whether advisors or civil servants) are incompetent.

[lostinwales]

There was a education committee report published on the 11th July. I think I posted a link in another thread. There were warning signs in that document. So either Williamson didn't read the report (therefore incompetent) or he decided to continue as if it had never been written (therfore incompetent).

There are so many problems with this government. The reason why we are always shouting about resignations is that they really are that bad. The worse thing is that so much of what goes wrong is avoidable because they have structures in parliament to review and think through laws and resolutions. This government goes all out to avoid any questions at all. They really are just f**king appalling.

[Pr4wn]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

The same way that Gavin Williamson is of use to anyone?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

You seem to be giving this government the benefit of the doubt at every turn, despite them buggering everything up. Even you must admit that even by the VERY low standards set of late, this government appears to be completely out of its depth. Chris Grayling for intelligence? Gavin Williamson complaining that some people may be promoted beyond their abilities? Dido "Talk Talk hack Test and Trace" Harding?

[navyblueshorts]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

Mr Blueshorts, speaking as someone with 20-odd years as a GCSE examiner this fecc up was totally predictable and totally avoidable.

OFQAL probably did what they had been asked to do; "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", isn't too far away from the truth. However, the devil is in the detail. What the exam boards want every year from the Examiners is a numerical value for each paper e.g.  74/120, this then allows the Exam Boards to put every student in rank order for each subject. These raw results then are put into grades; the grade boundaries are decided by the Senior Examiners and every year they give a perfect Bell Curve. It's pretty much the same percentage of students in each grade every year.  This is called maintaining standards. It ensures that there isn't an "easy paper" where one year 99% of kids get an A* (Level9) at Maths and a "hard paper" the following year where only 6% of kids get a C (Level4) or above.
As a raw statistical model this works well enough: but we don't live in a raw statistical model.
One unintended outcome is that if a large, or statistically significant, number of schools improve their performance their grades will be suppressed to maintain the curve, or other schools which remained at their previous level will see their results dip to maintain the normative distribution curve.

Now all of this makes sense, statistically, when we are talking about institutions. However, it soon becomes flawed when we look at individuals. Even the lowest performing "bog standard" comprehensives will regularly have pupils who achieve excellent results. Lots of "good" schools in affluent neighbourhoods have underperforming pupils, although they may make up a small minority of that year's cohort.
So you design an algorithm which will replicate the normative distribution curve and each school's place in it.
Yes, you may be very accurate in placing that school in it's national ranking BUT you would totally miss the outliers in each school. In this case the outliers are not statistics but human beings who have worked very hard to achieve the best exam results they possibly can.

IF, and it's a big IF, anyone at the Department Of Education had actually paid attention to the details and asked for the exact details of how this algorithm arrived at it's grades on an individual basis the flaws in the system would have been pretty obvious.
"Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", I can't help but feel that supressing "inevitably inflated teacher assessed results" was the prime motivator rather than finding a way to give the fairest and most accurate results for each student.

In short, Tory Education Secretary oversees process where the percentage of A* grades awarded to independent schools increases  massively and state school grades fall. But it isn't anyone's fault.

Great post; ta for that and bow humbly to your knowledge of the actual process that normally occurs. No, that's not sarcastic!

Yep; you're absolutely correct that any of this normalisation malarky is at a population level and is bound to negatively affect some individuals, probably 'unfairly', and that, for them, it's something that could affect their entire lives. Clearly, there needs to be a much better system in place, and that need's been there for years - any ideas?

I confess I'm sceptical about GCSEs, A-levels and latterly, Degrees, even though I'm involved in the latter. I might be overly simplistic, but is it not the case that, essentially, #s of A-level and GCSE passes have increased year-on-year over the recent past? Now, I'm not a statistician, but any trendline where every data point in this sort of data set is above the trend, is surely a statistical nonsense. Yep, every year, the students are getting brighter and brighter and/or the teaching is getting better and better. Somehow, I don't think so and that's not to try to denigrate the efforts of students and/or teachers.

As I've said elsewhere, I think education, period, in the UK is FUBAR, and has been for a long time.

[navyblueshorts]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

They were told to make sure - above anything else - to ensure that results nationally did not increase too much. They were told to apply a moderation that did not need human checking. they were given bugger all budget to do this job.

I outlined what the approach should have been back in March, but with no exam fees, the Exam boards refused to hire any people and the Govt were unwilling to fund it. (My father is a Chief Examiner with one board - weird career path, squaddie at 17, retired from army at 40 turning down a chance to be military attache in Washington to become a teacher!!).

They could have used an algorithm to identify where institutions were possibly over egging results and then asked for the evidence to be supplied to be validated and moderated by a human experienced in the subject matter. There was plenty of time to do this, but instead around 8 weeks was spent trying and failing to reprocess the data.

Williamson told us everything would be ok, criticised the Scottish Parliament (and Conservatives called for the resignation of the SNP Education Minister) and stated categorically on Saturday that there would be no U turns on this. However in the face of the criticism, the noise and the realisation that the algorithm had actually punished some candidates to correct the over marking in small (often independent) schools he backed down.

Right now our Government (and it is fair to include non political members, whether advisors or civil servants) are incompetent.

All good points. Can't really disagree.

[navyblueshorts]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

The same way that Gavin Williamson is of use to anyone?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

You seem to be giving this government the benefit of the doubt at every turn, despite them buggering everything up. Even you must admit that even by the VERY low standards set of late, this government appears to be completely out of its depth. Chris Grayling for intelligence? Gavin Williamson complaining that some people may be promoted beyond their abilities? Dido "Talk Talk hack Test and Trace" Harding?

Maybe I'm over-doing the 'benefit of the doubt' thing. I did say that Williamson appeared promoted well above abilities based on his abject covid briefing performances. Nothing he's done over the last couple of weeks would tend to suggest that was incorrect.
Yeah, Dido Harding seems to be a case of daughter of landed gentry having a great career based on family connections etc. Another PPE graduate.

TBH, I'm just bored w/ the automatic 'sack them all' criticism that seems the default position of everyone these days. I'm bored of the shooting down of anyone, on any media forum, who dares to hold any opinions that dissent from whatever the majority hold - I guess sometimes I'm therefore being deliberately contrary. Also, Brexit has poisoned our politics for a generation. Great times to look forward to.

Probably time for a short break again...

[jimbopip]

By the accepted reckoning on here, every Minister should resign, pretty much every week. How is a perpetually revolving door of any use to anyone, pray?

Ofqual being blamed for the exams fiasco, despite at pretty much every stage doing what was instructed.

Thought Ofqual was meant to be an independent body? Perhaps they were simply told "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", which they then did - as it turns out, badly.

Mr Blueshorts, speaking as someone with 20-odd years as a GCSE examiner this fecc up was totally predictable and totally avoidable.  

OFQAL probably did what they had been asked to do; "Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", isn't too far away from the truth. However, the devil is in the detail. What the exam boards want every year from the Examiners is a numerical value for each paper e.g.  74/120, this then allows the Exam Boards to put every student in rank order for each subject. These raw results then are put into grades; the grade boundaries are decided by the Senior Examiners and every year they give a perfect Bell Curve. It's pretty much the same percentage of students in each grade every year.  This is called maintaining standards. It ensures that there isn't an "easy paper" where one year 99% of kids get an A* (Level9) at Maths and a "hard paper" the following year where only 6% of kids get a C (Level4) or above.
As a raw statistical model this works well enough: but we don't live in a raw statistical model.
One unintended outcome is that if a large, or statistically significant, number of schools improve their performance their grades will be suppressed to maintain the curve, or other schools which remained at their previous level will see their results dip to maintain the normative distribution curve.

Now all of this makes sense, statistically, when we are talking about institutions. However, it soon becomes flawed when we look at individuals. Even the lowest performing "bog standard" comprehensives will regularly have pupils who achieve excellent results. Lots of "good" schools in affluent neighbourhoods have underperforming pupils, although they may make up a small minority of that year's cohort.
So you design an algorithm which will replicate the normative distribution curve and each school's place in it.
Yes, you may be very accurate in placing that school in it's national ranking BUT you would totally miss the outliers in each school. In this case the outliers are not statistics but human beings who have worked very hard to achieve the best exam results they possibly can.

IF, and it's a big IF, anyone at the Department Of Education had actually paid attention to the details and asked for the exact details of how this algorithm arrived at it's grades on an individual basis the flaws in the system would have been pretty obvious.
"Sort out some way of normalising for the inevitably inflated teacher-assessed A-level results, would you?", I can't help but feel that supressing "inevitably inflated teacher assessed results" was the prime motivator rather than finding a way to give the fairest and most accurate results for each student.

In short, Tory Education Secretary oversees process where the percentage of A* grades awarded to independent schools increases  massively and state school grades fall. But it isn't anyone's fault.

Great post; ta for that and bow humbly to your knowledge of the actual process that normally occurs. No, that's not sarcastic!  

Yep; you're absolutely correct that any of this normalisation malarky is at a population level and is bound to negatively affect some individuals, probably 'unfairly', and that, for them, it's something that could affect their entire lives. Clearly, there needs to be a much better system in place, and that need's been there for years - any ideas?

Sadly, no. The idea of national exams is that it provides students with an "equal opportunity" to achieve academic success and the social mobility that goes with it. In reality "equal opportunity" does not equate to "equality of opportunity". There is a hugely important debate to be had around that but not on  this thread.

I confess I'm sceptical about GCSEs, A-levels and latterly, Degrees, even though I'm involved in the latter. I might be overly simplistic, but is it not the case that, essentially, #s of A-level and GCSE passes have increased year-on-year over the recent past? Now, I'm not a statistician, but any trendline where every data point in this sort of data set is above the trend, is surely a statistical nonsense. Yep, every year, the students are getting brighter and brighter and/or the teaching is getting better and better. Somehow, I don't think so and that's not to try to denigrate the efforts of students and/or teachers.

I very much agree as regards ever increasing success; if the teachers are that good why are they not paid as such? Secondly, kids aren't getting more intelligent year on year. My take on it is that Shirley Williams summed it up quite well in the 1980's in Politics Is For People; governments need to be able to point to success criteria to show they are actually achieving something, there is very little that governments can actually control, or influence significantly, education is an easy target. Therefore standards MUST rise. A simplistic analysis but you could read the book for a more nuanced explanation. Also, teachers/schools/especially academies have become very adept at training students to pass exams. This does not necessarily make them independent thinkers or equip them for working for a living.

[navyblueshorts]

Ta for the book recommendation, Jimbo. May well have a read. Met (sort of) Williams once, but a bit of a disappointment as not sure she was on planet Earth (dozing?) at the time. Shame, as always thought she was interesting and I'd read about her mother.

Interesting factoid: if you're interested in WWI, have a read of her mother's (Vera Brittain) book, 'Testament of Youth'. Powerful.

[jimbopip]

Mr Shorts, thanks for the book recommendation. When Shirley Williams was promoting her book, as part of a recruitment drive/ election campaign for the SDP (remember them?) I was working in a bookshop and we set up a stall at the back of the hall she was speaking at in Glasgow. She was a very good orator: mind, this was in the time of ; Michael Foot, Dennis Healey, Michael Heseltine and such like. I chatted to her for a while as she was signing the books and I was taking the money. She was very friendly and affable, when she sat down I asked if there was anythign i could get her :tea, coffee? "Could you bring me a glass of wine please?" when I asked "red or white?" she looked askance and said "Red obviously, I'm still a socialist."

[BamBam]

Everyone who was displeased by the way the A Level results were handled will be delighted to see that Ofqual's Chief Regulator and the permanent secretary at the Department of Education have stepped down from their posts.

The Prime Minister has apparently concluded that fresh official leadership is needed at the DfE - no news as yet as to what that means for the man who would almost certainly be out of his depth in a paddling pool but is current Secretary of State for Education

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Is there one policy that this government is not going to do a U turn on?

Well the only two I can think of are Brexit and sacking Williamson, he has got a stack of dirty photos of Johnson of something, the two senior civil servants have fallen on their swords, Williamson seems to need it stuck up his posterior to make him go.

Hey Ho, all the more ammunition for Starmer to throw at him.

[No 7&1/2]

The government u turned to reach the transition agreement to border in the Irish sea and are now u turning on that. No point getting rid of Williamson before the schools go back or there would be 2 ministers getting blame.

[navyblueshorts]

On-topic, at least this one confirmed 're-infection' in Hong Kong. Tallies w/ an earlier comment by someone (apologies, forget who) re. 'unconfirmed' re-infections in Iran.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53889823

Over time, likely that this sort of thing leads to less virulent virus worldwide maybe. In short term though, could include more virulent strains in some global areas.

[Pr4wn]

Let's please keep this thread on topic. Please take anything non-covid related to the off-topic section.

Navy, you'll know this better than me. Is the first confirmed re-infection a big step backwards in the search for a vaccine?

[navyblueshorts]

Let's please keep this thread on topic. Please take anything non-covid related to the off-topic section.

Navy, you'll know this better than me. Is the first confirmed re-infection a big step backwards in the search for a vaccine?

Not necessarily, but don't think it'll help. Probably depends on any potential vaccine formulation - if they have any sense, it won't be based on a single viral antigen. Chances of viral adaptation affecting multiple antigens together would be slim, I would guess.
Afraid the adaptive immune system is annoyingly complex - I tend to go blank when colleagues are regaling me w/ its amazing abilities!

[BamBam]

"Right young people, we need to kickstart the economy - go to work, get back in the office, get on public transport, go to uni, go to school, eat out to help with out 3 days a week for a month"

*2 weeks later*

"Young people are spreading the virus, don't pass it to your gran, no one is allowed to meet with more than 6 people it's illegal"

Great stuff lads

[WELL-PAST-IT]

If they do any more U turns they might as well build a roundabout.

I know a lot about them living in the roundabout capital of the UK, Milton Keynes

[BamBam]

Coincidentally, Milton Keynes is the closest place I could get a COVID test if I needed one*, a mere 65 Miles away. "World leading" test and trace system indeed

*Only if I was a walk through, no car allowed

[navyblueshorts]

"Right young people, we need to kickstart the economy  - go to work, get back in the office, get on public transport, go to uni, go to school, eat out to help with out 3 days a week for a month"

*2 weeks later*

"Young people are spreading the virus, don't pass it to your gran, no one is allowed to meet with more than 6 people it's illegal"

Great stuff lads

If they do any more U turns they might as well build a roundabout.

I know a lot about them living in the roundabout capital  of the UK, Milton Keynes

Well, this was obvious, so why the angst? Ferguson's March paper predicted this. They know this will happen. They also know that some things have to return to something resembling normal. If stuff 'opens' and then has to close again, well that's the way it has to be and has always had to be. Why the fuss?

No, I don't like it either, but I'm not sure this is in any way unexpected. See rest of Europe. Want to shout at Boris et al (I know you do; it's axiomatic)? Perhaps do so over Track/Trace, Brexit, Cummings etc.

On 'young' people, I don't think there's any suggestion and/or real evidence that 'young' people returning to work etc and adhering to social distancing etc has played any part in this. Suggest it's p!ss heads, ravers, party animals and the generally don't-give-a-4X-about-others brigade that are being called out on this.

[navyblueshorts]

Coincidentally, Milton Keynes is the closest place I could get a COVID test if I needed one*, a mere 65 Miles away. "World leading" test and trace system indeed

*Only if I was a walk through, no car allowed

Get one in the post. Colleague had one delivered by Amazon and results back within 24 hours of sending it back.

[Pr4wn]

Johnson was asked specifically about this in PMQs today. He had no idea why it wasn't working, nor did he appear to show any curiosity about it. He just doesn't appear to like hard work.

[jimbopip]

Morning peeps

The talk in the media this morning seems to be about The Adulterer In Chief's moonshot project. The idea seems to be, to paraphrase Grant Shaps, almost like a pregnancy test kit that you can use quickly and simply and get instant results.

Sounds good. However, on Breakfast TV they were saying the big advantage of this is, for instance, cinema, theatres, sporting events would be places where you could take a test as you are going in and have your results within ten minutes. Then when the performance begins there would be no-one in the venue who is not 100% sure they are not infected and so everyone could relax and behave "normally".

This got me thinking So, you go to the local multiplex and they give you the testing kit. You spit in it and then what? Where do you wait for the results? In the bar? Wander round the local streets? What if you're in the bar waiting and the group at the next table get the news that one of their party is positive? Now consider going to a packed Twickers or Old Trafford. In both cases large numbers of people would have travelled by public transport in order to reach the venue and would then have to travel home after being told they couldn't get in. If large venues were required to test people prior to entering then I can imagine it would be not unlike the penning which we have to endure before rugby internationals. That many people in close proximity for up to an hour before they get tested could prove counterproductive and actually increase infections.

No, no. I hear you say. Like a pregnancy test you could carry it out at home before you leave the house. Fine. All that would tell me is that I was not infected BEFORE I left the house. If I was going to work and then to an evening performance/concert/match/piss up then surely the test would be pretty much worthless?

This at home instant result testing can be very useful but we would all have to be testing every 3 or four days. The expense would be prohibitive for many people.

Like many of this PM's ideas it falls apart when you look into the finer details.

[BamBam]

Garden bridges come to mind

[jimbopip]

Ah yes, there's nothing I like to do more than test my wobbly eyesight by putting my family in the back of the car and driving 250 miles to have a packed lunch while strolling across the world beating Garden Bridge.

[Samo]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

[LondonTiger]

Alert I had says it is between 1 & 1.2.

Now while this is not good, it is not really a like for like comparison with back in March where only the really virulent cases were being picked up. Unless we see hospitalisation (and deaths) increasing significantly I very much doubt we will see another full lockdown.

[navyblueshorts]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

Good grief. Don't be absurd. They have their political aims, which you hate, but it's quite a step from that to "they couldn't give a Poopie". Don't you think?

Go have a drink - it's the end of the week; that's what I'm off to do right now. Have a good one .

[lostinwales]

Hospital cases still relatively low but slowly climbing. Death rates to follow.

I don't think we'll get people dying at the same rate, not least because infections are rising highest in 18-24yr olds who have a better chance of shaking the bug off, but numbers will climb up.

[jimbopip]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

Good grief. Don't be absurd. They have their political aims, which you hate, but it's quite a step from that to "they couldn't give a Poopie". Don't you think?

Go have a drink - it's the end of the week; that's what I'm off to do right now. Have a good one .

A very sensible reaction, Mr Shorts.

Samo, the sad reality is that our immediate choices are just as they always have been; develop herd immunity, invent a vaccine or learn to change our behaviour so that we minimise infections.

We all know that the Adulterer In Chief was stupid enough (or had missed too many COBRA briefings) to believe in herd immunity in the early days. We also know that a vaccine is probably a year away. So unless we, as a nation, begin taking this thing really seriously* then the graph for infections will look like the Big Dipper on Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

*By really seriously I mean not standing by colleagues who drive to Durham in a car with at least two infectious people in it. Or spending Friday morning at home with an infected spouse but Friday afternoon at work without telling anyone. Or....you get the point don't you?

[Samo]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

Good grief. Don't be absurd. They have their political aims, which you hate, but it's quite a step from that to "they couldn't give a Poopie". Don't you think?

Go have a drink - it's the end of the week; that's what I'm off to do right now. Have a good one .

If you’ve seen anything from the past decade to suggest the Tories care about the common man then feel free to share, because Im struggling to see anything. As far as I can tell their political aims are to get power and keep their rich pals rich at the expense of the most vunerable.

[jimbopip]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

Good grief. Don't be absurd. They have their political aims, which you hate, but it's quite a step from that to "they couldn't give a Poopie". Don't you think?

Go have a drink - it's the end of the week; that's what I'm off to do right now. Have a good one .

If you’ve seen anything from the past decade to suggest the Tories care about the common man then feel free to share, because Im struggling to see anything. As far as I can tell their political aims are to get power and keep their rich pals rich at the expense of the most vunerable.

I wouldn't disagree with a single word of that. This government has raised the bar in terms of dishonesty and incompetence: they are proving to be world beating in fact. But evem I'm not convinced that they actively want to engineer excessive deaths among people who are unlikely to vote for them. Granted the residents of care homes tend to be dyed in the wool Conservatives and they actively instructed hospitals to return infected elderly patients to Care Homes where the staff did not have adequate PPE or training to look after them...but that was a mixture of incompetence and dishonesty not a Mengeleian attempt at creating a master race.

[Samo]

I dont think they actively want to either, but I think they see them as simply collateral. The ends justify the means in their eyes, and if a few old or disabled people end up dying because they’ve crippled social welfare so they could save their big corporate buddies a few bob.

[lostinwales]

I think its more an ill informed and half hearted gamble that 'things won't get too bad' and we can get back to working and driving the economy onwards.

I know hindsight (or any sight) is a wonderful thing, but it strikes me that the best way to get back to normal fast would have been to get on top of lockdown faster and harder.

It is difficult. Infection rates on the continent are pushing the numbers last seen in the spring and early summer, and we are up to 3000+ a day even with our 'world class' testing regime and track and trace. But some places seem to get it right.

[lostinwales]

Seems like the testing program has all but collapsed and the performance of Serco's track and trace is patchy.

I do hope we don't see the massive rises in infections that have been happening on the continent happening here, but expect it to happen simply because our infection rate will lag behind.

The first question is will we know?
The second will be at what point will the government be forced to consider a second lockdown - and will they go through with it?

I do feel very pessimistic about the near future. I think death rates will stay lower than they were, but they will go up.

[navyblueshorts]

R number is up to 1.7. By the governments previous rules we’re in atleast level 4 which means back into Lockdown, but they couldnt give a Poopie and now they hope enough people have forgotten about that and they can get fired into their herd immunity plan that they wanted to do from the start.

Good grief. Don't be absurd. They have their political aims, which you hate, but it's quite a step from that to "they couldn't give a Poopie". Don't you think?

Go have a drink - it's the end of the week; that's what I'm off to do right now. Have a good one .

If you’ve seen anything from the past decade to suggest the Tories care about the common man then feel free to share, because Im struggling to see anything. As far as I can tell their political aims are to get power and keep their rich pals rich at the expense of the most vunerable.

I'm not going hunting, but at least my position isn't to assume axiomatically that all Tories are scum. I realise there might be more to something and to someone's reason's for doing something than my biases want me to believe.

[No 7&1/2]

Keep it on topic navy. This is no place to argue that the tories arent scum.

[jimbopip]

Seems like the testing program has all but collapsed and the performance of Serco's track and trace is patchy.

I do hope we don't see the massive rises in infections that have been happening on the continent happening here, but expect it to happen simply because our infection rate will lag behind.

The first question is will we know?
The second will be at what point will the government be forced to consider a second lockdown - and will they go through with it?

I do feel very pessimistic about the near future. I think death rates will stay lower than they were, but they will go up.

Well, last night(after my wife and I had minded him all day) our grandson ended up at A&E. Our daughter and son in law were very worried as he was coughing and having trouble breathing. The hospital were 99.9% convinced it's croup (sp?) but said he should have a Covid test just to be sure.

Daughter has spent all day, since 7:30 am, trying to find one but it's not happening. She rang her GP and get no joy. The receptionist actually rang her back to say that the nearest walk in she could find that might be able to offer a test was Ebbsfleet (Kent) which is about an hour and a half away, if the M25 and the bridge aren't snafu-ed up. Bear in mind that Essex has one of the lowest infection rates in the country and should have a correspondingly lower demand for tests...this doesn't auger well for winter.

Finally, daughter said A&E was very understaffed, lacking in hand sanitizers and the ones that have always been there (attached to walls at doorways) were almost all empty. This gives me the impression of an institution which has taken a battering and not yet got back on it's feet. Which again doesn't bode well.

[BamBam]

They've fed you bollox Jimbo - my parents live near Ebbsfleet and the testing centre there closed last week and moved to Medway. Apparently the Ebbsfleet site is needed as a future lorry park for the government's other colossal man sausage up

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-54158100

[jimbopip]

Thanks Bambam.

[MrInvisible]

So after all the incompetence of the costly contract awarded to Deloitte (without a competitive tender process) for the privately run Covid test centres, the government's response is to...

...reward their failure with an even bigger contract of course: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/deloitte-gets-another-huge-covid-contract-for-crazy-plan-to-test-millions-each-day/

Serco also look set to be rewarded for their incompetence on the test and tracing too.

[king_carlos]

One of my flatmates works for Deloitte as an accountant. It sounds frankly miserable at the minute.

From what I can gather they take recent graduates on straight out of Uni and pay them very little to do a lot of grunt work whilst sponsoring them through their Chartered Accountancy exams. It's a fixed contract and if you leave early you pay back the significant fees for the exams. So far, so normal for big firms in accountancy. The difference by the sounds of things at current though is that usually upon finishing that first graduate contract most competent employees get a big raise to convince them to stay on. From what I gather the financial implications of Covid mean that those big raises have been frozen for the time being, so all those employees who have recently finished their fixed contract and ACA exams are fleeing the ship but Deloitte are taking on more and more contracts (see above) so if anything it's busier than usual with fewer staff. Lots of higher ups to oversee, lots of very inexperienced recent grads still locked in those contracts, then increasingly less in-between.

[BamBam]

I worked there when I graduated and followed that exact process, leaving after 3 years.

I'm surprised that it's following the same pattern this year though, in the industry the jobs aren't exactly plentiful so I would have thought that the guys qualifying in September would be forced to stick it out until hiring goes somewhat back to normal. I'm not sure if their usual September intake has been reduced because of COVID, but that would be a big issue for those who are 3/4 years in.

I do not envy anyone who is going to be going through the audit busy season in Q1 next year if there is a lack of people to do the genuine grunt work

[king_carlos]

I worked there when I graduated and followed that exact process, leaving after 3 years.

I'm surprised that it's following the same pattern this year though, in the industry the jobs aren't exactly plentiful so I would have thought that the guys qualifying in September would be forced to stick it out until hiring goes somewhat back to normal. I'm not sure if their usual September intake has been reduced because of COVID, but that would be a big issue for those who are 3/4 years in.

I do not envy anyone who is going to be going through the audit busy season in Q1 next year if there is a lack of people to do the genuine grunt work

From chatting with my flatmate I think that's what the higher ups presumed would happen (i.e. they'd stay because they have to due to the job market) but the workload is so ridiculous at current that most are leaving the end of those contracts anyway. Just accepting that it may mean a period of working part time and potentially moving back home, which he's considering sadly as he's a good egg who loves rugby and endures cricket.

He used to travel a lot for work so spent a lot of time away from home. When he tried to chat to his boss about the workload being so ridiculous currently that he's working 8am-8pm 6 days a week but working from home his boss basically said 'you're not travelling for work anymore so that still represents more time spent at home'.

His contract came to an end a couple of weeks ago but he refused to sign the new one on the same wage, telling them in writing that if he didn't have a better offer by the Friday (the last day of the contract) he'd work his 4 weeks notice from then - which was the notice period for that first contract. He heard nothing back until after the end of the working day that Friday when he got an automated email saying he'd rolled onto a new contract with a notice period of 8 weeks instead of 4.

I can't say I know anything much about the industry Bam but from the outside Deloitte sounds like a complete fustercluck to be honest!

[BamBam]

I think Deloitte and the rest of the Big 4 have a bad reputation which is somewhat, but not entirely deserved. The core audit function is what they were built on, and if they had stuck to doing that then they would be performing an essential service which everyone with any sort of interest in business would depend on.

The problems started however many years ago when they became both poacher and gamekeeper - they discovered that they had a hell of a lot of very smart people working for them who could do more than just audit, so they began offering "consultancy" services which had much more lucrative fees. With the existing relationships they had with business and governments, they were very good at becoming ingrained into every significant area of activity.

Once the consultancy fees far overtook the audit fees, it became a case of why rock the boat too much and risk losing all that business. I'm not that close to audit regulations, but I think the recent changes mean a company's auditors can't do much more than audit them going forwards, which has opened up the FTSE 350 audit market to smaller firms, rather than having 99% with the Big 4. Carillion is the obvious example of what can go wrong when auditors are willing to compromise their independence

From someone who has been there in audit and for a small period in strategy (albeit left 5 years ago), I can't work out what team / department keeps picking up these massive government contracts for these things. I can only assume they are essentially acting as generic project managers, and have been tasked with applying that skillset and handing out sub contracts to others who will directly do the work.  I'd like to think that the government would be able of putting together the same without including Deloitte, but at the moment it doesn't appear that is the case.

On a personal level, my career would not be where it is without Deloitte. I had a grad job offer from the 5th biggest auditor at the time, but the doors that have been opened for me on the back of having Deloitte on my CV just wouldn't have been an option had I started outside of the Big 4.

[Samo]

Jacob Rees-Mogg in Parliament earlier described the perfectly legitimate concerns of members of the public who are unable to get a Covid test as "endless carping".

BuT tHeY cArE aBoUt YoU

[navyblueshorts]

Keep it on topic navy. This is no place to argue that the tories arent scum.

[navyblueshorts]

Jacob Rees-Mogg in Parliament earlier described the perfectly legitimate concerns of members of the public who are unable to get a Covid test as "endless carping".

BuT tHeY cArE aBoUt YoU

Even I won't defend that p***k.

[Sponsored content]