If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Dulwich is as much a district as a place name. There's the "original" Dulwich Village with its dinky Georgian mansions, cottages, posh inhabitants and outsized property prices; East Dulwich, which is more-or-less a township, popular with the young jet set; and West Dulwich, which is no more than a small grouping of shops on a main cross road. The Hamlet is the name adopted by the football club, for reasons not known to me.
For those planning to go to the Met cinema relay of the Flying Dutchman I got an email from the Times ticket offer people this morning to say it has been cancelled.
It seems to me that, at the extremes, there are two diametrically different approaches: one is intensive testing and a great emphasis on social distancing (as employed very successfully indeed in Taiwan). The other is to let the virus run its course with some interventions to ensure that the peak is lowered to lessen the possibility of the NHS being totally overwhelmed.
The UK government seems to be adopting the second approach. (The Chief Medical Officer is reported to believe in letting the virus run its course.) A kind of laissez faire approach applied to epidemics rather than economics. It might be the correct approach. Time will tell.
It is a political decision.
(It is said that watching footie in pubs is said to be more likely to spread the virus than attending a match. The obvious follow up question about discouraging such pub evenings is never asked.)
It seems to me that, at the extremes, there are two diametrically different approaches: one is intensive testing and a great emphasis on social distancing (as employed very successfully indeed in Taiwan). The other is to let the virus run its course with some interventions to ensure that the peak is lowered to lessen the possibility of the NHS being totally overwhelmed.
The UK government seems to be adopting the second approach. (The Chief Medical Officer is reported to believe in letting the virus run its course.) A kind of laissez faire approach applied to epidemics rather than economics. It might be the correct approach. Time will tell.
It is a political decision.
(It is said that watching footie in pubs is said to be more likely to spread the virus than attending a match. The obvious follow up question about discouraging such pub evenings is never asked.)
Given the current attention being paid to the notion of herd immunity as a strategy, this could be deliberate - the modern equivalent of measles parties, which I'm sure many forumites are of an age to remember.
It seems to me that, at the extremes, there are two diametrically different approaches: one is intensive testing and a great emphasis on social distancing (as employed very successfully indeed in Taiwan). The other is to let the virus run its course with some interventions to ensure that the peak is lowered to lessen the possibility of the NHS being totally overwhelmed.
The UK government seems to be adopting the second approach. (The Chief Medical Officer is reported to believe in letting the virus run its course.) A kind of laissez faire approach applied to epidemics rather than economics. It might be the correct approach. Time will tell.
It is a political decision.
(It is said that watching footie in pubs is said to be more likely to spread the virus than attending a match. The obvious follow up question about discouraging such pub evenings is never asked.)
Chicago Symphony and allo theater here closed for the next month, not to mention major Sporting Events
It seems to me that, at the extremes, there are two diametrically different approaches: one is intensive testing and a great emphasis on social distancing (as employed very successfully indeed in Taiwan). The other is to let the virus run its course with some interventions to ensure that the peak is lowered to lessen the possibility of the NHS being totally overwhelmed.
The UK government seems to be adopting the second approach. (The Chief Medical Officer is reported to believe in letting the virus run its course.) A kind of laissez faire approach applied to epidemics rather than economics. It might be the correct approach. Time will tell.
It is a political decision.
Yet every other country in the world has taken the first approach. It's a high risk strategy and the stakes for Johnson are very high should he get it wrong...
"The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink
Political decision also to postpone elections for a year....who’s plotted that one? Maybe the underground police commissioners?
The recommendation came from the Electoral Commission, though I believe they suggested a 6-month delay. The government could argue that since all elections are held in May (bar by-elections), a year is more practical. The Electoral Commission's argument was that public participation might be depressed if the elections were in May.
The Kantar poll of 9 March put the Tories on 50% and Labour on 29%, so the government doesn't appear to gain any advantage by this postponement.
I have been telling myself that the British are much more level-headed than most countries and that there's still a vestigial 'we can take it' ethos left over from WW2. Then I walked into my local supermarket a couple of hours ago and immediately saw a sign asking people not to plunder the shelves and hoard food. Too late - people have stripped them bare of rice, pasta, beans etc.
Partner home safely, so self-imposed quarantine for a while here, though he has effectively been in such in Florence for the past week or so.
Rather worryingly, no questions asked at either Amsterdam or Manchester on arrival!
Great neighbours here, more than willing to buy milk etc and leave on doorstep for us.
Another concern is if our scheduled concert on 28 March will go ahead.
Comment