Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
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.
I suspect your and my TVs were picking up alternate reality broadcasts with the same people in them.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 said:
In your historic parallels, what is Boris? Atila the Hun? Tweedle Dumb?
A new breed. Alien/ human hybrid.You know that thing on top of his head which vaguely resembles human hair ?
Well, it isn't hair. It's an alien parasite which controls Boris. The interface gets a bit f
ked up at times which explains the constant brainfarts, fluffing and going off on a tangent.You've never seen Boris at night have you?
That's because the parasite is removed and kept in a cage whilst scientists perform the nightly regen cycle.
"Boris" can't function without it.
Trump has got one too. Don't say you haven't noticed.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie 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?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
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.
Stewie is just posting the official figures.
If you’re saying the official figures are meaningless you can’t really then say we can add a factor that makes them look similar and that shows we haven’t done that bad.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
Yup. Never attribute to malice what can more easily be explained by incompetence.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.
Anyhoo, here's what the alien/ human hybrid was doing AFTER the stark warinings from The WHO (the health boffins, not the band).
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/sunda...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm pretty sure I've posted nothing more than the official global death toll today.
That's one part of the problem, it/they may be 'official' but whether national or international nobody knows what the actual number are, actual numbers must not be confused with the 'official' numbers.I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
turbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm pretty sure I've posted nothing more than the official global death toll today.
That's one part of the problem, it/they may be 'official' but whether national or international nobody knows what the actual number are, actual numbers must not be confused with the 'official' numbers.I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
We have to work with the data we have, and be aware of the caveats at all times.
turbobloke said:
That's one part of the problem, it/they may be 'official' but whether national or international nobody knows what the actual number are, actual numbers must not be confused with the 'official' numbers.
I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
Yes, as you say, using the best data available seems reasonable. When that “official” data is all there is.I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
What data are you using in your activism? You don’t seem to provide any figures to back up your activism at all?
Do you think that if this “official data” supported your activism, you’d still think it was so unreliable?
SpeckledJim said:
markyb_lcy said:
Ah yes. 8 months in and nobody should be passing comment on the performance of the govt in this crisis because it’s still “half time” 
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally st on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
kin' raging if Labour were in charge and this was the state that we had found ourselves in, just admit itturbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm pretty sure I've posted nothing more than the official global death toll today.
That's one part of the problem, it/they may be 'official' but whether national or international nobody knows what the actual number are, actual numbers must not be confused with the 'official' numbers.I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
Let's be honest about this.
If we had the lowest published per capita death toll in the EU or developed world you'd be all over it like a fly on s
t saying it was a clear vindication of Johnson's handling of the pandemic.There would be none of this "premature adjudication" s
t and if I tried making out actually we were doing really badly and said the numbers couldn't be relied on but I couldn't explain why I'd get torn a new one.So why should anyone treat it any differently when we have one of the worst per capita death tolls in the EU or developed world and you try and claim the numbers can't be relied on?
Only in your world could using official figures be "activism" whilst everything you say is presumably what you think passes for impartial commentary.
Deathmole said:
SpeckledJim said:
markyb_lcy said:
Ah yes. 8 months in and nobody should be passing comment on the performance of the govt in this crisis because it’s still “half time”
The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally st on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.
The mistakes have been many in number and serious in nature. That's what happens when you do something new for the first time.The fact is turbo, you’d explain away any criticism of this govt as being political opportunism and Brexit grief.
Boris could literally s
t on the Union Jack and you’d be clapping like a seal.If the rest of Western Europe had done a lot better, then I could justify us hauling UK govt over the coals.
But as we aren't furious and disgusted with Merkel and Macron and Sanchez and Conte, it seems a bit disproportionate to be furious and disgusted with Johnson.
kin' raging if Labour were in charge and this was the state that we had found ourselves in, just admit itAs we look at France and Germany, who are in similar positions to our own, I don't think Labour would have done much better or much worse.
For me the major, major error wasn't the delay in lockdown, but the failure to apply special protections and measures to the very old.
Most of the deaths are people who were already in their final 1000 days. We're, what, 8 months in. A significant minority of those who died in the first wave would, if not for covid, have died by now of something else.
Every death is a tragedy, of course it is, but the number of living days lost, in comparison to lives, is relatively low.
Our government failed to take some basic early steps to prevent the virus running riot through care homes, and that was a huge mistake. But since then, we're not doing much that's very different to most other countries.
If you're saying all those countries have all f
ked it up, then that somewhat devalues the phrase.bhstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm pretty sure I've posted nothing more than the official global death toll today.
That's one part of the problem, it/they may be 'official' but whether national or international nobody knows what the actual number are, actual numbers must not be confused with the 'official' numbers.I appreciate that there may be no alternative 'official' numbers and that 'official' gives a certain glossy appearance.
Then there's the consequent major issue of false yet compelling comparisons using countries' raw data, which includes inhomogeneities. Still, they're good for activism.
Let's be honest about this.
If we had the lowest published per capita death toll in the EU or developed world you'd be all over it like a fly on s
t saying it was a clear vindication of Johnson's handling of the pandemic.There would be none of this "premature adjudication" s
t and if I tried making out actually we were doing really badly and said the numbers couldn't be relied on but I couldn't explain why I'd get torn a new one.So why should anyone treat it any differently when we have one of the worst per capita death tolls in the EU or developed world and you try and claim the numbers can't be relied on?
Only in your world could using official figures be "activism" whilst everything you say is presumably what you think passes for impartial commentary.
Raw covid death numbers are a very weak indicator for international comparisons due to data inhomogeneity and in addition to the myriad contextual differences in play quite apart from political action.
The Blavatnik team at Oxford Uni have shown from data across Europe that severity/date of lockdown doesn't correlate with excess deaths but does link to the level of economic damage (as posted and linked on PH n times).
Both of the above confirm that the key political decision isn't as material to outcomes as some wish to claim.
Yet those who repeatedly excoriate the UK government continue to use raw data with 'official' as an excuse, deliberately ignoring or genuinely failing to understand the problems with the data ^ to try to score political points.
Attempting repeatedly to score political points as above is a form of activism.
turbobloke said:
Strategic lack of comprehension?
Raw covid death numbers are a very weak indicator for international comparisons due to data inhomogeneity and in addition to the myriad contextual differences in play quite apart from political action.
The Blavatnik team at Oxford Uni have shown from data across Europe that severity/date of lockdown doesn't correlate with excess deaths but does link to the level of economic damage (as posted and linked on PH n times).
Both of the above confirm that the key political decision isn't as material to outcomes as some wish to claim.
Yet those who repeatedly excoriate the UK government continue to use raw data with 'official' as an excuse, deliberately ignoring or genuinely failing to understand the problems with the data ^ to try to score political points.
Attempting repeatedly to score political points as above is a form of activism.
You know I'd actually be embarrassed if I wrote that.Raw covid death numbers are a very weak indicator for international comparisons due to data inhomogeneity and in addition to the myriad contextual differences in play quite apart from political action.
The Blavatnik team at Oxford Uni have shown from data across Europe that severity/date of lockdown doesn't correlate with excess deaths but does link to the level of economic damage (as posted and linked on PH n times).
Both of the above confirm that the key political decision isn't as material to outcomes as some wish to claim.
Yet those who repeatedly excoriate the UK government continue to use raw data with 'official' as an excuse, deliberately ignoring or genuinely failing to understand the problems with the data ^ to try to score political points.
Attempting repeatedly to score political points as above is a form of activism.
It's just paragraphs of word salad.
Speak English.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:turbobloke said:
Strategic lack of comprehension?
Raw covid death numbers are a very weak indicator for international comparisons due to data inhomogeneity and in addition to the myriad contextual differences in play quite apart from political action.
The Blavatnik team at Oxford Uni have shown from data across Europe that severity/date of lockdown doesn't correlate with excess deaths but does link to the level of economic damage (as posted and linked on PH n times).
Both of the above confirm that the key political decision isn't as material to outcomes as some wish to claim.
Yet those who repeatedly excoriate the UK government continue to use raw data with 'official' as an excuse, deliberately ignoring or genuinely failing to understand the problems with the data ^ to try to score political points.
Attempting repeatedly to score political points as above is a form of activism.
rRaw covid death numbers are a very weak indicator for international comparisons due to data inhomogeneity and in addition to the myriad contextual differences in play quite apart from political action.
The Blavatnik team at Oxford Uni have shown from data across Europe that severity/date of lockdown doesn't correlate with excess deaths but does link to the level of economic damage (as posted and linked on PH n times).
Both of the above confirm that the key political decision isn't as material to outcomes as some wish to claim.
Yet those who repeatedly excoriate the UK government continue to use raw data with 'official' as an excuse, deliberately ignoring or genuinely failing to understand the problems with the data ^ to try to score political points.
Attempting repeatedly to score political points as above is a form of activism.
You know I'd actually be embarrassed if I wrote that.
It's just paragraphs of word salad.
Speak English.
You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
turbobloke said:
Grow up. It's plain, and clear, what was said.
You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
You literally wrote paragraphs of "obfuscating rhetoric" that didn't address the points I made.You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
Wang on about "data inhomogeneity" all you like to try and look smart but you'd trust it in a heartbeat if we came out of it looking like we'd played a blinder.
You know it I know it and every single person reading this knows it.
Still to be fair you did manage to reply in English and there was no mention of the word "activism" so we're getting somewhere.
turbobloke said:
Grow up. It's plain, and clear, what was said.
You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
It’s not really. You tend to speak in some kind of odd and unnatural technobabbling verbose grandiloquence that’s become known as turbospam over the years. The likely reason is to disguise the fact that you’re actually talking bYou don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
ks or that maybe you’re a robot? You’re saying people that are using official raw data (that’s unreliable according to you) is activism.
But you’re just replying with no data, (raw or official) but that’s not activism.
Don’t you think that your argument might seem a bit like “obfuscating rhetoric” ?
Presumably using best data available isn’t actually activism. You just call it activism because it doesn’t support your politics.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Grow up. It's plain, and clear, what was said.
You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
It’s not really. You tend to speak in some kind of odd and unnatural technobabbling verbose grandiloquence that’s become known as turbospam over the years. The likely reason is to disguise the fact that you’re actually talking bYou don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
ks or that maybe you’re a robot? You’re saying people that are using official raw data (that’s unreliable according to you) is activism.
But you’re just replying with no data, (raw or official) but that’s not activism.
Don’t you think that your argument might seem a bit like “obfuscating rhetoric” ?
Presumably using best data available isn’t actually activism. You just call it activism because it doesn’t support your politics.
I wonder if he has ever had respect for a political opponent. He seems to me to be the very embodiment of tribal politics. I’ve always felt that there is as much to learn from my opponents as my allies and there are a great many people, including on this thread, that although we don’t agree, I have a lot of time for and enjoy debating with.
markyb_lcy said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
Grow up. It's plain, and clear, what was said.
You don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
It’s not really. You tend to speak in some kind of odd and unnatural technobabbling verbose grandiloquence that’s become known as turbospam over the years. The likely reason is to disguise the fact that you’re actually talking bYou don't like it, have no response (material to the points raised), so not surprisingly, you resort to insults and obfuscating rhetoric.
Playground stuff, and a transparent fail.
ks or that maybe you’re a robot? You’re saying people that are using official raw data (that’s unreliable according to you) is activism.
But you’re just replying with no data, (raw or official) but that’s not activism.
Don’t you think that your argument might seem a bit like “obfuscating rhetoric” ?
Presumably using best data available isn’t actually activism. You just call it activism because it doesn’t support your politics.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff