Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)

Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Scrump

Original Poster:

21,893 posts

157 months

blingybongy

3,858 posts

145 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Might as well be first.

WindyCommon

3,356 posts

238 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Boris looks a shadow of his pre-CV self to me. Like a batsman who’s lost his nerve against fast bowling, he seems unprepared to make the clear and decisive movements necessary. Whether this is a result of his personal CV19 experience, or simply a reaction to the undoubted stress of being PM at a time like this, I am unsure.

But right now he’s not the player he was. Or the player we (s)elected.

fiju

704 posts

62 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
This is a first to be honest. I don't think any government could have envisaged this. Let's see how he does once things die down again.

Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.

frisbee

4,958 posts

109 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Tuna said:
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.
The EU haven't blinked.

Also great to see you are continuing the fine Brexit tradition of blaming others nice and early!

Helicopter123

8,831 posts

155 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
frisbee said:
Tuna said:
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.
The EU haven't blinked.

Also great to see you are continuing the fine Brexit tradition of blaming others nice and early!
Indeed, it does look as if we didn't hold all the cards after all.

Worrying, very worrying.

Vanden Saab

13,896 posts

73 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
frisbee said:
Tuna said:
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.
The EU haven't blinked.

Also great to see you are continuing the fine Brexit tradition of blaming others nice and early!
Au contraire... they started off saying fishing had to be part of the FTA but have now agreed to negotiate it separately and also admitted their position was maximalist and just a starting position. Shocking negotiation skills if we are honest as the UK will now expect them to move from their other maximalist positions... Round one to the UK at least... Boris doing well...

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Tuna said:
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.
More difficult than you appreciate. There is no WTO.

Do a bit or research, read up about the way the USA has blocked it, and then think about a hard brexit. Go for broke was about the most accurate bit of that post.

Vanden Saab

13,896 posts

73 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Tuna said:
As per the previous thread, the current situation in Hong Kong and China is going to be a test of this government's approach.

Equally, we're reaching a critical time in the Brexit negotiations (three weeks and counting). The EU has blinked, but the question is whether we end up accepting some half hearted compromise, force a real concession or go for broke with a WTO exit.

Unfortunately, as we're working through the pandemic, I'm pretty sure the anger and frustration at the whole process is going to overwhelm some people - and we're going to see the blame game fought in the media and through politics. Add in the challenge of economic recovery and even the best government is going to struggle to keep support.

Difficult times ahead.
More difficult than you appreciate. There is no WTO.

Do a bit or research, read up about the way the USA has blocked it, and then think about a hard brexit. Go for broke was about the most accurate bit of that post.
Your post shows you have no understanding of what a WTO exit is or what they do or do not do. TBF it would have been better if Tuna had called it leaving without a full FTA but even so...I can guarantee that if a full FTA is not possible there will be a plethora of 'side deals' in place before the end of the year.


Tuna

19,930 posts

283 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
frisbee said:
Also great to see you are continuing the fine Brexit tradition of blaming others nice and early!
I'm not blaming anyone, nor deflecting blame - what are you talking about?

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
fiju said:
This is a first to be honest. I don't think any government could have envisaged this. Let's see how he does once things die down again.
No, after all, who could have predicted something that was top of the national risk register?

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
edh said:
No, after all, who could have predicted something that was top of the national risk register?
Except it wasn’t, the risk register refers to pandemic influenza and this is a SARS virus which according to Richard North requires a different approach.

The problem, according to North, was that at the beginning of the outbreak our scientists treat it as an influenza and followed the influenza strategy, part of which was the stopping of test and trace and leaving the borders open. It wasn’t until the Uk was well into it that the mistake was acknowledged and some about turns were swiftly required.

Dr North has had several articles on this and it’s quite interesting, he traces the whole response back to 2005 when WHO required countries to prepare 2 strategies, one for ‘flu the other for SARS type infections. Sadly the UK, under Blair, (along with many other western countries) only did the ‘flu plan, it being passed through successive governments until it was signed off by Cameron’s govt.

He claims WHO did not challenge this response and apparently SARS was slowly removed from the pandemic academic literature.

North is no friend of Boris but indicates the UKs response failures are systemic because of the way the strategy was set up along with SAGE developing group think. He added that no matter which government was in place their response would have been the same.

Of course we’ll never know and the best we can hope is that we prepare better for the next one.

jakesmith

9,461 posts

170 months

Sunday 31st May 2020
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
edh said:
No, after all, who could have predicted something that was top of the national risk register?
Except it wasn’t, the risk register refers to pandemic influenza and this is a SARS virus which according to Richard North requires a different approach.

The problem, according to North, was that at the beginning of the outbreak our scientists treat it as an influenza and followed the influenza strategy, part of which was the stopping of test and trace and leaving the borders open. It wasn’t until the Uk was well into it that the mistake was acknowledged and some about turns were swiftly required.

Dr North has had several articles on this and it’s quite interesting, he traces the whole response back to 2005 when WHO required countries to prepare 2 strategies, one for ‘flu the other for SARS type infections. Sadly the UK, under Blair, (along with many other western countries) only did the ‘flu plan, it being passed through successive governments until it was signed off by Cameron’s govt.

He claims WHO did not challenge this response and apparently SARS was slowly removed from the pandemic academic literature.

North is no friend of Boris but indicates the UKs response failures are systemic because of the way the strategy was set up along with SAGE developing group think. He added that no matter which government was in place their response would have been the same.

Of course we’ll never know and the best we can hope is that we prepare better for the next one.
Most interesting post on here for weeks thank you

turbobloke

103,748 posts

259 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
edh said:
the national risk register
Having taken a look at the national risk register, our marvellous media will have a field day after the next asteroid/comet impact.

Probability and impact (no pun intended) won't be at the forefront of what passes as media analysis behind the headlines - and that's before printing presses and pixels freeze up. It'll be down to Thatcher or Boris.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
edh said:
No, after all, who could have predicted something that was top of the national risk register?
Except it wasn’t, the risk register refers to pandemic influenza and this is a SARS virus which according to Richard North requires a different approach.

The problem, according to North, was that at the beginning of the outbreak our scientists treat it as an influenza and followed the influenza strategy, part of which was the stopping of test and trace and leaving the borders open. It wasn’t until the Uk was well into it that the mistake was acknowledged and some about turns were swiftly required.

Dr North has had several articles on this and it’s quite interesting, he traces the whole response back to 2005 when WHO required countries to prepare 2 strategies, one for ‘flu the other for SARS type infections. Sadly the UK, under Blair, (along with many other western countries) only did the ‘flu plan, it being passed through successive governments until it was signed off by Cameron’s govt.

He claims WHO did not challenge this response and apparently SARS was slowly removed from the pandemic academic literature.

North is no friend of Boris but indicates the UKs response failures are systemic because of the way the strategy was set up along with SAGE developing group think. He added that no matter which government was in place their response would have been the same.

Of course we’ll never know and the best we can hope is that we prepare better for the next one.
Sure but presumably the government knew this wasn’t a flu pandemic why follow a flu pandemic plan when it’s not a flu?

Any government since Blair’s should have been reviewing the pandemic plans and strategies after identifying a Pandemic as such a major risk?

I can’t imagine many people here work in organisations where the planning and responses to the major risks haven’t changed since 2005?


edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
edh said:
No, after all, who could have predicted something that was top of the national risk register?
Except it wasn’t, the risk register refers to pandemic influenza and this is a SARS virus which according to Richard North requires a different approach.

The problem, according to North, was that at the beginning of the outbreak our scientists treat it as an influenza and followed the influenza strategy, part of which was the stopping of test and trace and leaving the borders open. It wasn’t until the Uk was well into it that the mistake was acknowledged and some about turns were swiftly required.

Dr North has had several articles on this and it’s quite interesting, he traces the whole response back to 2005 when WHO required countries to prepare 2 strategies, one for ‘flu the other for SARS type infections. Sadly the UK, under Blair, (along with many other western countries) only did the ‘flu plan, it being passed through successive governments until it was signed off by Cameron’s govt.

He claims WHO did not challenge this response and apparently SARS was slowly removed from the pandemic academic literature.

North is no friend of Boris but indicates the UKs response failures are systemic because of the way the strategy was set up along with SAGE developing group think. He added that no matter which government was in place their response would have been the same.

Of course we’ll never know and the best we can hope is that we prepare better for the next one.
Ok, fair point.

The risk register separates pandemic influenza and new infectious diseases - but highlights both. There's plenty of reference to SARS for example.

An error seems to be in the assessment that this second category of diseases would be contained & therefore the impact would be lower. Maybe the planners couldn't envisage such a muddled response?

It may well be that SAGE decided this was a flu-like illness & it needed a similar response to pandemic flu. That helps explain the lack of interest in TTI. Doesn't explain, for example, the lack of a response to PPE and ventilators - although we got lucky with the latter.

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
edh said:
Ok, fair point.

The risk register separates pandemic influenza and new infectious diseases - but highlights both. There's plenty of reference to SARS for example.

An error seems to be in the assessment that this second category of diseases would be contained & therefore the impact would be lower. Maybe the planners couldn't envisage such a muddled response?

It may well be that SAGE decided this was a flu-like illness & it needed a similar response to pandemic flu. That helps explain the lack of interest in TTI. Doesn't explain, for example, the lack of a response to PPE and ventilators - although we got lucky with the latter.
No arguments from me about the PPE thing, apart from of course I have no idea of the cost of setting up and maintaining a huge amount of the stuff on a just-in-case basis, and by the time we had realised what was happening (bear in mind various authorities including WHO and the European equivalent of the CCD were saying risks from the virus were low as late as mid February) we were competing globally for the stuff.

There’s a lot that could have been done differently with a combination of better planning, more money spend on preparing for risks and of course hindsight. The most interesting thing for me was Norths suggestion that the way SAGE was set up allows the introduction of Group Think so nothing was seriously challenged.

We need a lock stock review of the way we handle crisis end to end.

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Sure but presumably the government knew this wasn’t a flu pandemic why follow a flu pandemic plan when it’s not a flu?

Any government since Blair’s should have been reviewing the pandemic plans and strategies after identifying a Pandemic as such a major risk?

I can’t imagine many people here work in organisations where the planning and responses to the major risks haven’t changed since 2005?
But they didn’t know it wasn’t a flu pandemic in the early stages, and let’s be honest the government would be basing its actions and decisions on what they were being advised by the SAGE group. Only a foolish government would say “well the scientists think one thing but us, with our degrees in PPE think another so we are ignoring them”.

When is the right time to ignore your own experts?

Edited to add that whilst mistakes have undoubtedly been made it is difficult to assess at this stage to what extent they were systemic and what extent they were down to people. I know we in the West love to attach blame but we are also goood at attaching blame to people when they are working within a flawed system that essentially guarantees things go wrong.

And in this crisis the problems for we, the people, are magnified by a press intent on undermining the response at every stage causing alarm and anger in a lot of people whi take them at face value.



Edited by steveatesh on Monday 1st June 08:02

edh

3,498 posts

268 months

Monday 1st June 2020
quotequote all
steveatesh said:
No arguments from me about the PPE thing, apart from of course I have no idea of the cost of setting up and maintaining a huge amount of the stuff on a just-in-case basis, and by the time we had realised what was happening (bear in mind various authorities including WHO and the European equivalent of the CCD were saying risks from the virus were low as late as mid February) we were competing globally for the stuff.

There’s a lot that could have been done differently with a combination of better planning, more money spend on preparing for risks and of course hindsight. The most interesting thing for me was Norths suggestion that the way SAGE was set up allows the introduction of Group Think so nothing was seriously challenged.

We need a lock stock review of the way we handle crisis end to end.
The makeup of SAGE does look like a factor. No public health people, too much focus on modelling without considering the validity of the model and / or inputs.

My point about PPE was less about stockpiles and more about a fast response to new procurement.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED