Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
Tuna said:
IforB said:
100k a day infections right now.
Really?BBC News - Covid-19: Nearly 100,000 catching virus every day - study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962
IforB said:
Yep. In England alone too...
BBC News - Covid-19: Nearly 100,000 catching virus every day - study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962
Ah, I see what you're saying. Makes it rather difficult to compare like for like when we're looking at our own, and other countries' statistics though.BBC News - Covid-19: Nearly 100,000 catching virus every day - study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962
Tuna said:
IforB said:
Yep. In England alone too...
BBC News - Covid-19: Nearly 100,000 catching virus every day - study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962
Ah, I see what you're saying. Makes it rather difficult to compare like for like when we're looking at our own, and other countries' statistics though.BBC News - Covid-19: Nearly 100,000 catching virus every day - study
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54723962
I would also suggest they know about a billion times more about it than all of us on this forum combined.
IforB said:
I would suggest taking up the way they have come to their conclusions with Imperial College directly.
I would also suggest they know about a billion times more about it than all of us on this forum combined.
I'm not questioning Imperial's statistics - we knew in the first spike that it was likely many thousands more had been infected without being counted in the national stats.I would also suggest they know about a billion times more about it than all of us on this forum combined.
The point was that randomly switching to the biggest available number (four times the 'official' infection rate) makes it rather hard to figure out where we are in the wave(s) of infection, or more importantly, things like the R number.
Tuna said:
IforB said:
I would suggest taking up the way they have come to their conclusions with Imperial College directly.
I would also suggest they know about a billion times more about it than all of us on this forum combined.
I'm not questioning Imperial's statistics - we knew in the first spike that it was likely many thousands more had been infected without being counted in the national stats.I would also suggest they know about a billion times more about it than all of us on this forum combined.
The point was that randomly switching to the biggest available number (four times the 'official' infection rate) makes it rather hard to figure out where we are in the wave(s) of infection, or more importantly, things like the R number.
Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
If you want to know when the country is f
ked that's easy. It will be when Curly, Larry and Moe put in their next appearance on prime time TV.
Until then, rest assured that this is largely regionalized. Half of the deaths (roughly) are currently in the north west. And that, clearly, doesn't merit Boris saying much about it.
ked that's easy. It will be when Curly, Larry and Moe put in their next appearance on prime time TV.Until then, rest assured that this is largely regionalized. Half of the deaths (roughly) are currently in the north west. And that, clearly, doesn't merit Boris saying much about it.
IforB said:
Dealing with any problem is always worse if it is left. Act early and it is easier.
I don't think there is an easy way out now. You can see the inevitable lockdown coming, as it is the only thing that has been done that had any noticeable impact. The problem is, the lockdown will be much longer and more damaging than it would have been had it been done earlier. ...
They've decided on a course of action, resulting in William Wallace bI don't think there is an easy way out now. You can see the inevitable lockdown coming, as it is the only thing that has been done that had any noticeable impact. The problem is, the lockdown will be much longer and more damaging than it would have been had it been done earlier. ...
hing and moaning that they were being victimised.The idea was to effectively lockdown the areas that were seeing rises above what was felt manageable. From an economic point of view, not going full on in areas that were/are currently seeing any major rises seems sensible to me.
I would think the levels they have settled on are ones which they believe will get the numbers back under control in reasonably quick order (assuming compliance - far from a given). I also suspect much of this remains experimental on this front. Experimenting seems wise right now as there's no vaccine on the horizon and data is starting to suggest immunity is far from certain/long lasting.
If that is the case, at some point we are going to have to regularly apply control measures. I don't see that we'll be able to constantly keep going into full lockdowns at the first whiff of a rise.
I also suspect that if it gets confirmed immunity is not long lasting, we'll see a policy shift towards simply telling the vulnerable to self isolate/be extra vigilant.
Other parts of the UK are trying full national lockdown. I very much think the data from that will also be being watched very closely on all fronts.
Fundamentally there was never an "easy way out". Suggesting there was is more than a little disingenuous. IMO.
IforB said:
Like I said. If you have an issue, go and ask the people who did the months of research.
Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
What on earth are you on about? That's the complete opposite of what I said. Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
Tuna said:
IforB said:
Like I said. If you have an issue, go and ask the people who did the months of research.
Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
What on earth are you on about? That's the complete opposite of what I said. Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
Murph7355 said:
IforB said:
Dealing with any problem is always worse if it is left. Act early and it is easier.
I don't think there is an easy way out now. You can see the inevitable lockdown coming, as it is the only thing that has been done that had any noticeable impact. The problem is, the lockdown will be much longer and more damaging than it would have been had it been done earlier. ...
They've decided on a course of action, resulting in William Wallace bI don't think there is an easy way out now. You can see the inevitable lockdown coming, as it is the only thing that has been done that had any noticeable impact. The problem is, the lockdown will be much longer and more damaging than it would have been had it been done earlier. ...
hing and moaning that they were being victimised.The idea was to effectively lockdown the areas that were seeing rises above what was felt manageable. From an economic point of view, not going full on in areas that were/are currently seeing any major rises seems sensible to me.
I would think the levels they have settled on are ones which they believe will get the numbers back under control in reasonably quick order (assuming compliance - far from a given). I also suspect much of this remains experimental on this front. Experimenting seems wise right now as there's no vaccine on the horizon and data is starting to suggest immunity is far from certain/long lasting.
If that is the case, at some point we are going to have to regularly apply control measures. I don't see that we'll be able to constantly keep going into full lockdowns at the first whiff of a rise.
I also suspect that if it gets confirmed immunity is not long lasting, we'll see a policy shift towards simply telling the vulnerable to self isolate/be extra vigilant.
Other parts of the UK are trying full national lockdown. I very much think the data from that will also be being watched very closely on all fronts.
Fundamentally there was never an "easy way out". Suggesting there was is more than a little disingenuous. IMO.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Tuna said:
IforB said:
Like I said. If you have an issue, go and ask the people who did the months of research.
Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
What on earth are you on about? That's the complete opposite of what I said. Personally, I find listening to the people who are experts and not trying to think up ways of suggesting they are wrong, when all you have to offer is completely unqualified opinion is the best way of dealing with something complex.
I would also suggest that anyone who simply believes figures put out by people more interested in image and being seen to be right, rather than people who are quite simply putting together datasets and drawing peer reviewed conclusions may also want to be careful about what they believe.
Labour criticises reinstatement of VAT 'mask tax'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54690174
Labour has attacked the government's decision to reinstate VAT on personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face masks as "unbelievable".
The party says reintroducing the tax - which was suspended in May - could cost families nearly £100 over six months.
Face masks are mandatory in places such as shops to slow the spread of Covid.
The government said: "The VAT relief was designed to accelerate supply of PPE to the health and social care sectors... when they needed it most."
And a spokesperson said the government had committed to provide free PPE for Covid-19 needs to adult social care until March 2021.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54690174
Labour has attacked the government's decision to reinstate VAT on personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face masks as "unbelievable".
The party says reintroducing the tax - which was suspended in May - could cost families nearly £100 over six months.
Face masks are mandatory in places such as shops to slow the spread of Covid.
The government said: "The VAT relief was designed to accelerate supply of PPE to the health and social care sectors... when they needed it most."
And a spokesperson said the government had committed to provide free PPE for Covid-19 needs to adult social care until March 2021.
IforB said:
Sage, as well as the public health agencies in each county I saw were arguing for much stronger action long before this. They knew his tiered strategy was rubbish and said so.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Sage only advise on medical grounds. And we should all surely know by now that the problems with this pandemic are more than one dimensional. The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
If they followed only sage to the letter, you'd be on here moaning about the economic impact.
If they paid everyone's wages you'd be moaning about the deficit and our kids having to pay for it.
The government are s
t at communicating, but when supposedly intelligent people cannot see that there's more than one thing to balance, we really are screwed. We also get you cannot stand Boris for everything he stands for. But try and be at least a little balanced.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
IforB said:
The party says reintroducing the tax - which was suspended in May - could cost families nearly £100 over six months.
Who is spending £100 pm on PPE?(The optics are wrong again, but the actual impact? We evidently want fluff and not substance).
Murph7355 said:
IforB said:
Sage, as well as the public health agencies in each county I saw were arguing for much stronger action long before this. They knew his tiered strategy was rubbish and said so.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Sage only advise on medical grounds. And we should all surely know by now that the problems with this pandemic are more than one dimensional. The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
If they followed only sage to the letter, you'd be on here moaning about the economic impact.
If they paid everyone's wages you'd be moaning about the deficit and our kids having to pay for it.
The government are s
t at communicating, but when supposedly intelligent people cannot see that there's more than one thing to balance, we really are screwed. We also get you cannot stand Boris for everything he stands for. But try and be at least a little balanced.
Murph7355 said:
Sage only advise on medical grounds. And we should all surely know by now that the problems with this pandemic are more than one dimensional.
If they followed only sage to the letter, you'd be on here moaning about the economic impact.
Perhaps members of sage should know their place and resist the temptation to brief the media directly. They should know that their advice is meant to be considered, on balance, with other considerations such as the economy and personal freedoms. That’s how it all started out. Nowadays they undermine the govt by going straight to the media with “must lockdown now” etc.If they followed only sage to the letter, you'd be on here moaning about the economic impact.
IMO Boris should strike a few of them off it and remind them of their place (as advisors to the govt, not some independent lobby group).
IforB said:
Sage, as well as the public health agencies in each county I saw were arguing for much stronger action long before this. They knew his tiered strategy was rubbish and said so.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
France in lockdown and Germany joining them in a couple of days.The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Is that because they're doing it right, or because they've been doing it wrong?
Is it evidence of a strong hand in controlling the virus, or evidence of insufficient action? They can't win.
markyb_lcy said:
Perhaps members of sage should know their place and resist the temptation to brief the media directly. They should know that their advice is meant to be considered, on balance, with other considerations such as the economy and personal freedoms. That’s how it all started out. Nowadays they undermine the govt by going straight to the media with “must lockdown now” etc.
IMO Boris should strike a few of them off it and remind them of their place (as advisors to the govt, not some independent lobby group).
If you're not allowed to pass comment independently I'm not sure you're independent are you?IMO Boris should strike a few of them off it and remind them of their place (as advisors to the govt, not some independent lobby group).
I do take the point and I agree it contributes to the mixed messaging but I don't know if I'd support that sort of restriction.
SpeckledJim said:
IforB said:
Sage, as well as the public health agencies in each county I saw were arguing for much stronger action long before this. They knew his tiered strategy was rubbish and said so.
The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
France in lockdown and Germany joining them in a couple of days.The Government made the decisions to disregard their scientific advice.
The result is now for all to see.
The infection rate is through the roof and continuing to grow.
They have screwed it up. Yet again.
Is that because they're doing it right, or because they've been doing it wrong?
Is it evidence of a strong hand in controlling the virus, or evidence of insufficient action? They can't win.
Other governments are, like the UK, still engaged - obviously it's not over yet; however premature adjudication continues to afflict detractors and for obvious reasons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff