Merci Trike I found it now here.
Solidarités-Santé
Kind regards, Paul.

This is the Irish plan for easing lockdown;

Irish Lockdown Roadmap

Varadkar was chastised by a spokesperson of the primary school teachers' association for allowing the word "plan" to be used in his "road map" - it undoes all the hard work, she said, teaching children to distinguish between "plan", "tactic" and "strategy".

Just for good measure the spokesperson also asked that he kindly refrain from using the term "road map" too. People who massacre the language to the extent that they replace adequate words with inadequate euphemisms will, if they're not careful, join the ranks of those other unfortunates who have in recent years decided it is perfectly acceptable to answer any question, whether it inferred a requirement for causality to be addressed or not in their reply, by starting with a totally superfluous and extremely irritating (once one begins to notice it) "So".

So what do you think of the actual proposals??

Sooooo, they're a little more than proposals. It's not like they have to be approved by anyone before they can take effect (apart from by the virus itself of course) so at this stage are as good as one can achieve by way of a strategy and are not presented in any other light.

The term "beta" is plastered everywhere in it because it is essentially a titration policy based on variables, two of which are impossible to measure ahead of things in how they will affect volume processing - R0 rates and healthcare facility provision. So the "plan", in as much as one can use the term, is to follow the strategy and measure as you go along, in the knowledge that any "phase" must be totally abandoned at a moment's notice and reversal can even entail going back several phases, not just one.

It's necessary though - its publication allows basic planning, especially budgetary adjustments, emergency borrowing estimates, indemnities and underwriting of compensation for state-imposed financial restraints, etc. In other words Ireland can now at least approach international lending agencies with a clear indication of where the money is going to be used, and that's a huge thing in terms of long-term survival as this thing continues. And with that in place then businesses too can plan with some improved confidence in their own survival prospects.

Trike and nordmann, I mentioned it already about the daily Covid death count in the BBC from the John Hopkins institute. The statistic is removed the last week from the survey. And there I mentioned the figure of the Belgian deaths as not comparable with the rest, because the deaths in the care homes were not accounted in other countries as in Belgium.
And to be fair to the BBC now this morning on BBC World they make a whole survey about the problem. Thank you BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52491210

And of course the well known Trump...I have the impression that there in the US they have not a trump with him...

From the link:
Prof. Steven Van Gucht. Virologist and crisis centre spokesman.
"They (from the care homes) are not tested in the lab, but it's reasonalble to assume that these are also Covid-19 related."
Prime Minister Sophie Wilmès recently suggested Belgium may be over-reporting the actual number of cases.However, Prof Van Gucht says the real number of deaths may still be higher than they are reporting, as he believes they may still be missing a few cases.

I am glad that we have two such professors among the many other good ones, who don't let them influence by politics and big business...although it is perhaps thanks to the BBC that some negative "Trump" picturing is rectified. Although after his bleach water...

Kind regards, Paul.

There has to be a point to comparing countries' relative statistics, one that at least goes beyond a simple and simplistic mortality count serving no practical purpose except as a grisly head count of the deceased.

For a start, the total number of dead in any one country means nothing in comparison to another. In fact even a global total means very little. At this point in the pandemic even less so, as we are still at the point where the location and timing of the disease's arrival within a state, if even only slightly variable, has a huge effect on present totals. When one factors in the other variables such as local healthcare levels, government proactivity, late activity, or even inactivity, and the many demographic variants that hinder or accelerate infection rates, morbidity rates and mortality rates, then no simplistic total even begins to convey the true complexity and the actual trajectory of the pandemic, be it nationally or globally calculated.

A per capita mortality rate begins to redress this problem. At least with this one can draw some broad conclusions regarding the actual degree to which any one country has been affected and is addressing the spread of the disease. But even this is meaningless in the absence of universal antigen testing (which is now too late to implement even if it ever had been possible) or antibody testing (which is now only efficacious if combined with a continuation of local community isolation and severe restrictions on inter-communal mobility).

You must then add to all these deficiencies in how far the statistics lend themselves to analysis of any real worth the unfortunate fact that some countries are simply lying about the figures anyway, nearly always due to those in charge of the stats serving narrow political self-interest above the requirement to contribute honest data for public consumption. Once the extent to which this is occurring is understood then one can possibly weight or adjust the statistics accordingly to give more accurate estimates reliable enough to help with projections and global policy formation, but unfortunately not all who are doing the lying are as self-evident or blatant as the current British government has been. Last evening's frankly shocking untruth announced by the Health Minister there, for example, regarding his fictional target of 100,000 tests a day being equally fictionally met just shows that in that particular country all pretense to be honestly informing the public of the actual extent of the predicament they are in has ceased altogether. But at least it's blatant, so we can basically just discount it as garbage information from which no good statistical data can be extrapolated.

So as things stand the statistics as compiled at national and international levels while definitely proving that the world has a problem - as if we need further proof at this stage - are doing nothing to inform us of where we actually stand regarding how well we are coping as a species or how long we must continue to cope with this pathogen. At national level, if we are informed enough regarding the extent of the mendacity or incompetence of the official source then we at least can gauge with a little more accuracy how things are going within that state's borders. We fare better with statistics that apply to smaller geographic areas within states, such as in cities, electoral districts, healthcare districts etc. But the narrower the field from which we sample the stats to ensure accuracy, the less likely any worthwhile policy can be devised based on this information that can then be projected globally, or even nationally.

So far the most accurate information I have seen, in fact, has been coming from undertakers.

Thank you nordmann for your, as ever, competent analysis (perhaps you are a bit too harsh for the current British government? As a bit everywhere governments...But who I am to judge as a Belgian from over the Channel?).

One parameter, which was highlighted in the TV news by the mentioned competent Prof. Steven Van Gucht is perhaps, after the height of the pandemic, to compare with the deaths of the corresponding months of the preceding years? Preceding years, without any epidemic in that particular period or any other special event hightening the mortality. And I think he started already with some projections.

Thanks again for the analysis nordmann and kind regards, Paul.

OOPS, nordmann...forgot...I had to look for "undertaker"...to my astonishment it was "begrafenisondernemer"...literal translation "funeral entrepreneur"...but looking nearer I see now that "ondernemer" is literal: "undertaker"...are all undertakers not entrepreneurs in English? ...or only the "undertakers" doing the funerals?

Kind regards, Paul.

Paul wrote:

perhaps you are a bit too harsh for the current British government?

No. I actually have at the moment quite a professional interest in statistics related to Covid-19, and in particular government-issued data from a wide selection of countries. However this data, before it can be entered into any modelling calculation, first has to be assessed for veracity against a very stringent set of criteria (105 checkpoints in total) against which dependability is measured. Depending on the dependability (if you know what I mean), a very precise weighting mechanism has to be incorporated to adjust the data prior to it being allowed influence the model.

To give you an indication of how stringent these checkpoints are there are only two European countries (Germany and Poland) which pass 60+ of these checks without weighting. Most countries, Ireland and Belgium included, manage about 50 points. Scotland and Northern Ireland as independent sources in their own right score about 40. The British government, which is responsible for data related to England and Wales, currently scores 7 (and with each lie they publish this total is dropping). The checklist is a standard one for government data, but the particular version we're working with right now has been designed by the OECD.

Worse - these checkpoints are not all of equal weight or importance. The 7 that Britain currently matches are of the least significance.

Van Gucht is right to look at overall death rates, these for every country are giving the most usable data related to effect of the pandemic on mortality as a whole (ie. those dying from, with, or because of Covid-19). And the best source in almost every country for these are the mortuary stats.

PS: Undertakers, be they privately run funeral bureaus or state-subsidised, take legal possession of all bodies prior to disposal and the frequency with which they assume control of corpses is registered normally with one or two official bodies - in the UK the registrar of deaths and their own controlling organisations (which in Britain are the National Association of Funeral Directors who account for 80% of all burials in the UK and the Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors who pick up most of the rest). The registrar may withhold death certificates for various reasons, even after burial, but the two organisations need to know exactly how many corpses their members are processing up to the point where they are interred/cremated and legally must make that information available. So, between all three one will get a pretty accurate number of how many dead people are awaiting disposal or have just been fully processed in any given week. In Norway, and quite a few other European countries, it's even more accurate - or at least simpler to source - in that the state licensing department for undertakers compiles this data with practically no exceptions.

EDIT: A large European health agency (I do not think it would be wise to print their name), but one of the most prestigious customers of morbidity modelling products that we have been producing here in Oslo, have asked for the UK to be added to the handful of other nations whose published data regarding Covid-19 should not be used for future releases of the software. This happens when published data drops from "dubious" to "proven inaccurate" and basically renders everything coming from that country as less than simply untrustworthy ("untrustworthy" is normally indicative simply of inadequate control over collection) and therefore unusable - in other words one can now only trust completely in the fact that the data as published is a lie (not only deliberately falsified but with evidence that actual accurate data had been collected but was suppressed).

Thank you nordmann for this persuasive clarification.
Kind regards, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

Thank you nordmann for this persuasive clarification.

I have tried to keep calm and say nothing about this, but I'm worried. I am not so sure nordmann's very interesting post is either persuasive or elucidative. It is certainly very worrying. I have been fretting about its contents since I first read it.

nordmann wrote:

However this data, before it can be entered into any modelling calculation, first has to be assessed for veracity against a very stringent set of criteria (105 checkpoints in total) against which dependability is measured. Depending on the dependability (if you know what I mean), a very precise weighting mechanism has to be incorporated to adjust the data prior to it being allowed influence the model.

All governments lie, we all know that; and British politicians are past and present masters of the art. We Brits know we are being lied to on a daily basis, but are other governments really so transparently honest and upright in what they allow to be published? A low score here for the UK was, of course, to be expected. My first reaction (to be honest) was that the sums were wrong and that a "seven" was actually startlingly generous for us. Sure a minus sign wasn't missed off? 

But a genuine question - who formulates the "very stringent set of criteria" in this statistics game? Who decides on the dependability of the dependability measurements (if you see what I  mean)? What exactly is the "weighting mechanism" and who checks that the "adjustments" to given data are accurate and fair? Who weighs the weighers? Who should we trust these days - anyone? Is anyone impartial out there? It's all pretty scary.

 

PS I'll probably regret posting, but I'm so fed up and depressed by all this I really don't care.

Gosh, everyone's suddenly signed in - are you all waiting for me to be flattened? 

We're waiting to hear about Sainsbury's trifle.

posted at an identical time to the Daily Diaries post!!!!

I could sign of if you don't want me here?

Actually I'll signing off shortly to have supper then watch A Bridge to Far

No flattening here - move along folks!

Temperance wrote:

We Brits know we are being lied to on a daily basis, but are other governments really so transparently honest and upright in what they allow to be published? 

Some are, some aren't. It's not so much what's "allowed" to be published (though this applies in certain countries such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc), as which data is used as the basis of government policy in any given country and how well data from such an official source is represented by that government's own statistical agencies. If, for example, the NHS's own (excellent) statistical analysis department is used as a primary official source by government, then the government has an implied duty to faithfully relay this data, which in the case of NHS data includes their own proviso regarding where further extrapolation is required beyond the core input data to which they had access. Deviations from the statistics produced from this source, or obvious misrepresentation of its context, or any demonstrable instance of where the source has published one finding while the government has published quite another based on that source's data qualifies the data as requiring inspection before it can be used "as is" in further extrapolations. In the case of the UK the raw data itself is being contradicted - for example when the NHS itemises its PPE stocks and projected requirement but the government numbers bear no relation (while ostensibly based on this information), or when the NHS itemises the number of antigen tests being conducted and the government doubles this amount in its statements, etc. No other European country comes even close to this level of misrepresentation.

Temperance wrote:

But a genuine question - who formulates the "very stringent set of criteria" in this statistics game? Who decides on the dependability of the dependability measurements (if you see what I  mean)? What exactly is the "weighting mechanism" and who checks that the "adjustments" to given data are accurate and fair? Who weighs the weighers? Who should we trust these days - anyone? Is anyone impartial out there? It's all pretty scary.

The answer to the first bit is actuaries who, in my own profession, work for the OECD. The mathematics is quite involved - but the formulas are fairly uniform across a lot of different applications and, though always being subject to update, are generally fit for purpose. They are used in quite a number of areas in which forecasts based partly on government-supplied data are required, the bulk of which are economic but which can include just about any area of social policy containing quantifiable factors.

The criteria are not to decide veracity of such input data, but to ascertain a probability of veracity. For this reason they very much depend on finding mathematical expression based on discrepancy and frequency, and to determine discrepancy then the more access to alternative bodies within a country producing comparable data the better (this is one of the plus scores for the UK, though to be fair it is true for every single European country and about 75% of the world). In other words one set of criteria would concern itself with when the NHS say one thing and the government say another, ie. establishing discrepancy. If found, then the next two questions would be "how big?" and  "how often does his occur?". Both of these are measurable and, as frequency is part of the equation, also therefore adjustable over time so that the probability calculation becomes itself more accurate.

A second set of criteria examines which data in an identified discrepancy is more dependable, or even if the discrepancy indicates that neither in fact are. If, for example again, the NHS says one thing and the government says another, but then later the government uses the original NHS statistic anyway, the indication of who is relaying data accurately is rather clear. Moreover, if its use of the NHS data belatedly is actually used to contradict later data produced by the NHS, then this indicates not just a discrepancy but something rather clearer regarding who is to be believed. If this becomes a pattern then, in any incident of government supplied data needing to be inputted, the weighting factor that has to be applied is also rather easy to calculate.

What I get by e-mail on a regular basis is basically 105 coefficients or, better put, 105 applied coefficients provided by the OECD representing data collated by a European medical institute which represents the most reliable data to hand that can be used for further extrapolation. If the coefficient cannot correct the data - in other words if it has to be weighted so much to make it realistic that it has obviously come from a mendacious source - then the source is dropped completely from the calculation. For the moment when it comes to Covid-19 the UK has just been dropped - mainly thanks to Hancock's verbal performance on Friday I assume.
 

Temperance wrote:

PS I'll probably regret posting, but I'm so fed up and depressed by all this I really don't care.

I think you're right to be depressed. In recent years the extent to which misinformation has taken hold in Britain is probably understood by most British people, but what is not quite understood within Britain is that the pattern is not quite the same as in other European countries. There is a general problem worldwide that mathematical modelling such as I described above which relies on ascertaining reliable data is increasingly having to cope with, but the extent to which it has permeated government varies considerably between countries, and right now the UK, within Europe, has reached the bottom of the league table.

All sounds like dead hard sums to me, nordmann, and beyond my powers of understanding - but thank you for bothering to explain - really.

Off on my walk now. It's suddenly gone very green in England after the recent much-needed rain this week, so it should be pleasant out there. Will walk and walk and walk to lift my mood - always works.

Trike - great minds think alike - we've got trifle on the brain!

Nielsen - I never want anyone to sign out!

Temperance wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

Thank you nordmann for this persuasive clarification.

nordmann wrote:

However this data, before it can be entered into any modelling calculation, first has to be assessed for veracity against a very stringent set of criteria (105 checkpoints in total) against which dependability is measured. Depending on the dependability (if you know what I mean), a very precise weighting mechanism has to be incorporated to adjust the data prior to it being allowed influence the model. 

 
Dear Temperance,

"persuasive"   At least if you "believe" in the statistics provided...
I had to make statistics for the work about the ability to spray paint by humans not robots as later and the faults that they made during that act. And we had to couple penalties if continued in time...the boss wanted such a study...I tried for a month and saw that it was not possible to do it, whatever parameters I tried to be representative and I had to admit that it was not scientific...it worked out that it was more effective to observe the guys during some 20 minutes a day and to look to the results...together with the "ploegleiders" (shift leaders?) I can now say as retired one, that we sabotaged the whole thing and that we changed the statistics to our real impression.
Making conclusions about paint tests, most physical testing, was also such a difficult matter, especially if it was a slight difference between two tests. Only when there was a big obvious trend in the observations one could make serious predicments, while there were so many parameters which could influence the test, as for instance the weather and UV ressistance...

PS. Can it be that our nordmann is an itsy-bitsy prejudiced agains the English...in the search for this forum for cartoons from the 19th century I found an English cartoon about the Irish, that I have not published out of respect for nordmann, although it was after all from the 19th century

PPS. I was blamed on this board to worry about the statistics that I saw every day on BBC world and since saw that you were right, while statistics can be misinterpretated, as for instance the Belgian corona deaths so high, because the other countries don't include the deaths from the care homes...so statistics always to take with a grain of salt.

Kind regards from Paul.

nordmann and Temperance crossed posts...
I see now that  mine isn't so scientific...but so be it...
And as I see that the UK follows the same trend as every country in Europe I am happy...
And I "let" the discussion for now...

Kind regards to both from Paul.

Paul wrote:

Can it be that our nordmann is an itsy-bitsy prejudiced agains the English

Prejudiced against the English people? The country of England within the UK? "English" as an erroneous euphemism for "British"?

I am actually quite disappointed you felt that this was a necessary question to ask, whichever of the above you actually meant. Can you give me an example of where any criticism I may have made towards any aspect of Britain displays actual prejudice on my part?

It can be an impression from me nord. If it isn't the case, then I regret to have said it. 
Here, we have a problem with the word "British or English ones" Normally we say for the UK: England as we say for The Netherlands "Holland" and for the Dutchmen "Hollanders" instead of the right "Nederlanders". And I have seen "England" instead of the "UK", spoken and written, from Dutchmen too, as from Frenchmen and Germans, especially the older ones as I (am)...

Kind regards, Paul.

I have just told Temps I shall not post again until this English swipe phase is. over. I'm not quite sure how prejudice is defined? Constant referral to Perfidious Albion you think not? Why our statistics are of such concern to nord, I have no idea.....there is a stance here but how defined I do not know. Summing up a nationality  in derisive mode is sometimes jokey.... me and the French, for instance.....and that is probably only because we do not make any cheese to compare to my fav Comte. cheese from the Jura. 
This week the Irish might get a bit of British flack in remembrance of Irish President Mr De Valera who visited the German Ambassador to condole on the death of Mt Hitler. But this is not held against the irish in everlasting recall as Perfidious Ireland although I wonder which other country's reps did likewise at the time?

As    for statistics.... well.... to place any credence on any would be foolish when the variables are all different... and as for undertakers keeping the best records, that is most interesting. Do they have permission to reveal causes of death... and how can they judge?
 I had to speak to a qualified medic to  find out what a parent actually died of - and that was all ifs, buts, possibilities  and dependent upons. Of the 4 serious  things she suffered I never knew which was really the culprit. Silly me. I should have asked the Co op undertakers as any proper actuary might have done. But then I am British so what do I know?
For some of us few Brits here an  itsy bitsy polka dot opinion about Britain is to be expected from time to time. Evaluating underlying reasons for it is an off line off shoot discussion topic whenever it happens.

Paul. raising you head above the parapet of nordman's opinion will always disappoint him..... rather as I so often disappointed my Grammar school headmaster. What bothered that gentleman was that I was blind to parapets..... that is a very British sort of failing. I  did not apologise for this when capitulating to his heady authority because I would not have meant it. So being ever true to my - all right limited - self. - I 'll always take the flack instead. Long live the Parapeteers!.

Priscilla, I did say that the mortuary stats are reliable because they give an accurate figure of total deaths within a short space of time. I said nothing at all about them in relation to cause of death, so you can put away the sardonism and maybe take out the reading glasses before you elevate your bonce above the castellations in future?

Paul - at the risk of pushing Priscilla closer to another one of her parapets, even in Britain the lazy use of "English" to mean "British" is all too commonplace. This does not excuse it however. In fact in my apparently prejudiced view it's even worse than when a "foreigner" does it.

I  too have seen all manner of graphs  with different colours for cause and comparisons with other years including periods of blitz etc - all very comprehensive and not a load of eye wash to delude the public. How these are written up by journalists is another matter - often as if they were statements by officials but not extracts taken from a wealth of material.  Publishers want contention and anything that might cause a stir or back an opinion. In truth, the truth about the the truth is not as truthful as we could truthfully want. As in the grand National one backs a likely hack with good form and breeding but no one knows for sure which will win. 

And I do not need spectacles to read your posts, nord, only shorter sentences.

 And being English, and British,,,,, and a sort of  honorary Scot, as it happens - and am even a member of the Empire and a quarter Welsh, I ought to but  do not have an  identity confusion. Just confusion - but then muddling through is what we do best. And define prejudice, if you would. I know what a parapet is. Heads up, gang!

It is normally English people, I have noticed, who make the mistake of using the term "English" when they mean "British". This particular "muddle" is not apparently shared by Scottish (except maybe "honorary"), Welsh or Northern Irish denizens of your apparently United kingdom.

The rest of your post obviously made sense to you.

Oh please P - have really crested the summit of Mount Godwin on this thread? Let's hope it's an extinct volcano like the Great Stalin Crater or at least long dormant like Pic Mussolini. 

I can never understand why some of my fellow Englishfolk take such umbrage when someone from overseas points out any of the UK's many shortcomings. We do it ourselves all the time after all. And - yes - we have to face it that our country England is so overwhelmingly dominant in the union and therefore those shortcomings reflect directly on us whether we like it or not. It comes with the territory - literally. Added to that is the fact much of the world's English-language news media is London-based or at least Londoncentric. So interest in the utterances of the UK government is only going to be higher among international observers as a natural result of that.  

Personally I'd be interested to know if, after this pandemic is over, our 'UK' rulers will have finally got to grips with our chronic litter problem. Whenever I'm travelling in a foreign country, the amount of litter on the streets is my way of judging (or prejudging) the inhabitants and rulers of any given city, town or village. In England the verges of the motorways, the major roads and the railways are just appalling in this respect. Before the London 2012 Olympics were were promised that this was finally going to be sorted in time for the games. Yet 8 years later and nothing's changed. "Litter don't lie!"

I've crossed posts with Viz and haven't yet read his comment but will post anyway....

In relation to P's perceived attacks against so-called Perfidious Albion (although I don't think anyone brought it up until then) a lot of the problem is how the, inevitably very complicated statistical analyses (plural) are being presented to the public. The UK government's daily ministerial announcements have now become little more than party political broadcasts, aimed at trying - with obvious increasing desperation and most recently with blatant numerical lies - to show how absolutely brilliantly the cabinet is handling the disaster; while deaths still increase and all their successive promises get abandoned by the wayside. British institutions are perfectly capable of recording valid statistics (Nordmann has stated the NHS for one is very good at this) but if there is any criticsim of the 'British' approach it is surely directed at the miss-handling of this data - not by the analysts and scientific advisors - but by government ministers themselves, principally it seems, to cover over and deflect from their own failings in managing the crisis. No one is having a go at 'Perfidious Albion', least of all countries that are similarly suffering and struggling to find a way out, but many people across the full political spectrum of the British press, are now openly criticising the current British government's woefully inept handling of the whole situation.

This is the usual British government's way of handling things ... but Scotland now has it's own devolved parliament and accordingly makes its own daily announcements, as does Wales, while England has no actual 'regional' parliament of its own and so the overall UK one has to suffice. Hence, and to be fair to PaulR, there is some real confusion over terms like English and British. I'm afraid I too sometimes also use Angleterre while I should strictly be referring to le Royaume Unis or Grande Bretagne, although in my defence that's becasue that's how the term is frequently (mis)used in France: but then I also talk about 'America' meaning exclusively the USA and not including Canada, Mexico etc. Mea culpa.

It's put your head above the parakeet, not parapet. Good old Mrs. Malaprop - do we owe that one to her, or to nord's nan?

Temperance wrote:

It's put your head above the parakeet, not parapet. Good old Mrs. Malaprop - do we owe that one to her, or to nord's nan?

Toucan play at that: I'd was rather hoping to get a peek over the top of the 'budgy-smugglers' - then at least I might get a cockatoo!

... I'll get my coat.

MM - honestly!!!!  

Oh and yer,  before this day ends, on data taken from undertakers. is that day of death as on the registered death certificate or the undertaker's burial date which is the one that affects them. For reasons I have never enquired about, some funerals happen weeks after death - in England, that is and probably not for some faiths with rules about such things. I was once told of a frequent  pile up at the local crem and problems getting graves dug which may account for late funerals. Whether or not that affects the accuracy of stats that  actuaries are using I know not. 

Getting daily figures of any sort for a population of 60 plus million is surely fraught with odd angles and errors from a nation who could never even get its daily milk bottle needs and school dinner numbers right at our school. According to a friend who is a school cook nothing has changed. I expect the Germans are  very much better at stats.

A propos Malaprops, I was told of an elderly lady who had passed away, and the family was told that they could be at crematorium at a certain time.
The family arrived, and was told that when the ceremony had taken place, she would go in along with two Indian ladies.
A nephew shocked himself by then saying, "Well, Auntie always did like a good curry, didn't she!"

I'll go out without my coat, now.

Anyone but England! That really hurt us lot who live south of Berwick-Upon-Tweed. (Foreigners please note: it is in Berwick that you officially come over all English and start singing "Land of Hope and Glory" at every possible opportunity.) If England were (notice use of subjunctive to indicate wishful thinking) to face France   in the World Cup final, nordmann, which team would you be cheering?  Come on, Atlantic Archipelago! Gosh - now that would make an unbeatable team - in football or rugby (or anything else for that matter)!

Dear Temperance, you don't know what you have done to me...

First as a "foreigner" I had to seek for Berwick-upon-Tweed...and indeed...
https://www.visitberwick.com/
For the English language click on "english"...



Temperance, you don't believe it, but even yesterday my old doubts from sixty years ago came back about the conjunctive potentialis and the subjunctive...remember from your beautiful song: "if I were a rich man" (of course I would rather say: if I was a rich man)...
And now you say again: if England were...subjunctive to indicate wishful thinking...for conjunctive potentialis would one has to use then: if England "would be"? We have in Dutch also: "ware het niet dat".." (if it were not the case that?)

and then your "argument"..."dat was de hardste noot om te kraken" (that was the hardest nut to crack?)...
I had to make a painstaking research, both in English and in Dutch, for the difference between argument and contradiction...
And I think I am still not sure about the difference...
My reading of Jacques Le Goff came to mind...
The intellectuals in the Middle-Ages:
https://academic.oup.com/fh/article-abstract/9/2/228/620725?redirectedFrom=PDF
I have read it in French...the end of the "Scholastic"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
Queastio, argumentatio, contradicitio and all that...

"Atlantic Archipelago"
(and now I see that the exotic word "archipelagio" is our rather dull word "archipel")
I first thought that it had to do with all the islands in the Atlantic including Iceland, but "owee" (Dieu me garde ("owee"seems to have quite another connotation in English) when I read the not always right wiki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute
"More neutral proposed alternatives for the British Isles include "Britain and Ireland",^[3][8][9] "Atlantic Archipelago",^[10] "Anglo-Celtic Isles",^[11][12] the "British-Irish Isles"^[13] and the Islands of the North Atlantic.^[14] In documents drawn up jointly between the British and Irish governments, the archipelago is referred to simply as "these islands".^[15]
Britain and Ireland...now I understand... your naughty girl...

Temperance! How could you make me search a whole morning with such a short only one paragraph...I think it has to do with our "personalities"...as for instance mine, yours, nordmann's?

Kind regard from Paul.

PS and addendum.

Where do you find all this stuff, Temperance? Or is it that you are such a "rich" personality?

Kind regards from Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

PS and addendum.

Where do you find all this stuff, Temperance? Or is it that you are such a "rich" personality?

I'm not so "rich" today as I was in February (which wasn't very rich at all!). I've just been looking at the various FTSE indices. Blimey, if I've lost so much money in two months, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his pals must be about to throw themselves off the Shard...

Except they are not: they apparently all knew it was coming - if we are to believe what we read about the real investors, the big players who sold everything before the crisis really developed.

I should have kept my nice, safe Premium Bonds!

I see Paul has posted something on the subject already (well it's referenced in the map).  When I was transcribing register entries on to a database at the Natural History Museum there were a range of entries with "Berwick" as the location where they were found but it wasn't clear whether it was Berwick the town or Berwick the county.  Berwick the county is still in Scotland of course.  My line manager told me just to put "Berwick" in the "Place" field and not bother about town, county or country.

Temperance wrote:

I'm not so "rich" today as I was in February. I've just been looking at the various FTSE indices. Blimey, if I've lost so much money in two months, Jacob Rees-Mogg and his pals must be about to throw themselves off the Shard...

Mind you, they all knew it was coming and, in the particularly nasty phrase used by one extremely wealthy Englishman (as in, "If I were a richer man..."): "It will be a good time to make a killing..."

 
Temperance,

I too have some part of my money "rijkdom" invested in not guaranteed shares. The rest is guaranteed they say by the European Union up to 100,000 euro. MM, is this still the case for the UK (including England), while as I understand it, they are still for their money within the EU?
(rijkdom comes from rich-dom. The suffix -dom a bit international European... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-dom and
rijk...https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rijk of course my name is "rijk-heer"...)
Received a little paper from the bank about my status and I have seen that I lost about a third of what I had invested...but what the heck...we live and can still make money...
And Temperance that is the oddity about shares...they can go up again and you never know that they, again by circumstances, go above the money that you invested and that you become "rich" (I know that you pretty well understood what I meant by "rich" personality!!!)

And yes, I am nearly sure that "they" knew what would come and have withdrawn their "money" to place it in a "tax haven" as Jersey. Is Jersey part of the UK? We have to ask "our" Anglo-Norman. And after a quick search it isn't a tax haven anymore as before, I see. 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/08/fall-of-jersey-how-tax-haven-goes-bust

Kind regards from Paul.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I see Paul has posted something on the subject already (well it's referenced in the map).  When I was transcribing register entries on to a database at the Natural History Museum there were a range of entries with "Berwick" as the location where they were found but it wasn't clear whether it was Berwick the town or Berwick the county.  Berwick the county is still in Scotland of course.  My line manager told me just to put "Berwick" in the "Place" field and not bother about town, county or country.

And LiR as many times you are right...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwickshire
From the wiki:
"Berwickshire is a historic county, registration county and lieutenancy area in the Scottish Borders. It takes its name from Berwick-upon-Tweed, which was part of Scotland at the time of the county's formation, but became part of England in 1482 after several centuries of being fought over and swapping back and forth between the two kingdoms."




 
It all remembers me about the struggle (although not with weapons) for the "language border" (taalgrens/frontière linguistique) in Belgium. And now I found just a concise review about it, which says it nearly all, especially the territorial aspect of it, dear to the Flemings and the language related aspect, dear to the French speaking community.
http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~rwillemy/225_jmmd2002a.pdf

Kind regards from Paul.

The picture above unfortunately implies that England, with its green rolling hills, suddenly at the Scotish border, transforms to a bleak treeless desert ... it's not really like that.

Meles meles wrote:

The picture above unfortunately implies that England, with its green rolling hills, suddenly at the Scotish border, transforms to a bleak treeless desert ... it's not really like that.

You...You...little Englander...you are worser than those Flemings at their "territorial!!!" language border

PS. As it is the British! Railway, I think that it was just occasionally a Scottish railway member, who put the sign purposely "there"...
PPS. You don't know MM, if it is true that the European Union still guarantees the bank loss individually up to 100,000 Euro in case of a bankrupt in the UK? Aren't they technically still in the European Union? I said it to comfort Temperance in her difficult days...
PPPS. As an aside how is it there now in your neck of the woods?

Kind regards from Paul.

Dear all, seemingly it has not that big impact on the general public ? but nevertheless you see nowadays a clear difference between the far right and on the other side the centrum and left wing attitude in Belgium towards the Covid 19 pandemic.

They are visible very present on all the nowadays youngster media channels, you know them better than I, while I have only BBC World as news source on the web and for the rest only the news in the Belgian and Dutch TV. For the rest I have google for "stuff" interesting me. No participating in any of the modern stuff, only on some fora that I trust as honest ...

That said with this information I have remarked that the far right, and worser most in the Flemish region in the North of Belgium, has started a campaign for a "deconfinement" as quick and as far as they dare go, in the relative stable environment of the present minority government acting by decrees.
They seems to have even attacked on "their" media one of the official virologists of the government about his continuous warning for a too rapid deconfinement. But I have heard only one! sentence about it on a "honest " TV channel.
And I have even the opinion that thanks to our good welfare and health care (health care perhaps lesser than the German one?) system (inherited from the British trend of the Beveridge report)(in comparison with others) the population is less accessible for their campaign, which is based on the fact that the state is the boss (state where they have no impact for the moment on the government) and that the population has no "freedom" (sic) to do what they want.


It seems to be a bit everywhere in the world that that far right wing parties doing the same and having the same reaction?
If you see for instance a Trump backed I suppose by a big part of the Republican party? Or a Bolsonaro from Bresil?

First the economy? Then the lives of especially poor or coloured poor people? A bit the neo-darwinism of for instance a British Sir Galton in the time?

My question: How is it in France (MM has perhaps more inside information?)? On the first sight I don't hear that much Marine Le Pen for the moment?
I found what I heard about Spain in the news: here:
https://fox23maine.com/news/coronavirus/spains-leader-asks-parliament-for-2-more-weeks-of-lockdown
and it belongs to FOX news ...

Kind regards, Paul.

Paul,

As my French is next to non-existent, I must ask that when you write "deconfinement" do you then mean loosening of the lockdown?

Kind regards back.

Nielsen wrote:

Paul,

As my French is next to non-existent, I must ask that when you write "deconfinement" do you then mean loosening of the lockdown?

Kind regards back.

 
Niels, indeed loosening of the lockdown.

I saw already that "confinement" in that sense existed in English. But now I see that it normally is "containment" and rather rare: "confinement, lockdown, seclusion". 
But yes as with "Corona" instead of "Covid 19" once an expression has taken root...
And yes from the very beginning of the crisis it was "confinement" in France (of course pronounced quite otherwise than in English)
https://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/confinement.html
OOPS and now I just see that it is the French "confinement" where the translation by "confinement" is rather rare.
And yes, perhaps is the term "lockdown" more appropiate for the situation.
Although when one look then for "lockdown"
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/lockdown.html
one find : confinement in isolation, solitary confinement, confinement.
Yes and now I understand again why our Spanish Comic Monster has such difficulties in his translations.

Kind regards Niels from Paul and glad to have once again a conversation with you.

Yesterday the UK government's official "Corona Virus" website page said this:

"From today, June 1st, the definition of death in England and Wales has changed."

I see today they've replaced this rather startling statement - which would have stumped even poor old Epicurus, who after all had spent simply ages getting the definition right in the first place - with a rather more extensive explanation of what they really meant. It seems that Epicurus can relax after all, they were simply saying they've found yet another way to fiddle the statistics.

Meles meles wrote:

The picture above unfortunately implies that England, with its green rolling hills, suddenly at the Scotish border, transforms to a bleak treeless desert ... it's not really like that.

MM, I know this is going back upthread rather, but your comment reminds me of an unromantic poem of John Keats, "There was a Naughty Boy".

One of the stanzas runs:-

"There was a naughty boy
And a naughty boy was he,
He ran away to Scotland
The people for to see -
Then he found
That the ground
Was as hard,
That a yard
Was as long,
That a song was a merry,
That a cherry was as red -
That lead was as weighty,
That fourscore was as eighty,
That a door was as wooden - 
As in England -
So he stood in his shoes
  And he wondered
He stood in his shoes
  And he wondered".

nordmann wrote:

Yesterday the UK government's official "Corona Virus" website page said this:

"From today, June 1st, the definition of death in England and Wales has changed."

Never mind singing - I need a drink.

I'll join you for a drink, Temp, because as of today (2 June) I'm allowed to reopen, as are other hotels, b&bs, campsites, bars, cafés and restaurants ... although that is of course within France, and subject to restrictions and provided you are in les zones verts.

The government's announcement has actually caught me a bit off-guard as I'm not actually ready yet. I'd rather assumed hotels and b&bs - where people stay over-night, and sometimes several nights, having very often travelled long distances to get there, and who also 'rub shoulders', as it were, with other travellers who are also just passing through - would be one of the last businesses to open and I was largely working towards a 15 June or maybe 21 June opening date. I'm only just getting the swimming pool and garden sorted, as critical things like pool chemical suppliers, a technician to repair the pool's pump, lawn-mower maintenance services, gardeners and general builders' merchants, are themselves only just getting underway. Needless to say of course although I'm now officially open the telephone hasn't rung even once today for a booking. But, provided things continue cautiously as they generally have been doing in France, I might still get some bookings for the main hoilday season, especially as everyone is being encouraged to holiday within France this year.

Another cause for celebration is that today I received an email saying: "Nous vous informons que votre demande d'échange de permis de conduire étranger a été validée par nos services. La production de votre permis français a été demandée à l'ANTS ce jour." At last! I'm finally going to get my French driving licence.

Strictly, since I've been resident in France for some years, I should have already changed it a while ago but as it was a UK-issued, EU license, recognised throughout Europe and beyond, it just wasn't a pressing matter and no-one, from car hire companies to traffic police, ever bothered about it. But with brexit I, and it seems thousands of other British in France, realised that we'd better get it changed ASAP, and so I duly sent off all the paperwork and mug-shots in December 2018 - yes, that's 18 months ago! Having heard nothing more I rather assumed it had all got lost in the system. But the last time I was stopped at a routine police check-point and apologised profusely for not having the correct paperwork, the gendarmes just said not to worry as they knew the system was completely overloaded. The trouble is that the section that deals with changing driving licenses is very small as unless people change nationality it isn't really needed as all EU licenses are automatically valid. But with brexit, the situation for UK licenses was suddenly thrown into doubt and accordingly they were innundated by Brits applying to change their paperwork. The UK government can bluster about it being "a million to one chance of not getting a deal", but as that senario loomed ever closer, I didn't want to risk having to retake my driving test in France, or having a traffic accident after Britain suddenly no-deals, only to then find that my car insurance is now void because my driving license has been made invalid.

But now having finally sorted my driving license the next bit of bureaucratic hassle will be regularising my residence situation via the necessary Droit de Séjour, although first and more immediately I really need to file my French income tax return before next week, albeit with the said record of tax registration then also going into my Droit de Séjour dossier, ready for the residence application to be sent off this summer. And then after that I suppose it will be the application for French citizenship and a French passport.

So yes, I'll have a drink. Vive la bureaucratie française! which, although sometimes ponderously slow, does seem to get there in the end. I'll admit I had my doubts that they would ever deliver, but they finally did, and so thank-you.

I am so glad MM to hear all that good news from you. Yes overhere it all starts slowly again as you mentioned in Corona mode. This afternoon we received for the first time people in the garden. It was the ex-daughter-in-law and friend. If all works out well they can start again from 8 june, but as you they have no booking yet for the month of June. But nevertheless they have all accomodation prepared for the start with all requirements as asked by the law. Tables on 1.5 meter and all that. Toilet outside the rooms and a lot more...
I hope for you and for them that you nevertheless will have at least some guests in June...

Kind regards from Paul.