Coronavirus - Overall



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @antipodean

    I'm wary of reading too much into articles like this.

    A lot of the people quoted criticising the government on Coronavirus too often turn out to have seriously political axes to grind and often what's said turns out to be laughable bollocks or so biased as to be useless. The Sunday Times article and the Panorama PPE programme being two cases in point.

    Couldn't agree more.

    Of course there have made fuck-ups and wrong decisions taken, but it's way too early to say if they should have been different based on what was known at the time or which politician was in charge.

    Not that you'd expect don't expect the UK media to understand this or do much serious fact-checking or analysis......

    @Victor-Meldrew I entirely agree about the tendency of press to make Harry Hindsight judgements.

    However, in this case, the vulnerability of care homes was apparent as far back as mid-March.

    The most critical lockdown was to care homes. The plan should have been to test carers DAILY and eliminate visitors.

    In other words to aim to keep CV right out of the system.

    In practice, I suspect there were at least two problems:

    1. Shortage of testing materials; and
    2. Insufficient back up staff. On the basis a fair number of carers tested positive, where could the reserves be sourced from?

    Nevertheless, the imperatives weren't hard to identify, so to my mind had the Government been on the ball (or not so focused on NHS) I'd have thought by Easter a proper plan could have been put in place.

    That would have allowed a bigger relaxation now.

    As is, it seems only yesterday that it was admitted at the daily briefing there WAS a problem.

    Having said ALL that, care homes aside, I don't think UK has done a bad job.



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Shortage of testing materials; and Insufficient back up staff. On the basis a fair number of carers tested positive, where could the reserves be sourced from

    Fair points.

    I understand the problem is that care staff go from home to home - i.e care homes staff are shared - and that carers could be infected transmit the disease but not long enough to show up positive on a test, but I'm no expert.

    They did announce that vulnerable people would be shielded early on and it does make you wonder if there was an assumption Local Government would be doing this for care homes and it kinda fell thru the cracks.

    Having said ALL that, care homes aside, I don't think UK has done a bad job.

    Read that Italy and other countries haven't included all their Care Home deaths yet. Even then, on a per capita basis, the UK has been about average.



  • I want to be angry at the government. I want to hate Boris and stand from the rooftops stating he has blood on his hands. This country has suffered badly, very badly and they are the government.

    But I just can’t. I feel a sense of duty to stick with them. Not because they’ve done a great job - I don’t think they have. But we are in this together. I’ve done my bit, as has most of the country. We’ve distanced, we’ve clapped, we’ve helped out others, we’ve done what’s been asked.

    But most of all, two main reasons. Twitter and the media. Both have tried to divide at a time where unity is paramount. Standing by the government is my own protest against both of these despicable mediums. Both are cesspits with rare jewels, the inverse of what they should be.

    It’s been quite an eye opener for me.



  • Seperate note - 75th anniversary VE Day Friday. Our street is having it’s own Parade / Party. I know of a lot of others doing it as well.

    National Unity being organized by the people. I suspect I’m not alone in my thoughts here.



  • The overwhelming majority of deaths in NZ have been in rest homes. My wife is in one run by the same outfit as one of the ones with fatalities. They instigated a strict no visitor policy two weeks before we moved to Lvl 2. All staff are in full PPE - all the time. Every staff member has their temperature taken at the start of every shift and the residents twice a day. Yet still they had an outbreak.

    We've seen here that when there has been a rest home with an outbreak patients are moved into a public hospital because of a lack of staff resources in the rest home. We are lucky to have that option.

    The article suggests things were much different in the UK. Looking from afar with hindsight it does seem like the UK wasted the little time it had to get its shit together.



  • @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    The overwhelming majority of deaths in NZ have been in rest homes. My wife is in one run by the same outfit as one of the ones with fatalities. They instigated a strict no visitor policy two weeks before we moved to Lvl 2. All staff are in full PPE - all the time. Every staff member has their temperature taken at the start of every shift and the residents twice a day. Yet still they had an outbreak.

    We've seen here that when there has been a rest home with an outbreak patients are moved into a public hospital because of a lack of staff resources in the rest home. We are lucky to have that option.

    The article suggests things were much different in the UK. Looking from afar with hindsight it does seem like the UK wasted the little time it had to get its shit together.

    I hope your wife is heathy and well there, must be a scary time for everyone in Rest Homes at the moment.



  • @MajorRage said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    I want to be angry at the government. I want to hate Boris and stand from the rooftops stating he has blood on his hands. This country has suffered badly, very badly and they are the government.

    But I just can’t. I feel a sense of duty to stick with them. Not because they’ve done a great job - I don’t think they have. But we are in this together. I’ve done my bit, as has most of the country. We’ve distanced, we’ve clapped, we’ve helped out others, we’ve done what’s been asked.

    Pretty much sums things up, but I keep asking myself two questions:

    First, could the government have done better?

    In hindsight, absolutely. But they have followed the scientific advice they received, published that advice where possible and seem to have done the best they could. Some things have been brilliant (NHS capacity, ventilators), others impossible to get 100% right (testing & PPE), Care homes look to have been a mistake.

    Second, would any other government done any better or worse?

    Other than by luck, probably not.

    But most of all, two main reasons. Twitter and the media. Both have tried to divide at a time where unity is paramount. Standing by the government is my own protest against both of these despicable mediums. Both are cesspits with rare jewels, the inverse of what they should be.

    It's the sheer ineptitude of the the likes of the media, like the BBC & Times, thinking they can push out fake news and obvious political bias and not get called out, that gets me.

    And Twitter can just go fuck itself.



  • @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    The article suggests things were much different in the UK. Looking from afar with hindsight it does seem like the UK wasted the little time it had to get its shit together

    There's been a raft of stories on this. Much of it simply wrong.

    E.g. the Sunday Times ran a story 3-4 weeks ago trying to make the point that the government had sat on its hands for weeks. The story proved to be bollocks after the government published a detailed timetable of the actions they took from mid-January - meeting dates, attendees etc. See link.

    https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/

    That said, it's fair to say that wrong decisions were made and the advisors have said that they got some of the advice they gave to the government wrong.



  • @Victor-Meldrew My own pov is that the only countries remotely prepared for a pandemic were those that had been through SARS. I know NZ's MoH had a pretty comprehensive Pandemic Plan (my company's plan references it consistently) but were caught out by the speed at which it developed. Which is why we went from nothing much going one here, look at the those poor buggers overseas to Holy Fuck LOCKDOWN in a matter of days. The NZ Plan talked blithely about school shut downs, mass gatherings banned and thousands of body bags but clearly when it moves from an academic exercise to grim reality everything gets real. I sympathise with how difficult it must be for any govt. Multiple experts taking totally contrary positions - often the same experts contradicting themselves and then suddenly every media commentator and poster on social media 😉 is talking as though they've been studying virology for decades. NZ had the benefit of a couple of weeks - maybe a month that the UK didn't but we did go early and we did go hard. The UK had less time but for whatever reason flip-flopped and then had some mixed messaging. The second advantage NZ has enjoyed is clarity of communication. Clear, concise, consistent, constant. Everyone understood so almost everyone accepted - particularly in the early days. I share your frustration with the media. We have the same issues here on a smaller scale. The real analysis of what went right and wrong will take time and will colour our preparation for next time. Which will be a mistake - fighting the last war... COVID has behaved differently to the Spanish Flu or rather we are radically different from out great grandparents generation. Not realising that was the first mistake everyone made. I do hope that there is one similarity to a century ago - that those that went into lockdown fared better economically. the shit storm is only just getting underway



  • so why is Russia's mortality rates so much lower?

    Reporting massive numbers of infections, yet death numbers remain reasonably low...is it an anomoly that will correct itself in time, or is there something else?



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @dogmeat said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    The article suggests things were much different in the UK. Looking from afar with hindsight it does seem like the UK wasted the little time it had to get its shit together

    There's been a raft of stories on this. Much of it simply wrong.

    E.g. the Sunday Times ran a story 3-4 weeks ago trying to make the point that the government had sat on its hands for weeks. The story proved to be bollocks after the government published a detailed timetable of the actions they took from mid-January - meeting dates, attendees etc. See link.

    https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/

    That said, it's fair to say that wrong decisions were made and the advisors have said that they got some of the advice they gave to the government wrong.

    While that press release certainly lays bare some of the errors in the ST article, I get two main things from it. First, it consistently heaps praise on Boris like a campaign piece (which makes you feel that facts are being tailored to suit a narrative, just as the ST article itself). Secondly they refer a lot to meetings and discussions as claims of 'action'.

    I agree that it isn't fair to claim that they were dismissing a threat but if you look at a chart of the 'R' rate in the UK, it was over 4 for a couple of weeks before lockdown. This is what caused the hurt. A length of time with a high transmission rate is the common factor in all countries with deep problems that are hard to shake off. Speed of firm action is not what was shown by the UK Govt. They may have done lots of planning and talking but weren't decisive when it counted.



  • @dogmeat there was certainly some shit communication but right leaning govt was never going to shut down everything the way NZ did. By nature most of their voters are business and they can’t just order people to stop.

    Maybe that would have been a better response - time will tell, but they could never do it.

    Reality is that with the airport hubs, demographics and London, the UK never stood a chance. Never. I think we would have needed to lock down mid Jan to get NZ results. The virus was already here snd in the public domain without question by Feb. I strongly believe in the COBR meetings at end of Jan, the scientists were saying it’s already here and in the people. All you can do is try to contain it.



  • @Crucial agreed. But as per my previous post, I’m still not sure the science was wrong.



  • This is obviously all said with the experience of hindsight but have a look at this..

    alt text

    Estimates of the R rate at that date was between 3 and 4.

    Potential for exponential growth throughout the country without immediate isolating action. Lockdown didn't start for another 11 days. That is 11 days of spread at a rate over 3



  • @Crucial said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    it consistently heaps praise on Boris

    The ultimate sin....

    Secondly they refer a lot to meetings and discussions as claims of 'action'.

    What do you expect them to do? Not have meetings and simply rush into action without discussions? Ignore the (then) advice from experts - inc critics like Horton - not to rush to take action as it wasn't a big problem?

    I agree that it isn't fair to claim that they were dismissing a threat but if you look at a chart of the 'R' rate in the UK, it was over 4 for a couple of weeks before lockdown.

    Can you post a link to the chart? I thought I heard Chris Whitty, in response to a question on the R rate before lock-down, that there was no useable data on this

    They may have done lots of planning and talking but weren't decisive when it counted.

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.



  • @MajorRage said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    The virus was already here snd in the public domain without question by Feb.

    Evidence from France is that it was circulating for 4-6 weeks before the first case was detected. The bit in bold is the interesting bit.

    "A patient treated in a hospital near Paris on 27 December for suspected pneumonia actually had the coronavirus, his doctor has said.

    This means the virus may have arrived in Europe almost a month earlier than previously thought.

    The patient, who has since recovered, said he had no idea where he caught the virus as he had not travelled abroad."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52526554



  • @Billy-Tell do you think that is ... significant?



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    it consistently heaps praise on Boris

    The ultimate sin....

    Secondly they refer a lot to meetings and discussions as claims of 'action'.

    What do you expect them to do? Not have meetings and simply rush into action without discussions? Ignore the (then) advice from experts - inc critics like Horton - not to rush to take action as it wasn't a big problem?

    I agree that it isn't fair to claim that they were dismissing a threat but if you look at a chart of the 'R' rate in the UK, it was over 4 for a couple of weeks before lockdown.

    Can you post a link to the chart? I thought I heard Chris Whitty, in response to a question on the R rate before lock-down, that there was no useable data on this

    They may have done lots of planning and talking but weren't decisive when it counted.

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    Comparisons with NZ suffer fatally from the inherently different circumstances.

    The international flow of visitors/proximity to major outbreaks/reliance on mass transit/differences in urban population density are just a few.

    From what I can gather there were a number of asymptomatic [super] spreaders in the UK for quite a while below the radar. The problem that causes is that once a sufficient number of infections is in such a system it's too late for the NZ style approach to be particularly effective.

    Another slightly behavioural factor, is that the European governments were all getting up to speed around the same time. Italy went into national lockdown on 10 March. I very doubt there would have been buy in in the UK for a lockdown before then. So whilst hindsighted scientists might say they argued for more in February, at WORST UK was in practical terms two weeks late, and more objectively probably only a week, being when France went.

    NZ had the luxury of low levels of infection, and even whilst locking down after Western Europe it was much earlier in the spreading phase, so test and trace was still a viable strategy.

    As I said earlier, in the round I think UK Government went OK.



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    As I said earlier, in the round I think UK Government went OK.

    Time will tell.

    We don't know how many lives have been saved by the scheme to isolate 1m vulnerable people. There's also the need to balance out the health risks resulting from lock-down as the Three Wise Men & Jenny keep telling us.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.



  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Crucial said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    it consistently heaps praise on Boris

    The ultimate sin....

    Not my point. The point was that by doing so the release set out with 'protective' and partisan intent which colours the facts.

    Secondly they refer a lot to meetings and discussions as claims of 'action'.

    What do you expect them to do? Not have meetings and simply rush into action without discussions? Ignore the (then) advice from experts - inc critics like Horton - not to rush to take action as it wasn't a big problem?

    I didn't say that at all. The release refutes the premise that the govt didn't take decisive action with a counter that they were still deciding.

    I agree that it isn't fair to claim that they were dismissing a threat but if you look at a chart of the 'R' rate in the UK, it was over 4 for a couple of weeks before lockdown.

    Can you post a link to the chart? I thought I heard Chris Whitty, in response to a question on the R rate before lock-down, that there was no useable data on this

    I think it was in the FT. The chart was of estimations though and the range was between 3 and 4, dropping to under 1 after lockdown. I did say that my comment was with the benefit of hindsight.

    They may have done lots of planning and talking but weren't decisive when it counted.

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    Scientific advice adds to the information provided to assess risk. It was up to the govt to decide the risks that they would take. By March 12 it was also well known that spread was fast and that the current numbers were likely the tip of the iceberg. That isn't the scientific evidence, that is the factual evidence.

    In case you are reading this with the tone of criticism, that isn't my intent. It is more to explain the consequence of delay in decisive action which can now be clearly seen.

    I do think that the evidence points to indecision. It may have been done under poor advice, it may have been done from a different risk weigh up of virus vs society/economy. There are likely explainable reasons, but the result was a delay that assisted the spread.



  • @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    Economic advice too.

    There's a big correlation between high death rates and economic problems which needs to be squared against lock-downs.



  • Every now and then Ted Cruz comes out with a great tweet:



  • Has Neil Ferguson (Imperial College)exploits been mentioned on this thread

    It seems Fauci and Birx relied on his flawed projections (to push Trump to close down the US economy = 30 million lost jobs). Maybe his mind was distracted elsewhere





  • @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    As I said earlier, in the round I think UK Government went OK.

    Time will tell.

    We don't know how many lives have been saved by the scheme to isolate 1m vulnerable people. There's also the need to balance out the health risks resulting from lock-down as the Three Wise Men & Jenny keep telling us.

    For me they need to get military on care homes, and then go Swedish.



  • They may have done lots of planning and talking but weren't decisive when it counted.

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    Scientific advice adds to the information provided to assess risk. It was up to the govt to decide the risks that they would take. By March 12 it was also well known that spread was fast and that the current numbers were likely the tip of the iceberg. That isn't the scientific evidence, that is the factual evidence.

    In case you are reading this with the tone of criticism, that isn't my intent. It is more to explain the consequence of delay in decisive action which can now be clearly seen.

    I do think that the evidence points to indecision. It may have been done under poor advice, it may have been done from a different risk weigh up of virus vs society/economy. There are likely explainable reasons, but the result was a delay that assisted the spread.

    I'm not sure the evidence points to indecision. For whatever reason it WAS decided NOT to lockdown in the week of the 10th March.

    I personally am unaware of the UK having locked down in peacetime during the last century. It certainly didn't during the Hong Kong flu in 1968, which BTW killed 80,000.

    A big question they would have faced was whether or not the populace would comply. As you say, at that stage only the tip of the iceberg was present. They were also concerned that a hard lockdown could only be sustained for so long, and wanted to do it when most effective.

    There were also trying to make track and trace work as late as that week. It appears the scientists by the Friday were still equivocal about lockdown, whist Dominic Cummings had become convinced that trace and trace wouldn't cut it.

    By the time they went a fortnight later people had read about Italy, Spain and France and were ready to accept the measure.

    All that said, I thought Cheltenham/continued football was a mistake at the time, and still do.

    But all said and done, there were no easy answers.



  • @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    For the public mask wearing won't stop ingestion of CV particles in the air around one. Face covering can limit the 'spray' of coughs, and thereby limit spread.

    I think what UK is struggling with is how the public would respond to the message that wearing a mask won't protect the wearer, it's only to protect the others.



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    For the public mask wearing won't stop ingestion of CV particles in the air around one. Face covering can limit the 'spray' of coughs, and thereby limit spread.

    I think what UK is struggling with is how the public would respond to the message that wearing a mask won't protect the wearer, it's only to protect the others.

    The Asian angle (Taiwan and China for example) was that the population felt safer with the masks on, which was seen as a benefit



  • @canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    For the public mask wearing won't stop ingestion of CV particles in the air around one. Face covering can limit the 'spray' of coughs, and thereby limit spread.

    I think what UK is struggling with is how the public would respond to the message that wearing a mask won't protect the wearer, it's only to protect the others.

    The Asian angle (Taiwan and China for example) was that the population felt safer with the masks on, which was seen as a benefit

    I think where they're headed here is PPE MASKS in hospitals, but FACE COVERINGS on public transport, which I expect to be compulsary.



  • @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    For the public mask wearing won't stop ingestion of CV particles in the air around one. Face covering can limit the 'spray' of coughs, and thereby limit spread.

    I think what UK is struggling with is how the public would respond to the message that wearing a mask won't protect the wearer, it's only to protect the others.

    The Asian angle (Taiwan and China for example) was that the population felt safer with the masks on, which was seen as a benefit

    I think where they're headed here is PPE MASKS in hospitals, but FACE COVERINGS on public transport, which I expect to be compulsary.

    If I was riding the tube everyday I think I'd feel happier wearing one too



  • Fucken hell what are the people who moan about the burka/niqab going to say about that?



  • @canefan yes, when I head back to London I’ll probably mask up ((c) - Brian Fantana). No need out here.

    One of those things I’m not sure s government can really control



  • @Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Fucken hell what are the people who moan about the burka/niqab going to say about that?

    "Where can I buy one of those? "



  • @canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Fucken hell what are the people who moan about the burka/niqab going to say about that?

    "Where can I buy one of those? "

    It will be quite hilarious.



  • @canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @canefan said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @nzzp said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    @Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Even if "decisive" action was against scientific advice? There has been criticism that sports events like Cheltenham should have been stopped, but the scientific advice at the time was to let it continue.

    One of the real challenges is that there's lots of different scientific advice, and it often conflicts. FFS, we can't even agree if mask wearing is a good thing or not.

    For the public mask wearing won't stop ingestion of CV particles in the air around one. Face covering can limit the 'spray' of coughs, and thereby limit spread.

    I think what UK is struggling with is how the public would respond to the message that wearing a mask won't protect the wearer, it's only to protect the others.

    The Asian angle (Taiwan and China for example) was that the population felt safer with the masks on, which was seen as a benefit

    I think where they're headed here is PPE MASKS in hospitals, but FACE COVERINGS on public transport, which I expect to be compulsary.

    If I was riding the tube everyday I think I'd feel happier wearing one too

    Then wear one. But don't force others to.

    The world has gone form one mad extreme (seriously ill people traveling on public transport etc) to the other one (healthy people being forced to wear masks) The key is to stop sick people traveling or working. Or going out and spreading all their germs about. Protecting and supporting vulnerable people. But then let the rest get on with their lives. Without wearing silly masks.

    Otherwise where will it all stop. Maybe ban cars etc. Or stop all risky activities like mountain climbing.

    I hate the nanny state and nanny state control freak leaders.



  • @Crucial

    The point was that by doing so the release set out with 'protective' and partisan intent which colours the facts.

    The Sunday Times article attacked BoJo as not being interested in the crisis and lacking leadership. It's entirely appropriate for the rebuttal to reject that and point out he was "at the helm" during this crisis. The resposnse contains bare uncoloured facts - dates actions, meeting attendees, quotes and tweets.

    The release refutes the premise that the govt didn't take decisive action with a counter that they were still deciding.

    The response points out additional PPE was ordered on 27 Jan. A quick google shows on 3 Feb the government started vaccine development, on 10 Feb forcible quarantine measures were enacted, and schools and hospitals given guidance and NHS pandemic plans enacted. That was when the total no. of UK cases was 8.

    I think it was in the FT.

    Looks to be one of the scenarios they modelled on Coronavirus impact and not hard (or even soft) data. Straight lines of graphs should be treated with great suspicion...

    Scientific advice adds to the information provided to assess risk. It was up to the govt to decide the risks that they would take.

    Not sure what this means. What information other than scientific/medical/public behavioral advice was provided? They followed the scientific advice on risks. Are you saying they should have ignored that advice?

    I do think that the evidence points to indecision.

    The only evidence is that scientific advice- inc.timing - was followed and decisions taken when appropriate. You don't announce an unprecidented lock-down of 67 million people in 2 days time or a 4,000 bed hopsital being built in 10 days time in mid-March without weeks of planning and action.

    The decisions and advice on timing were certainly anything but 100% right, and Ministers have been open about not getting things right, but the indecision argument just doesn't hold water.



  • @Bones said in Coronavirus - Overall:

    Fucken hell what are the people who moan about the burka/niqab going to say about that?

    Or, for that matter, the shareholders in Facial Recognition tech firms?



  • UK Government has announced ministers won't be allowed to appear on Good Morning Britain anymore.

    The interviews all went the same. Morgan would ask questions, allow the minister to get in 3-4 words before interrupting and shouting. Would then find something the minister didn't know / didn't think appropriate to comment on which and then blow it up massively and that's all anybody would talk about.

    Public learned nothing, Morgan got airwaves & according to him, popularity.

    Not what its supposed to be about. Journalists should ask the government hard questions, undoubtedly. But we should also be able to learn something.



  • @MajorRage said in Coronavirus - Overall: Journalists should ask the government hard questions, undoubtedly. But we should also be able to learn something.

    There're your mistakes: 1) Equating Morgan with Journalism 2) expecting to learn anything from Morgan as host


Log in to reply