Corona Virus main thread

[Herman 9,765]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

 

47 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

 Johnson’s most powerful political aide pressed the U.K.’s independent scientific advisers to recommend lockdown measures in an effort to stop the spread of coronavirus, according to people familiar with the matter.

It has zero attributed names to it. It is simply someone getting his mates to muddy the waters. 

As usual the same shills, serfs and eejits are spreading it around like it is incontrovertible truth. 

[Aggy 755]

26 minutes ago, ricardo said:

What it challenges is the Guardians long held view that the lockdown was delayed because of political interference at a SAGE meeting. When they claimed Cummings was actively having some input they wrongly assumed it was to delay the lockdown. This assumption appears to have been misplaced.

Where has the guardian said that?

For me I don’t really care what the actual effect of it was. If the scientists thought a lockdown was a bad idea and Cummings “kept them focussed” then it’s still misleading the public to say they are following the scientific advice.
 

Obviously we don’t know now but if it turns out with hindsight that lockdown was not the right thing to do (perhaps social distancing measures without full lockdown would haBe had the same health effects and not crippled the economy) and it is established that Cummings or anyone else in government “focussed” the scientists’ minds on lockdown against their better judgment then how is it any better than what you say the guardian is suggesting? 

[BigFish 1,987]

25 minutes ago, ricardo said:

What it challenges is the Guardians long held view that the lockdown was delayed because of political interference at a SAGE meeting. When they claimed Cummings was actively having some input they wrongly assumed it was to delay the lockdown. This assumption appears to have been misplaced.

 

24 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Hard to argue against that.

Not really, not hard at all. The Guardian's position is that SAGE is not independent. Fact is the majority are on the government payroll and there is no one on the committee from public health. It is nothing but a fig leaf for decisions that Johnson/Cummings make. That is what Cummings was pushing for, air cover for his clever idea that lockdown wasn't required. Ricardo is rather proving the point.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

43 minutes ago, T said:

Seriously you believe this stuff? With the previously gullibility of the hard right I guess the answer is yes. That is such a blatant government planted press briefing. Clearly the UK has performed poorly so they are looking to spin it and shift the blame. What next the self congratulatory video. They hardly have a track record of honesty so they. 

Honesty?.....

 

......Erm.....Ok.....

[ricardo 7,395]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

My take on him being there is that he isn't independent but an advisor and a close one at that. It's the role that is challengeable for me. 

Yes, that is certainly challengable as any reasonable person would agree.

My point being that the Guardian's pursuit of an agenda of Cummings interference being against the lockdown seems to be totally wrong. Sundays article headlined Dr Richard Milnes letter as an attack on Cummings, this is what he said.

Scientists are, both by nature and training, cautious in what we say and recommend, preferring to wait for firm evidence. Those driven by ideology, like Cummings, are the polar opposite. We need to know whether he used his influence to delay UK lockdown by those few crucial weeks in March.
Dr Richard Milne
University of Edinburgh

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/sage-advice-regarding-dominic-cummings-influence

 

Its not difficult to see where this was all going is it.

[ricardo 7,395]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 

. That is what Cummings was pushing for, air cover for his clever idea that lockdown wasn't required. 

Well this is quite patently incorrect isn't it

[Aggy 755]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

My take on him being there is that he isn't independent but an advisor and a close one at that. It's the role that is challengeable for me. 

Just seen this and ricardo’s post since my post above. 
 

I think this is the point sonyc.

 Frankly, I’d have little problem with the government deciding to ignore scientific advice in favour of something else (or just because it can), as long as it acknowledges that the decision is on the government.

My issue is with the idea the government is being led by the scientists but then potentially influencing the scientists in the first place.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Aggy said:

Just seen this and ricardo’s post since my post above. 
 

I think this is the point sonyc.

 Frankly, I’d have little problem with the government deciding to ignore scientific advice in favour of something else (or just because it can), as long as it acknowledges that the decision is on the government.

My issue is with the idea the government is being led by the scientists but then potentially influencing the scientists in the first place.

However as we are constantly being reminded by some, all decisions are political.

[BigFish 1,987]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Well this is quite patently incorrect isn't it

Really? Why was the UK so slow to lockdown? Why does SAGE not publish minutes yet we get unattributed briefings? Whose decides when lockdown starts and ends?

[Van wink 2,994]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

 

Not really, not hard at all. The Guardian's position is that SAGE is not independent. Fact is the majority are on the government payroll and there is no one on the committee from public health. It is nothing but a fig leaf for decisions that Johnson/Cummings make. That is what Cummings was pushing for, air cover for his clever idea that lockdown wasn't required. Ricardo is rather proving the point.

The whole thrust has been that we delayed lockdown because the expert advice had been influenced by Cummings who was pushing for a policy of herd immunity. If he has influenced the advice according to this piece it was in a way which was the complete opposite.

Whether he should be present at the meetings is a separate issue, but this article would seem to take the wind out of at least one of sticks being used to beat the government. 

 

[Herman 9,765]

2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The whole thrust has been that we delayed lockdown because the expert advice had been influenced by Cummings who was pushing for a policy of herd immunity. If he has influenced the advice according to this piece it was in a way which was the complete opposite.

Whether he should be present at the meetings is a separate issue, but this article would seem to take the wind out of at least one of sticks being used to beat the government. 

 

Read the article. 

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

Really? Why was the UK so slow to lockdown? Why does SAGE not publish minutes yet we get unattributed briefings? Whose decides when lockdown starts and ends?

I think we should have locked down earlier, why we didn’t will come out in an investigation when all this is over. There was discussion at the time that behavioural scientists were advising that the U.K. would only have a limited appetite for lockdown and that influenced the timing.

[sonyc 5,519]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Just seen this and ricardo’s post since my post above. 
 

I think this is the point sonyc.

 Frankly, I’d have little problem with the government deciding to ignore scientific advice in favour of something else (or just because it can), as long as it acknowledges that the decision is on the government.

My issue is with the idea the government is being led by the scientists but then potentially influencing the scientists in the first place.

Well that is my point Aggy. And I have posted about it before. 

[ricardo 7,395]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Really? Why was the UK so slow to lockdown? Why does SAGE not publish minutes yet we get unattributed briefings? Whose decides when lockdown starts and ends?

Well if we are to believe the reports we have to accept that one of  these statements is true.

I. Cummings infuenced scientists to delay the lockdown

2. Cummings influenced scientists to initiate the lockdown.

It must be one or the other because we have established he was there and had some input.

[sonyc 5,519]

13 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Yes, that is certainly challengable as any reasonable person would agree.

My point being that the Guardian's pursuit of an agenda of Cummings interference being against the lockdown seems to be totally wrong. Sundays article headlined Dr Richard Milnes letter as an attack on Cummings, this is what he said.

Scientists are, both by nature and training, cautious in what we say and recommend, preferring to wait for firm evidence. Those driven by ideology, like Cummings, are the polar opposite. We need to know whether he used his influence to delay UK lockdown by those few crucial weeks in March.
Dr Richard Milne
University of Edinburgh

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/sage-advice-regarding-dominic-cummings-influence

 

Its not difficult to see where this was all going is it.

So is Cummings a scientist or political advisor?

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

So is Cummings a scientist or political advisor?

So are all decisions political.

[sonyc 5,519]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

So are all decisions political.

And there's the nub

[Badger 2,405]

9 minutes ago, ricardo said:

However as we are constantly being reminded by some, all decisions are political.

So why claim that they were just following the science?

Johnson's hero, Churchill, openly challenged and sometimes went against Military advice... why not just admit it?

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

38 minutes ago, ricardo said:

What it challenges is the Guardians long held view that the lockdown was delayed because of political interference at a SAGE meeting. When they claimed Cummings was actively having some input they wrongly assumed it was to delay the lockdown. This assumption appears to have been misplaced.

That hasn't been their long held view at all - the whole issue of Cummings presence on Sage only emerged quite recently.

But they have been consistently pointing out the inexplicable delay in the Government taking any action at all ranging from procuring PPE, testing facilities, ventilators etc right through to the lockdown. Then of course there's the failure to listen to expert advice from the WHO, the Lancet, all the countries that were handling the early onset of the virus well (and also it turns out now the Germans - although that hardly comes as a surprise!).

Lying has got Johnson where he is today but hopefully this crisis will teach him that lying isn't always a foolproof, or even a good, strategy. Pretending that the government were following the best scientific advice may have seemed like a good idea at the time but it doesn't look so clever now when we are rapidly climbing towards the top of the table of European deaths and we know that the 'scientific advice' was driven by Johnson's political adviser and happens to run counter to the most successful practice elsewhere.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

So why claim that they were just following the science?

Johnson's hero, Churchill, openly challenged and sometimes went against Military advice... why not just admit it?

Why ask me? I'm merely enjoying the discomforture of the great and good in the journalistic world when a story goes **** up.

[BigFish 1,987]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Well if we are to believe the reports we have to accept that one of  these statements is true.

I. Cummings infuenced scientists to delay the lockdown

2. Cummings influenced scientists to initiate the lockdown.

It must be one or the other because we have established he was there and had some input.

Not really, the report is based on two unattributed briefings (one could even be Cummings himself for all we know). This is probably deliberate propaganda rather than a scoop. Neither is in fact true, the government decided on whether to delay/initiate lockdown. That is where responsibility lies.

The problem with SAGE is that it is not independent, but it suits the government to pretend it is. The idea of "following the science" is nothing more than an attempt to deflect accountability. The group includes no molecular virologists who could explain detailed pathogenic differences between Covid-19 and influenza, not one intensive care expert or nursing leader, and no immunologist to examine whether this virus produces lasting and protective immunity. There are no social scientists who could work on community engagement, nor a logistician, who would have expertise in planning for the delivery of supplies and resources during a pandemic. A balanced scientific advisory group would at the minimum include experts working at the frontline of the pandemic, such as those in public health, primary care and intensive care.

[ricardo 7,395]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not really, the report is based on two unattributed briefings (one could even be Cummings himself for all we know). This is probably deliberate propaganda rather than a scoop. Neither is in fact true, the government decided on whether to delay/initiate lockdown. That is where responsibility lies.

The problem with SAGE is that it is not independent, but it suits the government to pretend it is. The idea of "following the science" is nothing more than an attempt to deflect accountability. The group includes no molecular virologists who could explain detailed pathogenic differences between Covid-19 and influenza, not one intensive care expert or nursing leader, and no immunologist to examine whether this virus produces lasting and protective immunity. There are no social scientists who could work on community engagement, nor a logistician, who would have expertise in planning for the delivery of supplies and resources during a pandemic. A balanced scientific advisory group would at the minimum include experts working at the frontline of the pandemic, such as those in public health, primary care and intensive care.

Sounds like you need to apply for the job.

probably before we reach pound / Euro parity.

[Crafty Canary 495]

So it would seem that the government were wrong to follow the Scientific advice not to introduce a lockdown and also wrong for being slow to introduce it following interference by Dominic Cummings to change the advice. Government is damned whatever they do - the looney left mantra.

Sur Kier Starmer is performing well at the moment although there is not much he can influence or do. What he has done is get rid of the Momentum influence on the NEC and dumped them from his cabinet except for the rabid idiot essentially accusing the PM of murder. No doubt hat idiot’s gonads have been placed in a vice to be tightened if he utters such risible nonsense again.  

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

I don't think this story makes chronological sense. Reading an account of SAGE's deliberations, based on its own reports, the initial aim, formulated  before March, was a low-key approach, which to an extent was aimed at building up a herd immunity, but on the understanding that tougher measures, including some form of lockdown, might be needed later but probably would be introduced gradually.

On March 12 Johnson issued his very-much-change-of-tone 'loved ones will die' warning, and on March 16 issued a plea to people to take lockdown measures, but with a crucial lack of detail or enforcement, so the plea was not effective. Yet this Bloomberg piece refers to Cummings making his intervention at SAGE on March 18:

According to two people involved, Cummings played far more than a bystander’s role at a crucial SAGE meeting on March 18, as the panel discussed social distancing options to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak. At the March 18 meeting, Cummings asked probing questions such as why the government should wait until the following week to impose a lockdown rather than doing so earlier, according to one of the people.

So this was two days after Johnson issued his lockdown plea. The idea that Cummings was asking SAGE on March 18 why the government should wait until the next week to impose a lockdown makes no sense.

Cummings would have had a point if he had told Johnson that the plea was way too wishy-washy  and would need to be made much more more definitive and detailed, and with stronger enforcement, but that was and always would be a political decision, with Johnson the decider, irrespective of what the scientists on SAGE thought.

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

26 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Yes, that is certainly challengable as any reasonable person would agree.

My point being that the Guardian's pursuit of an agenda of Cummings interference being against the lockdown seems to be totally wrong. Sundays article headlined Dr Richard Milnes letter as an attack on Cummings, this is what he said.

Scientists are, both by nature and training, cautious in what we say and recommend, preferring to wait for firm evidence. Those driven by ideology, like Cummings, are the polar opposite. We need to know whether he used his influence to delay UK lockdown by those few crucial weeks in March.
Dr Richard Milne
University of Edinburgh

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/sage-advice-regarding-dominic-cummings-influence

 

Its not difficult to see where this was all going is it.

Ricardo - 

It's the timing of his 'advice' that make it meaningless - 

What was his 'advice' to Sage in February (herd immunity as suggested) not March when everybody knew the lock-down was upon us too late!

What the article does if true is blow a huge hole in the government's argument that Cummings was merely an observer. He was not. The government just can't help itself from telling porkies.

It does nothing else.

Can't believe this is still going on.

[ricardo 7,395]

1.6 million Brits have returned from abroad since Covid began - almost all on commercial flights - in the last month 200,000 from Spain and 50,000 from Australia. 19,000 Cruise ship Brits have returned home.

Hope they all went into quarentine

[ricardo 7,395]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Ricardo - 

It's the timing of his 'advice' that make it meaningless - 

What was his 'advice' to Sage in February (herd immunity as suggested) not March when everybody knew the lock-down was upon us too late!

What the article does if true is blow a huge hole in the government's argument that Cummings was merely an observer. He was not. The government just can't help itself from telling porkies.

It does nothing else.

Can't believe this is still going on.

I guess you will have to wait for publication like everyone else.

[sonyc 5,519]

That will be a long wait. 10 years? And we have the economy to worry about next. The 2020s could end up looking like the 1920s.

[ricardo 7,395]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

That will be a long wait. 10 years? And we have the economy to worry about next. The 2020s could end up looking like the 1920s.

Look on the brightside you might still be alive.😉

[sonyc 5,519]

Let's hope you make it into your 90s so we can still read your reports.