Why? I mean you’re probably right re 2024 but not because they suspended Corbyn.

When I said in the politics thread the other day about Trumps election being a response to the left this is what I meant. Admittedly I had not foreseen the 7 days that have followed but it's a great example. I wasn't meaning so much the corridors of power had shifted too far left or policies of specific governments so much as a societal shift left. Or at least far too loud a voice is afforded to the radical left which I think results in the electorate voting more to the right in response. I know you wanted to keep this politics free but the two are linked I feel, at least in terms of what I outlined above.

Demanding that people should hang their heads in shame and self flagellate for the crimes of their ancestors two centuries ago (broad generalisation), meanwhile insisting on removing and censoring any entertainment medium from pop culture history that doesn't meet June 2020's new standard is not, in my view at least, going to win people round. Neither is removing and defacing statues or memorials of historical figures. Then anyone who makes a point along those lines is labelled a bigot and shutdown.  So we see the response in the voting booth instead, the only place left where people can voice an honest opinion.

I will leave the explicit politics there, or at least try.

Like most inequalities they are often far more complex than any one explanation and to simply boil down the whole topic to 'systemic racism' in this case massively over simplifies the subject. I think the response then does more harm than good in trying to correct inequality generally with a 'top down' approach which usually just results in positive discrimination which is then alienating to a different group of people.

That's not to deny racism exists either, clearly it does and will be a factor but it is one of many.

It's the biggest news story in 20 years, it's not getting closed.

Did you read the study? The data on deaths is taken from Italy primarily.

It's still to be peer reviewed in fairness so let's wait and see. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the statistical modelling they have done but applying deaths from one country to a general population of another and concluding years lost seems a bit woolly to me.

Can we also look at moving this to more civil ground please. Some feel the current lockdown is an overreaction, fine. Others disagree, also fine. Given the scientific community and world experts in this field haven't reached a general consensus either, a position of 'I'm right and you're wrong' on a GNR fan forum from either side of the argument seems foolish to me.

This thread is giving me a headache

Just a side note but the article comes from the Telegraph newspaper in the UK, which is unquestionably right wing shill.

The article is interesting Buzz and when all is said and done Sweden will provide a useful counter point and reference. However their low population and geographical spread means it may not be the correct response for every country (it's not even certain it's the right response for Sweden yet). As it says in the article 'If Swedes hadn't changed their behaviour on the recommendation of the Public Health Institute, he stressed, Imperial would have been proven right.' Imperial being the Imperial College 'doomsday' model that completely changed the UK's response from herd immunity to lockdown. They acknowledge social distance was crucial to helping control the situation. I suppose it comes down to whether you trust a population to heed the health advice without it being enforced. The Swedish government perhaps trusted their people to be more responsible than most governments dared of theirs?

Next steps will be interesting. I agree about shielding the old and vulnerable and allowing the young, healthy and hopefully the growing numbers of immune to start things back up. With that said when you consider the vulnerable appear to be anyone over 65 and/or with COPD, heart issues, diabetes, obesity or immuno-compromised that's quite a large lump of society (literally) and that's before you count the people they live with. If they go back to work and then come home every night it defeats the point somewhat. Not easy but a compromise will have to be struck I think.

Some good news this week though, an accurate antibody test appears to be on the way and an antibody looks to have been identified that actually prevents infection. Also looks highly likely now that infection does provide immunity afterwards if only short to medium term. The reports of people infected then given the all clear then presenting re-infected were testing errors.

Also interestingly France has identified a positive case from December, a full month before their previously thought first case and several days before Corona virus had been reported to the WHO by China. I think the whole timeframe and calendar of this thing will ultimately need shuffling back a month or so.