-
-
-
@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
-
@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.
-
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
-
One of the big eye-openers for me is how so many eminent people in the professions, universities and "serious media" have strong political agendas and think it OK to pursue them in an unprecedented health crisis without people noticing.
-
@MajorRage said in Coronavirus - Overall:
UK Government has announced ministers won't be allowed to appear on Good Morning Britain anymore.
Disagree with this.
They are missing the opportunity of interacting with The World's Greatest Epidemiologist, Piers Morgan.
-
@SynicBast said in Coronavirus - Overall:
@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
I think the government has genuinely tried to be open and honest with the media, warts and all, and the latter has seems more interested in, inane or "gotcha" questions and has completely missed the public mood.
Coronavirus - Overall