Maybe it was just who they were testing ?

The point that I was making is that, the UK said the test wasn't good enough but, it does seem that Germany has a test that it is happy to use and that does appear to have been successful in helping.
Meanwhile, in the UK we seem to go for over promising tests, PPE, number of deaths and have failed to hit any of its own targets.
We also have a daily roll call for deaths in hospitals, which although possibly accurate, is utterly meaningless if it only includes around half of the total deaths caused by the virus.

BOZZA 'Dommy, seeing as I've been a really good boy sat in the corner all this time while you've been having your important meeting, is there any chance I can ask you a question?'

CUMMINGS 'Go ahead Boris but make it brief'.

BOZZA 'Well I was just thinking Dommy, is there any chance I can stay up late on Thursday night so I can clap for the carers as I really had fun with little Rishi from next door last time?'

CUMMINGS 'We'll see Boris'.

Germany has a vast network of decentralised private laboratories which has certainly helped. We simply don't have that capacity or flexibility. According to Speigel International rlit hasn't been all plain sailingrl, but they've done a great job.



I've mentioned this before, but they also have a far more disciplined and compliant society. They follow government instruction and don't have house parties or flock to parks and have mates round for bbqs just because it's sunny. There have been some small protests against their lockdown but the vast majority are sensible and compliant.

Also - and this is key - it seems Germany records the cause of death as any underlying condition even if the patient is confirmed with CV19, and testing for CV19 after death is not all that common. In the UK doctors can record CV19 as the direct or underlying cause of death regardless of underlying condition, and without the need for a positive CV19 test result, or the need for a coroner. Another reason why comparing different countries is never accurate.

We'll see a better picture when Germany publishes their number of total deaths for March, on 30th April.

Either way, this isn't going away. If someone tests positive and everyone around them is placed in quarantine, what happens next? They're back in society within about 2 weeks. Then - as we're seeing in Asia - it just comes back. Until there's a vaccine it'll just keep moving among the population and we simply cannot stay in lockdown in perpetuity, so we'll likely see a gradual easing of restrictions, maintaining social distancing, recommending masks, working from home where possible, perhaps changing how schools operate, continue to isolate those most at risk, continue to restrict mass gatherings, etc.

Testing capacity here is increasing rapidly and we'll soon see it rolled out nationwide, which will help enormously.

You have to laugh at the return of the prodigal son. Just before the election, when he was ducking and diving, hiding in fridges, avoiding interviews, the Tory apologists were out in force saying Boris was being clever by avoiding all scrutiny and refusing interviews from high profile shows. Now those of us who knew he was a charlatan, and didn't vote for him, are expected to put our faith in him and trust him to do the right thing, despite being ridiculed for expecting him to face the music on the campaign trail. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

This is why our leaders need to be held to account before, during and after elections.

StIll waitong for Blair to face trial....

How about that old slag Thatcher for creating an underclass in our society that will never go away now?
I'd dig her up and have her in the dock along with Phoney Tony.

In other news - I'm happy to report that after an extensive international procurement exercise involving me, my online financial specialists, Walmart and a specialist distribution operative, I took delivery of 4,000 pieces of PPE; prior to the Tory rebranding, traditionally and perhaps colloquially known as ordering a 4 pack of bog rolls off of Asda.

8,000 pieces if it's 2-ply. Your cup runneth over if it's 3-ply.

Quote: IR80 "StIll waitong for Blair to face trial....'" I wonder who helped in arming Iraq? https://www.ft.com/content/52add2c4-30b ... 144feabdc0 or who voted for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_P ... on_of_Iraq

Quote: IR80 "StIll waitong for Blair to face trial....'" I wonder who helped in arming Iraq? https://www.ft.com/content/52add2c4-30b ... 144feabdc0 or who voted for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_P ... on_of_Iraq

Who keeps arming Saudi Arabia, who kept supporting South Africa during apartheid and who treated a known dictator and murderer of his own people.

Whilst ever we manufacture arms/ships/aircraft/tanks i.e. items used in warfare we have to sell them to somebody - not sure we can sell it all to Switzerland?

Do we really ??

Yes, manufacturing these items would mean that we COULD sell them to other nations but it doesn't mean that we HAVE to ??
We could just produce equipment for our own armed forces and not feel that we have to supply other nations / groups.

Of course there can be deals done to reciprocate the supply of arms but, when we begin to offer such things to "unstable" governments / nations, there is always the danger that they will be used either against us or against our allies.
The only reason that some of these things are sold to "dodgy" organisations is to make money.

Not the only reason surely. There are the 135k quality jobs and that's just those directly employed. How many would be lost if we stopped exports?

And there is the conundrum.

If we are saying that there has to be that number of employees within the industry, to enable us to arm and protect ourselves and the consequence of that is that there will be "X" spare capacity, then a decision has to be made as to whether to allow the excess "stock" to be sold elsewhere and how to control those sales or, should the industry be "shrunk", in order to prevent having to "chase" sales to "dodgy" customers.

You would think where the supply of arms is concerned, it should be on a defence and safety remit and not just selling additional arms because we have over capacity ??

So if you were in charge how many of those people would you sack? And therein lies the problem. I wish, like you, that it was a perfect world without the need for arms. But it isn't and if we don't sell them someone else will.