Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

You do the same thing every time.

- here are some numbers. The sky's falling in. It's awful. Boris is the worst leader since PolPot

- the numbers might not be as clear cut as is made out. Here are some things to consider for those with a basic grasp of maths and data collection

- well, they're not MY numbers. They're from different governments. And anyway I'm no good at maths



Start to apply some critical thinking to what you are seeing. You say you are cynical, well start to apply it to more than just Boris' hair do, children or his perceived general ability. Or you just come across as whining "because Boris".

That in itself is fair enough if that's what you want to do I suppose. But you seem (most of the time) like an intelligent chap and for a period earlier in the year you were actually very balanced. It's gone down hill faster than Boris' YouGov ratings that El Stovey posts. And I don't think that helps have reasoned debate.

To be fair, IForB slid faster still, ultimately descending into his absolutely ludicrous view that government are deliberately keeping kids hungry and uneducated. He's obviously been reading too much Dickens or someone killed his dog recently...but you then jumped on that one too.



Govt stopping showing the numbers? Maybe someone told them that the comparisons weren't actually meaningful. A mistake showing them at all if they were trying to paint a picture of how "well" we're doing...but as I keep reiterating, the biggest thing this pandemic has shone a light on is how very, very poor this government is at communicating.

And that is a serious worry on more than just the pandemic.

As a slight bit of balance on this, however, communication throughout this country is dogst and has been getting worse for ages. There is little quality journalism, everything is sensationalist and nothing gives any critical thinking. If something looks like the world will end, get it published far and wide then move on before anyone really challenges it. Divisiveness is the name of the game for everyone it seems, and I pity any govt that has to try and work within that envelope.

Tell you what Murph let's turn it on its head in the interests of "balance".

Prove that the published numbers are wrong.

Because right now whether you like it or not those are official numbers so it's not really for me to prove my workings because they're not my workings.

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

Tell you what Murph let's turn it on its head in the interests of "balance".

Prove that the published numbers are wrong.

Because right now whether you like it or not those are official numbers so it's not really for me to prove my workings because they're not my workings.

Crikey, you really struggle, don't you.

I'm not saying any of the numbers are "wrong". But I am saying they are produced on "different bases".

We *know* that Belgium have a very different method of logging this stuff. Their leaders noted as much.

And anyone with even the remotest degree of cynicism knows that China's figures must be being underplayed (though there is always the possibility that their draconian methods of treating their populous might have benefits in this sort of scenario).

Have a look at the general shapes of the curves for all countries. Take the scale off the y-axis as it evidently makes your eyes well up. And see that this is impacting countries in the same broad ways.

Wishing we were South Korea on one level, then Germany on the other and ANOther country where something else is concerned is totally futile.

But hey, your continued chicken licken posts on this particular thread (which aren't politically biased of course) at least keep the thread moving along in a slightly more interesting way than Jazzer's periodic hit and runs late at night adding precisely zero to anything

[Red 4]

Murph7355 said:

You say you are cynical, well start to apply it to more than just Boris' hair do, children or his perceived general ability. Or you just come across as whining "because Boris".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's usually a duck.
Or, in Boris' case, if it looks like a tt and behaves like a tt - it's a tt.

Boris' personal life is relevant. It's just another example of his mindset and that spills over into his job. That's unfortunate because it is a very important job.
Where was he when this kicked off ? Clue; he was at Chequers sorting his divorce out and left instructions that he was not to be disturbed.

What a leader ! What a tt.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

Crikey, you really struggle, don't you.

I'm not saying any of the numbers are "wrong". But I am saying they are produced on "different bases".

We *know* that Belgium have a very different method of logging this stuff. Their leaders noted as much.

And anyone with even the remotest degree of cynicism knows that China's figures must be being underplayed (though there is always the possibility that their draconian methods of treating their populous might have benefits in this sort of scenario).

Have a look at the general shapes of the curves for all countries. Take the scale off the y-axis as it evidently makes your eyes well up. And see that this is impacting countries in the same broad ways.

Wishing we were South Korea on one level, then Germany on the other and ANOther country where something else is concerned is totally futile.

But hey, your continued chicken licken posts on this particular thread (which aren't politically biased of course) at least keep the thread moving along in a slightly more interesting way than Jazzer's periodic hit and runs late at night adding precisely zero to anything

I think I'm being a little more objective than you on this one Murph but happy to let others judge.

Using officially published figures is hardly "politically biased" compared to claiming they shouldn't be trusted and when asked why saying you're simply putting an "alternative spin" on things.

I mean seriously

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

...
Using officially published figures is hardly "politically biased" compared to claiming they shouldn't be trusted and when asked why saying you're simply putting an "alternative spin" on things.

I mean seriously

Yes seriously.

Using officially published figures from multiple govts using different methods of data collection to essentially say this is all Boris' fault is politically motivated. Or just stupid.

But you keep with the sky's falling in. It evidently suits you these days.

(This govt - I've been very critical of it on the economic side of the pandemic and communication generally. Their u-turns on key factors were dumb too - exam results being a major one. Thus far they are doing OK on Brexit IMO...but there's time for them to screw that up I guess. We'll see. Everything else has been a side show....you, on the other hand, have been critical on absolutely everything from what I can see since you lost your balance. C'est la vie)

[Murph7355]

Red 4 said:

...
Where was he when this kicked off ? Clue; he was at Chequers sorting his divorce out and left instructions that he was not to be disturbed.
...

Links/citations?

I recall him being around. Some daft stuff right at the very beginning but then being there. And then he fell ill.

Maybe he didn't actually fall ill and was genuinely in Chequers sorting his divorce out? But I don't recall that being writ large across all papers, Social Media, on Starmer's hit list or even from the three of four of you on here who lay everything that is wrong with the world at his door

In your historic parallels, what is Boris? Atila the Hun? Tweedle Dumb?

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

...
Using officially published figures is hardly "politically biased" compared to claiming they shouldn't be trusted and when asked why saying you're simply putting an "alternative spin" on things.

I mean seriously

Yes seriously.

Using officially published figures from multiple govts using different methods of data collection to essentially say this is all Boris' fault is politically motivated. Or just stupid.

But you keep with the sky's falling in. It evidently suits you these days.

(This govt - I've been very critical of it on the economic side of the pandemic and communication generally. Their u-turns on key factors were dumb too - exam results being a major one. Thus far they are doing OK on Brexit IMO...but there's time for them to screw that up I guess. We'll see. Everything else has been a side show....you, on the other hand, have been critical on absolutely everything from what I can see since you lost your balance. C'est la vie)

Right but you’re saying the official figures are inaccurate but if you applied factors you’ve just made up they might look like we’re doing the same and then be more accurate? .

[markyb_lcy]

Murph7355 said:

Links/citations?

I recall him being around. Some daft stuff right at the very beginning but then being there. And then he fell ill.

What, like this ..

(Clip is only a few mins long)
https://youtu.be/3ok23M478Fw

Watching that now is completely surreal.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Red 4 said:

...
Where was he when this kicked off ? Clue; he was at Chequers sorting his divorce out and left instructions that he was not to be disturbed.
...

Links/citations?

I recall him being around. Some daft stuff right at the very beginning but then being there. And then he fell ill.

Maybe he didn't actually fall ill and was genuinely in Chequers sorting his divorce out? But I don't recall that being writ large across all papers, Social Media, on Starmer's hit list or even from the three of four of you on here who lay everything that is wrong with the world at his door

In your historic parallels, what is Boris? Atila the Hun? Tweedle Dumb?

The Times said:

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster
Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

[bitchstewie]

El stovey said:

Right but you’re saying the official figures are inaccurate but if you applied factors you’ve just made up they might look like we’re doing the same and then be more accurate? .

Maybe I could claim our numbers are actually three times as bad.

I mean I can't prove it but if I'm asked to I'll simply say it's an "alternative spin".

I'm sure nobody would pick me up on it

[IforB]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

Those aren't my number Murph they are the ones that various Governments publish and which I believe are internationally recognised.

You've said before you're cynical and so am I.

And sorry but I think if we were much further down those rankings (in a good way) we'd see a lot more made of our performance and much less of the "ah but what standards are they using?" commentary as if we've actually played a blinder here.

A bit like how the Government used to show the charts at their Press Conferences until the numbers looked fking awful.

As it is you have Turbobloke forming his own "protective ring" and reduced to genuinely believing that everything is "well yes, but Boris" or "brexit grief" because the thought simply cannot enter his brain that actually we've just done really st with Johnson in charge and the public broadly think the same from the polls.

You do the same thing every time.

- here are some numbers. The sky's falling in. It's awful. Boris is the worst leader since PolPot

- the numbers might not be as clear cut as is made out. Here are some things to consider for those with a basic grasp of maths and data collection

- well, they're not MY numbers. They're from different governments. And anyway I'm no good at maths



Start to apply some critical thinking to what you are seeing. You say you are cynical, well start to apply it to more than just Boris' hair do, children or his perceived general ability. Or you just come across as whining "because Boris".

That in itself is fair enough if that's what you want to do I suppose. But you seem (most of the time) like an intelligent chap and for a period earlier in the year you were actually very balanced. It's gone down hill faster than Boris' YouGov ratings that El Stovey posts. And I don't think that helps have reasoned debate.

To be fair, IForB slid faster still, ultimately descending into his absolutely ludicrous view that government are deliberately keeping kids hungry and uneducated. He's obviously been reading too much Dickens or someone killed his dog recently...but you then jumped on that one too.



Govt stopping showing the numbers? Maybe someone told them that the comparisons weren't actually meaningful. A mistake showing them at all if they were trying to paint a picture of how "well" we're doing...but as I keep reiterating, the biggest thing this pandemic has shone a light on is how very, very poor this government is at communicating.

And that is a serious worry on more than just the pandemic.

As a slight bit of balance on this, however, communication throughout this country is dogst and has been getting worse for ages. There is little quality journalism, everything is sensationalist and nothing gives any critical thinking. If something looks like the world will end, get it published far and wide then move on before anyone really challenges it. Divisiveness is the name of the game for everyone it seems, and I pity any govt that has to try and work within that envelope.

With your last paragraph, you are almost getting there.

Now all you need to do is look at the causes for that sensationalism, divisiveness and complete lack of critical thinking.

Once you have done that, then let's carry on the discussion. Though I'd suggest you stepped away from the ad hom attacks, as I'll just respond in kind and that is hardly likely to help a discussion...

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

Murph7355 said:

Red 4 said:

...
Where was he when this kicked off ? Clue; he was at Chequers sorting his divorce out and left instructions that he was not to be disturbed.
...

Links/citations?

I recall him being around. Some daft stuff right at the very beginning but then being there. And then he fell ill.

Maybe he didn't actually fall ill and was genuinely in Chequers sorting his divorce out? But I don't recall that being writ large across all papers, Social Media, on Starmer's hit list or even from the three of four of you on here who lay everything that is wrong with the world at his door

In your historic parallels, what is Boris? Atila the Hun? Tweedle Dumb?

The Times said:

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster
Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

Offered as gospel doctrine?

Yet at the same time there was a prof from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who works in this field commenting that the idea of locking down early is only viable if it's going to be maintained long-term and that somehow there needs to be a way of avoiding the massive economic damage that would ensue. There isn't.

The actual idea he put forward was for an initial lockdown far from early but timed as well as could be judged to minimise/flatten the peak and keep critical care hospital beds with oxygen and ventilation available. This was achieved with a significant margin. Then after that there may be a need for several shorter periods of restriction alternating with more open conditions. Posted and linked on PH back at the time.

It may turn out that nothing was 'ignored' in the culpable sense, it was more that a different strategy had been chosen and in economic / behavioural terms, a reasonable one.

[Murph7355]

El stovey said:

Right but you’re saying the official figures are inaccurate but if you applied factors you’ve just made up they might look like we’re doing the same and then be more accurate? .

No, that is not what I am saying...as I clarified for those who wish to try and interpret incorrectly.

(To be fair, I do question the outright accuracy of the China figures - do you think they've had less than 5k deaths in a country of 1.4bn where the virus actually emanated from?)

[Murph7355]

El stovey said:

...

The Times said:

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster
Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh

Which doesn't seem to say he was sorting his divorce out at Chequers?

Weren't the Cobra discussion had months ago? Does a standing PM typically attend every Cobra meeting? And when he can't make it, do decisions simply not happen?

The whole PPE mess was very poor. I also suspect there was more to it than met the eye (likely much of it at all aspects of govt's door).

[Murph7355]

bhstewie said:

Maybe I could claim our numbers are actually three times as bad.

I mean I can't prove it but if I'm asked to I'll simply say it's an "alternative spin".

I'm sure nobody would pick me up on it

Why would you need to? The world is already stopped and Boris is already the Devil incarnate. Why would you need to embellish any more?

[markyb_lcy]

turbobloke said:

The actual idea he put forward was for an initial lockdown far from early but timed as well as could be judged to minimise/flatten the peak and keep critical care hospital beds with oxygen and ventilation available. This was achieved with a significant margin. Then after that there may be a need for several shorter periods of restriction alternating with more open conditions. Posted and linked on PH back at the time,

This strategy was one many of us accepted at the time as reasonable. It is based on the general idea that we can’t “stop” the virus, but we could take some proportionate steps to avoid unnecessary, indirect deaths from occurring.

I now regret supporting that strategy because the success in doing so set the stage for a move to complete, perpetual suppression based on the “success” of lockdown, when in actual fact, infections were declining before lockdown was called. Presumably, off the back of the measures people were voluntarily taking. That analysis got lost in the noise and we now find ourselves in a position where scientists, politicians and others are asserting “only full lockdown ‘works’ “.

It’s debatable whether it “worked” or not, as I said above, but what is clear, is that what it was intended to do then (avoid the nhs being overwhelmed), is not what it’s intended to do now (complete and perpetual suppression) by the majority of its supporters.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

El stovey said:

Right but you’re saying the official figures are inaccurate but if you applied factors you’ve just made up they might look like we’re doing the same and then be more accurate? .

No, that is not what I am saying...as I clarified for those who wish to try and interpret incorrectly.

(To be fair, I do question the outright accuracy of the China figures - do you think they've had less than 5k deaths in a country of 1.4bn where the virus actually emanated from?)

Of course not but comparing us with China is definitely meaningless as they’re a bunch of liars.

Germany Sweden France Spain etc not so much.

It just looked like you were saying these official figures are all inaccurate but if you apply an arbitrary factor to these inaccurate figures they’ll likely come out supporting a point you’re making (that we’ve all done similarly)

Murph7355 said:

There is no international standard, so how do you go about comparing those numbers? Do you allow some tolerance? If so, how much? +/- 10%? 20%.

As soon as you start to appreciate that and apply tolerance bands, rather a lot of those countries in terms of deaths per million are in essence in the same boat.

Apologies if I’ve misinterpreted your post.

[turbobloke]

markyb_lcy said:

turbobloke said:

The actual idea he put forward was for an initial lockdown far from early but timed as well as could be judged to minimise/flatten the peak and keep critical care hospital beds with oxygen and ventilation available. This was achieved with a significant margin. Then after that there may be a need for several shorter periods of restriction alternating with more open conditions. Posted and linked on PH back at the time,

This strategy was one many of us accepted at the time as reasonable. It is based on the general idea that we can’t “stop” the virus, but we could take some proportionate steps to avoid unnecessary, indirect deaths from occurring.

I now regret supporting that strategy because the success in doing so set the stage for a move to complete, perpetual suppression based on the “success” of lockdown, when in actual fact, infections were declining before lockdown was called. Presumably, off the back of the measures people were voluntarily taking. That analysis got lost in the noise and we now find ourselves in a position where scientists, politicians and others are asserting “only full lockdown ‘works’ “.

It’s debatable whether it “worked” or not, as I said above, but what is clear, is that what it was intended to do then (avoid the nhs being overwhelmed), is not what it’s intended to do now (complete and perpetual suppression).

We happen to disagree as I continue to accept it was a reasonable strategy. Recurrent need not mean perpetual with treatment and vaccine development ongoing, nor uniform in severity as we're seeing in various locations.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

Maybe I could claim our numbers are actually three times as bad.

I mean I can't prove it but if I'm asked to I'll simply say it's an "alternative spin".

I'm sure nobody would pick me up on it

Why would you need to? The world is already stopped and Boris is already the Devil incarnate. Why would you need to embellish any more?

He isn't the devil incarnate just a poor excuse for a Prime Minister.

The leader sets the tone and if the leader is a shambolic mess guess what the tone will probably be and look what's happened.

I'm pretty sure I've posted nothing more than the official global death toll today.

I really don't think that can be called embellishment.

[Murph7355]

IforB said:

With your last paragraph, you are almost getting there.

Now all you need to do is look at the causes for that sensationalism, divisiveness and complete lack of critical thinking.

Once you have done that, then let's carry on the discussion. Though I'd suggest you stepped away from the ad hom attacks, as I'll just respond in kind and that is hardly likely to help a discussion...

Where is the ad hom? I noted a comment you actually made and called it out as ludicrous. Which it is and was. You want to get upset at people calling you out as a halfwit, don't make such evidently stupid comments;)

My view and yours on the actual causes of sensationalism are very different I suspect. Ditto divisiveness.

As an example, I would wager you still blame Farage, or perhaps the Tory party for the division of views on Brexit? Me? I blame politicians of all colours and especially those directly involved in the building of the EU political constructs without answering properly to the electorates they are meant to be serving. In this country that starts with Major. And it roles through every govt since up until the current one.

Sensationalism IMO is down to falling standards of journalism pretty much across the board. And a population that thrives on soundbites (hence the uptick in banality like Twitter and Tik Tok). I think the govt's mistake is to try and keep up with that rather than try and control the narrative. YMMV (YMDV!).