Corona Virus main thread

[Indy 3,301]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I am completely at odds with everything right now. Cornwall has seen a large enough influx of visitors this last week. And the protests in our major cities is equally helping the virus spread.

Yet I know of several businesses where the staff are on the despicable zero hours contracts and the staff were told find another job. And the unemployment rate in the UK is rising.

Politically, the Government has according to reports seen the figures from the Chancellor and Business Secretary and after the initial shock, decided the economy has to take preference.

Apart from the number of deaths and the rate of new cases both dropping, however slowly, there seems little to be cheery about. I really had hoped that the end of June was going to be promising but I am not so hopeful now.

Survive till September KG and we’ll have good news as the vaccine will become available.😉🍻

[sonyc 5,529]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-could-face-axe-22149571

Cabinet reshuffle? Removing those that didn't support Cummings immediately with tweets? A few ministers seemingly at risk.

[Crafty Canary 497]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

My fingers are pointing at those that announced the loosening of lockdown measures the day before a very hot weekend.

Oh of course, the lockdown will be eased on any wet and/or cold day and back on if the weather is good. Do you actually think about what you post or do you refuse to engage brain before posting?

[Crafty Canary 497]

8 hours ago, Herman said:

It's a simple fact you great big bowl of cold porridge.

Only in your head you leftie numpty.

[Mark .Y. 352]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-could-face-axe-22149571

Cabinet reshuffle? Removing those that didn't support Cummings immediately with tweets? A few ministers seemingly at risk.

She should be axed for her quarantine policy alone.............moron doesn't even come close

[Herman 9,780]

5 minutes ago, Crafty Canary said:

Oh of course, the lockdown will be eased on any wet and/or cold day and back on if the weather is good. Do you actually think about what you post or do you refuse to engage brain before posting?

"If, God forbid, there is a second spike it will be because the government failed to provide clarity & leadership at every stage of the lockdown. Cummings was the final nail in the coffin. Everybody understands this. There’s little point arguing with anyone pretending not to." James O Brien.

 

[Van wink 2,994]

No new deaths reported in Scotland and Northern Ireland, 77 in England and Wales. 

Yes its a Sunday, personal tragedy for all concerned, but encouraging.

[Barbe bleu 827]

30 minutes ago, Herman said:

"If, God forbid, there is a second spike it will be because the government failed to provide clarity & leadership at every stage of the lockdown. Cummings was the final nail in the coffin. Everybody understands this. There’s little point arguing with anyone pretending not to." James O Brien.

 

That and everyone going to beaches and protests!

I am optimistic though that people's breaking point has come at a favourable time and that if we get a second spike it will be in autumn. Hopefully just as the vaccine comes along.

 

[Herman 9,780]

Well done Barbe for pretending to not understand one is the result of the other.🤨

[daly 505]

5 hours ago, Aggy said:

So nobody should ever be allowed out again until we’ve got a vaccine?

I was under the impression that social gathering including all the protesting  was against the law but obviously these protesters have no regard for the law or the police. 
As I said it’s a case of I’m all right Jack,  chances are I’m immune to the virus and protesting is more important to them than obeying the law. 

 

[Mark .Y. 352]

47 minutes ago, Herman said:

"If, God forbid, there is a second spike it will be because the government failed to provide clarity & leadership at every stage of the lockdown. Cummings was the final nail in the coffin. Everybody understands this. There’s little point arguing with anyone pretending not to." James O Brien.

 

To be honest Herman, whilst I agree with the first part of that statement, anybody who claims they thought it was OK to go outside and/or ignore social distancing guidlines because Cummings did is all pretty pathetic. This line about saying he did it so I can do it is ridiculous. Yes he set a terrible example and yes I said along with others that he should resign or be sacked, but anybody who is prepared to risk catching a virus that might kill them because Cummings did something is beyond stupid. 

[Herman 9,780]

I'm not saying I agree with it Mark, I am simply saying that this is what's happening.There's plenty of people that need little excuse to be able to stop doing something they hate doing. Cummings' behaviour was one of the excuses.

[Van wink 2,994]

8 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

To be honest Herman, whilst I agree with the first part of that statement, anybody who claims they thought it was OK to go outside and/or ignore social distancing guidlines because Cummings did is all pretty pathetic. This line about saying he did it so I can do it is ridiculous. Yes he set a terrible example and yes I said along with others that he should resign or be sacked, but anybody who is prepared to risk catching a virus that might kill them because Cummings did something is beyond stupid. 

People looking to avoid their own personal responsibility will use the Cummings excuse. He has sadly provided an excuse, but not a reason.

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

39 minutes ago, Herman said:

I'm not saying I agree with it Mark, I am simply saying that this is what's happening.There's plenty of people that need little excuse to be able to stop doing something they hate doing. Cummings' behaviour was one of the excuses.

Sadly, I also think this to be true.

[Aggy 755]

38 minutes ago, daly said:

I was under the impression that social gathering including all the protesting  was against the law but obviously these protesters have no regard for the law or the police. 
As I said it’s a case of I’m all right Jack,  chances are I’m immune to the virus and protesting is more important to them than obeying the law. 

 

Until we find a working vaccine (if ever), anyone who ever goes outside for any reason at all will potentially “go back to their parents, grandparents fellow workers and spread the virus. “ So as there’s no guarantee we’ll ever find such a vaccine, are some people expecting no mass gatherings ever again?

I’ve got no problem (and would agree) with people calling out attendees at the protests for breaking the law. I’ve got less sympathy though for the moral argument about protesters potentially taking things back to their parents and grandparents. At some point people are going to have to get back to the real world - where we live with risks in everything we do. The protests are for a moral cause that I think a lot of people would say was, on balance, worthy of the risk. 

Does that mean it’s okay - well, no, I can’t get behind breaking the law. The current law’s there for a reason, so like it or not, the protests shouldn’t have happened right now, unless they could guarantee people would be 2metres apart or whatever the current rules are. But imo the reason the protests shouldn’t have happened was because they’re breaking the law, not necessarily because there’s a risk of possibly catching something and possibly taking it back to your family who might (or might not) get ill.

[Barbe bleu 827]

46 minutes ago, Herman said:

I'm not saying I agree with it Mark, I am simply saying that this is what's happening.There's plenty of people that need little excuse to be able to stop doing something they hate doing. Cummings' behaviour was one of the excuses.

One excuse amongst many. I doubt, for instance, his behaviour was a material factor in people going to protests over the last few days.  If he had behaved in a saintly fashion  beaches would still have been full.

If we want to understand why people went out we need look little further than the fact that they wanted to do it and it isnt illegal.

As I've said before I am optimistic that the extra deaths from the crowds will be small.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

One excuse amongst many. I doubt, for instance, his behaviour was a material factor in people going to protests over the last few days.  If he had behaved in a saintly fashion  beaches would still have been full.

If we want to understand why people went out we need look little further than the fact that they wanted to do it and it isnt illegal.

As I've said before I am optimistic that the extra deaths from the crowds will be small.

I feel exactly the same way, I am cautiously optimistic that it’s been brought under control and the lack of social distancing at the protests may not cause too much of a problem, but it could push us in the wrong direction,

 

Anyone who says their behaviour was influenced by Cummings would have done it anyway IMO.

 

i passionately support Black Lives Matter but I wish they could have found a different way to actually do the protest .

[daly 505]

Protesters or organised Thugs

 

[Herman 9,780]

Protesters. A few twats thrown in unfortunately. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

20 hours ago, daly said:

The majority in the protests were of the younger generation who feel they are immune to the virus as reports which obviously are correct that it is the older generation who are more at risk. Those who gathered will now go back to their parents, grandparents fellow workers and spread the virus. Unbelievable that it is allowed to happen with no end in sight for the protests 

Not sure what you were expecting given that the incompetence, deceitfulness and complete lack of leadership displayed by the government means that the lockdown is in many ways over - the government lack both the moral authority and the practical resources to enforce the lockdown (even if they wanted to and its not clear that they do) and the police in many areas  have made it very clear that they don't believe the current rules are enforceable.

Fortunately it seems that a large majority of people are still observing sensible precautions most of the time and I think that will continue. But it is increasingly because people are using their common sense and listening to advice from a range of sources rather than simply following the government advice/guidelines/rules.

 

[Ian 1,131]

50 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Not sure what you were expecting given that the incompetence, deceitfulness and complete lack of leadership displayed by the government means that the lockdown is in many ways over - the government lack both the moral authority and the practical resources to enforce the lockdown (even if they wanted to and its not clear that they do) and the police in many areas  have made it very clear that they don't believe the current rules are enforceable.

Fortunately it seems that a large majority of people are still observing sensible precautions most of the time and I think that will continue. But it is increasingly because people are using their common sense and listening to advice from a range of sources rather than simply following the government advice/guidelines/rules.

 

No doubt the handling and policies of this pandemic by the Government has been pretty abysmal, weak, and influenced by a number of external influencers. I think it's been a fairly unique event, in that it has united people of pretty much every political persuasion against their response.

That said, I find it a particularly weak argument to suggest that people have violated lockdown due to lack of leadership and/or moral authority shown by the Government. Anybody with an ounce of brain cells could see the risks involved, and that this was always going to be something that required people to co-operate and exercise their own common sense with regards to reducing the spread of it, regardless of any Government advice issued. This is an indiscriminate virus, which whilst it may kill more of those who are already vulnerable, does not exclusively do so. Regardless, a lot of people who get this are going to feel extremely ill. If that is not a personal motivating factor to people to reduce the spread, I don't know what would be.

To put it simply, my opinion is that those people who have recently decided to head to the beach and/or mass gatherings without appropriate distancing in place would very likely have done so anyway, and Cummings et al is just a convenient excuse to abdicate their own personal responsibility.  A childish response to bad behaviour if you like. News hosts and commentators who suggest that this advisor's actions has the potential to be anything other than a minor contributor to an increase in mass gatherings clearly have an extremely low opinion of the British public's intelligence and understanding of responsibility, which is certainly not an opinion I would share.

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Ian

[lake district canary 4,537]

A whole lot of the pictures show how the media manipulate the situation - beaches looking packed with no distancing from one angle but when taken from a different angle it shows clearly people are more than two metres away from each other a lot of the time.  I wouldn't do it and if people enjoy going to crowded beaches during a pandemic, that is up to them - it just seems so stupid to risk it imo. The problem is that although a lot of people will social distance as much as possible, even on a beach, there are people who will not and those who do not then put others at risk. 

Not social distancing is like eating chocolate or eating fast food......you can be told its bad for you but you carry on doing it anyway. The trouble is if you don't make an attempt to social distance, it is risking the health of others. That message needs to be drummed in again amd again, to try and get through to those who are either in denial about it, or totally selfish, or who are just to thick to understand.

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

25 minutes ago, Ian said:

No doubt the handling and policies of this pandemic by the Government has been pretty abysmal, weak, and influenced by a number of external influencers. I think it's been a fairly unique event, in that it has united people of pretty much every political persuasion against their response.

That said, I find it a particularly weak argument to suggest that people have violated lockdown due to lack of leadership and/or moral authority shown by the Government. Anybody with an ounce of brain cells could see the risks involved, and that this was always going to be something that required people to co-operate and exercise their own common sense with regards to reducing the spread of it, regardless of any Government advice issued. This is an indiscriminate virus, which whilst it may kill more of those who are already vulnerable, does not exclusively do so. Regardless, a lot of people who get this are going to feel extremely ill. If that is not a personal motivating factor to people to reduce the spread, I don't know what would be.

To put it simply, my opinion is that those people who have recently decided to head to the beach and/or mass gatherings without appropriate distancing in place would very likely have done so anyway, and Cummings et al is just a convenient excuse to abdicate their own personal responsibility.  A childish response to bad behaviour if you like. News hosts and commentators who suggest that this advisor's actions has the potential to be anything other than a minor contributor to an increase in mass gatherings clearly have an extremely low opinion of the British public's intelligence and understanding of responsibility, which is certainly not an opinion I would share.

 

I wouldn't entirely disagree with a lot of that, certainly as far as the beach dwellers are concerned.

But in terms of other mass gatherings and especially the recent protests I would suggest that the 'lack of leadership and/or moral authority of the government' (and Cummings is only one element of that, Johnson is far more culpable) is a significant factor in people's willingness to disobey the government in the belief, rightly or wrongly, that they are addressing a more serious issue and are occupying the moral high ground.

We seem to be agreeing that the majority of people are exercising common sense most of time which of course was always going to be necessary for the lockdown to be completely successful. However I think it is increasingly the case that people are exercising their own common sense and implementing the measures that they believe are sensible and appropriate rather than paying any particular regard to the specifics of what the government are saying which is becoming increasingly irrelevant to individuals - only businesses still need to adhere strictly to the rules and even there I see that BA are threatening legal action to try and overturn the quarantine rules so maybe they are also beginning to turn!

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, Ian said:

No doubt the handling and policies of this pandemic by the Government has been pretty abysmal, weak, and influenced by a number of external influencers. I think it's been a fairly unique event, in that it has united people of pretty much every political persuasion against their response.

That said, I find it a particularly weak argument to suggest that people have violated lockdown due to lack of leadership and/or moral authority shown by the Government. Anybody with an ounce of brain cells could see the risks involved, and that this was always going to be something that required people to co-operate and exercise their own common sense with regards to reducing the spread of it, regardless of any Government advice issued. This is an indiscriminate virus, which whilst it may kill more of those who are already vulnerable, does not exclusively do so. Regardless, a lot of people who get this are going to feel extremely ill. If that is not a personal motivating factor to people to reduce the spread, I don't know what would be.

To put it simply, my opinion is that those people who have recently decided to head to the beach and/or mass gatherings without appropriate distancing in place would very likely have done so anyway, and Cummings et al is just a convenient excuse to abdicate their own personal responsibility.  A childish response to bad behaviour if you like. News hosts and commentators who suggest that this advisor's actions has the potential to be anything other than a minor contributor to an increase in mass gatherings clearly have an extremely low opinion of the British public's intelligence and understanding of responsibility, which is certainly not an opinion I would share.

 

I disagree to an extent. Over the course of the crisis the UK government created uncertainty over what was allowed and what was not. Almost certainly because Johnson, afraid of losing popularity, didn't want to appear like some draconian leader.

So in speeches the government's lockdown rules were full of things that the public should not do, but not couched in very specific language. For example you could only drive 'a reasonable distance' to go for a walk. What's a reasonable distance?

Adding to the problem, as chief constables said, there was a gap between what the government's rules or guidance said was permissable (albeit often not clearly defined) and what the subsequent legislation/regulations allowed, in that some of what the government said people should not do was not actually made illegal. So the police were placed in a very difficult position, trying to deter people from breaking the rules when they weren't breaking the legislation.

This was highlighted in the Durham police report on Cummings which stressed that it only looked at whether Cummings had broken the legislation and not whether he had broken his government's own rules/guidance:

'We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.'

I agree people should have used common sense, but if common sense was all that was needed then there would have been no need for the government to legislate. Human nature being what it is some people were always going to take advantage of the laxity of the UK government's pleas/legislation.

Other countries knew this and so were much more specfic. As I understand it in France, no less keen on personal freedom than the UK, it was much more clerarcut over what was allowed and what was not. So although the lockdown was not intrinsically much more severe than in the UK it was much more effective because its clarity made it harder for people to bend the rules and made it easier to police.

Edited June 8, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Ian 1,131]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I disagree to an extent. Over the course of the crisis the UK government created uncertainty over what was allowed and what was not. Almost certainly because Johnson, afraid of losing popularity, didn't want to appear like some draconian leader.

So in speeches the government's lockdown rules were full of things that the public should not do, but not couched in very specific language. For example you coud only drive 'a reasonable distance' to go for a walk. What's a reasonable distance?

Adding to the problem, as chief constables said, there was a gap between what the government's rules or guidance said was permissable (albeit often not clearly defined) and what the subsequent legislation/regulations allowed, in that some of what the government said people should not do was not actually made illegal. So the police were placed in a very difficult position, trying to deter people from breaking the rules when they weren't breaking the legislation.

This was highlighted in the Durham police report on Cummings which stressed that it only looked at whether Cummings had broken the legislation and not whether he had broken his government's own rules/guidance:

'We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.'

I agree people should have used common sense, but if common sense was all that was needed then there would have been no need for the government to legislate. Human nature being what it is some people were always going to take advantage of the laxity of the UK government's pleas/legislation.

Other countries knew this and so were much more specfic. As I understand it in France, no less keen on personal freedom than the UK, it was much more clerarcut over what was allowed and what was not. So although the lockdown was not intrinsically much more severe than in the UK it was much more effective because its clarity made it harder for people to bend the rules and made it easier to police.

I pretty much agree with everything you have said there Purple.

It seems fairly obvious now that the UK Government were initially not planning for a restrictive model, before the Imperial paper/SAGE advice caused a sense of panic and therefore enforced a general lack of preparedness in the lock-down legislation. Given the amount of time that they did have to prepare various options, along with the ability to review existing implementations from countries whose pandemic had already peaked, I think it's a terrible effort which is entirely on them, and think this has undoubtedly led to many unknowing breaches of lock-down.

That said I really don't believe minor breaches are really a problem if people are using their good sense to take precautions, and from what I have read, seen, and experienced locally, it appears a lot of people did understand and take this seriously. After all, the whole point of the legislation was to prevent the spread of a virus and not simply to restrict peoples' freedoms (something I believe a lot of people neglect to consider when deciding if somebody should be chastised). As an example, if you know your elderly parents have been isolating for the past several months, and you yourself have been doing so, what is the risk in visiting them to check they are well and help with household cleaning and other tasks?

My main issue is that I am of the opinion that the recent influx of people who knowingly congregated in large groups (examples of overcrowded beaches/protests etc) were probably always likely to do so at some point over the past few weeks, and that I don't believe the Cummings incident has had as much of an impact as some commentators (who doubtless have their own agendas) are making out.

How many people on here decided that because Cummings may have broken the rules, suddenly they were going to rush out and start mingling with the masses? I don't personally know anybody who has considered this; I know plenty who see this as just another nail in coffin of a weak Government, but nobody who has been stupid enough to believe this therefore justifies them going out in a much more exposed environment.

Indeed, personally it was not legislation that caused me to begin working from home and isolating, but the obvious risks involved with not doing so (both for my own family and other more vulnerable people), and I suspect I would hope this was the same for the vast majority of the population.

Unless I'm massively overestimating the intelligence and good nature of the general population, it seems people who are citing Cummings and any other "lock-down-breaking-incidents" are really just using it as a convenient excuse for them to abdicate their personal responsibility and blame somebody else for their own actions. I don't think that is really at odds with your post, is it?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

7 minutes ago, Ian said:

I pretty much agree with everything you have said there Purple.

It seems fairly obvious now that the UK Government were initially not planning for a restrictive model, before the Imperial paper/SAGE advice caused a sense of panic and therefore enforced a general lack of preparedness in the lock-down legislation. Given the amount of time that they did have to prepare various options, along with the ability to review existing implementations from countries whose pandemic had already peaked, I think it's a terrible effort which is entirely on them, and think this has undoubtedly led to many unknowing breaches of lock-down.

That said I really don't believe minor breaches are really a problem if people are using their good sense to take precautions, and from what I have read, seen, and experienced locally, it appears a lot of people did understand and take this seriously. After all, the whole point of the legislation was to prevent the spread of a virus and not simply to restrict peoples' freedoms (something I believe a lot of people neglect to consider when deciding if somebody should be chastised). As an example, if you know your elderly parents have been isolating for the past several months, and you yourself have been doing so, what is the risk in visiting them to check they are well and help with household cleaning and other tasks?

My main issue is that I am of the opinion that the recent influx of people who knowingly congregated in large groups (examples of overcrowded beaches/protests etc) were probably always likely to do so at some point over the past few weeks, and that I don't believe the Cummings incident has had as much of an impact as some commentators (who doubtless have their own agendas) are making out.

How many people on here decided that because Cummings may have broken the rules, suddenly they were going to rush out and start mingling with the masses? I don't personally know anybody who has considered this; I know plenty who see this as just another nail in coffin of a weak Government, but nobody who has been stupid enough to believe this therefore justifies them going out in a much more exposed environment.

Indeed, personally it was not legislation that caused me to begin working from home and isolating, but the obvious risks involved with not doing so (both for my own family and other more vulnerable people), and I suspect I would hope this was the same for the vast majority of the population.

Unless I'm massively overestimating the intelligence and good nature of the general population, it seems people who are citing Cummings and any other "lock-down-breaking-incidents" are really just using it as a convenient excuse for them to abdicate their personal responsibility and blame somebody else for their own actions. I don't think that is really at odds with your post, is it?

No, I don't think that is at odds with my post. Much of what I was talking about was pre-Cummings, with the tone already set that the rules were too vague, which encouraged and facilitated selfish stupidity. Now, as you say, he is a convenient excuse, but the overall problem of vagueness remains.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

No, I don't think that is at odds with my post. Much of what I was talking about was pre-Cummings, with the tone already set that the rules were too vague, which encouraged and facilitated selfish stupidity. Now, as you say, he is a convenient excuse, but the overall problem of vagueness remains.

Of course it is wider that Cummings, but the Cummings incident is of a piece of this. It is a question of consent and legitimacy. In the UK we have government by consent, Brits often do what they do because it is seen as the right thing to do not because they are compelled to do it. This goes hand in hand with legitimate authority.

When this started Johnson had huge legitimacy. He had won an election with a big majority and taken the UK out of the EU. In many ways he underestimated how much he had, and his timidity was reflected in the vague messaging. He did not realise how much the electorate would consent to in order to deal with the virus. The people's reponse was truly remarkable, Johnson's approval ratings soared as did those of his Party.

However, from that point Johnson & Cummings innate nature, as dissemblers and elitists, reasserted itself. They literally couldn't stop themselves from operating in secrecy, centralising control, fiddling the figures, over promising and under delivering. On top of that we had the Cummings incident. It was not just what he did was wrong (and possibly illegal), but there was no contrition and a unseemly obvious attempt to use the governments machinary to protect one man. An unelected man, at that.

Johnson was already burning through his political capital at a rapid rate, this just accelerated the process. Legitimacy leached away and now we can see the result. Consent for the lockdown is crumbling, be it on beaches or protests.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Anybody who wants to erase history is stupid. It happened. Judging it is fine but denying it makes you no different than David Irving.

 

[Van wink 2,994]

55 UK deaths today

[lake district canary 4,537]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Of course it is wider that Cummings, but the Cummings incident is of a piece of this. It is a question of consent and legitimacy. In the UK we have government by consent, Brits often do what they do because it is seen as the right thing to do not because they are compelled to do it. This goes hand in hand with legitimate authority.

When this started Johnson had huge legitimacy. He had won an election with a big majority and taken the UK out of the EU. In many ways he underestimated how much he had, and his timidity was reflected in the vague messaging. He did not realise how much the electorate would consent to in order to deal with the virus. The people's reponse was truly remarkable, Johnson's approval ratings soared as did those of his Party.

However, from that point Johnson & Cummings innate nature, as dissemblers and elitists, reasserted itself. They literally couldn't stop themselves from operating in secrecy, centralising control, fiddling the figures, over promising and under delivering. On top of that we had the Cummings incident. It was not just what he did was wrong (and possibly illegal), but there was no contrition and a unseemly obvious attempt to use the governments machinary to protect one man. An unelected man, at that.

Johnson was already burning through his political capital at a rapid rate, this just accelerated the process. Legitimacy leached away and now we can see the result. Consent for the lockdown is crumbling, be it on beaches or protests.

Agreed. It's not governing as such, it's passing the buck.  Johnson is just a mouthpiece and relies on others to tell him what's best - look at his agonising over whether to support Cameron or not....he could not make up his mind.  He is not a leader in the true sense - he is being led by others. 

The best leaders have the knack of being decisive when it is needed and though no leader in history is perfect, at least the likes of Thatcher and Churchill were decisive - and I believe both would have been more decisive than this wishy washy excuse for  government.  The government should be strong for goodness sake - it has a huge majority - and they are just wasting it. Difficult it this crisis has been and hugely problematic for any government, but really it needs a strong leader who can inspire others, not one that listens to too many people and then dithers and delays action.