Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
But how were they supposed to do that with the media screaming that "we're all going to die if you don't Follow The Science"?
Ignore the media. They are the government, not the media. And rather a lot of the time, the media were screaming "but the money" and attacking and discrediting any scientist they could name.
Edit: though, on reflection, if you have a government of journalists and PR manipulators, there is a problem.
Nah. I am right up there with criticism of the Government on most things but on this they had absolutely no choice. People seem to be forgetting that we have lost over 175,000 people in Britain to this virus. If the Government had ignored the advice of the scientists and we had lost not one more person than we have, I would suggest we would still be in a position right now where ministers were not only out of office but were now on trial for manslaughter. Practically every single person in this country - including almost everyone on here - would have been claiming that many, if not most, of those deaths would have been avoided if only the ministers had followed the scientific advice.
Nor would the economy have been in any better state. With hundreds of people dying of the disease every day people would have imposed their own lockdowns and that includes many essential workers who carried on because they were asked to by the Government.
The scientists do bear some responsibility for this. They were dealing with people untutored in science, epidemiology and statistics and they chose to present them time and time again with the worst case scenarios. Again, what minister is going to ignore those?
But in the end no one can be too heavily criticised for the lockdown policies. There is way too much 20:20 hindsight being used from the safety of triple jabbing.
There are lots of valid criticisms of other areas of covid policy but not this one.
I agree with the broad thrust of that. There was some minor commentary about decisions being 'made' by scientists, which was overblown, but by and large people would have agreed if the government had gone even stronger and harder. It is technically possible but not very feasible to think the government, or any government here, would have resisted that. It was a bit of a surprise that the government opened up and loosened up in the ways it eventually did, when the public was still preferring not to.
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
Really not sure that’s true. Witness the Lab Leak debate. That was not “everyone trying to do the right thing” that was a section of the scientific elite conniving with politicians and social media to silence the possibility that this was the greatest scientific fuck up in all history - and China/America were and are both implicated
That was not benign intentions gone wrong. It was a conspiracy of malignant lies
And that is true even IF it turns out it came from the wet market (highly unlikely, but let’s allow it)
It's an enormity (in the original sense of the word) too far for most to contemplate that the US, abetted China, may have developed Covid and unleashed it on the world.
No, what you say is crap. It's bullshit. It's tinfoil-hattery of the highest order. The idea that the US abetted China not only has zero evidence, but is propaganda that is borderline evil.
Which is exactly your usual MO.
It was meant to say abetted by China. Not abetted China.
Well, he was wrong to say your previous comment was tinfoil-hattery of the highest order, as you just found a higher order.
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
I largely agree, though feel strongly that the government acted partly to protect itself from as much criticism as possible and so took the line of least resistance rather than applying science and principle, partly by injecting fear into its citizens and partly by contracting out to unelected individuals often to provide cover.
What 'science' could be applied at the beginning? Back in late March 2020, we had little idea of how the virus spread - remember all the stuff about cleaning your hands regularly with gel, which (although good advice generally), did little to prevent the spread of this particular virus?
'virus' is a small word that covers a multitude of sins. We knew something was happening, and the science could tell us it was a virus and even the virus's genetic code. But we are not yet advanced enough to go from that to say 'this is how we deal with it.'
There had to be a certain amount of fear for the first lockdown, as we had little idea *what* we were dealing with. I'd argue that was still the case (though less so) a year later.
The very first lockdown - at three weeks - was understandable in the circumstances. But there has been no official acknowledgement, TTBOMK, that the data suggests strongly that infections had peaked before it started and this had already started to become clear at the end of those three weeks.
If it is indeed true, it demolishes the case for lockdown as a matter of law as opposed to government advice on how to be sensible.
That'll be because people lock themselves down if they think it is dangerous to go outside.
There was a fabulous bit of research by an American academic looking at OpenTable reservation patterns through the pandemic, which he/she thought would be a good proxy for peoples' willingness to socialise. And - surprise, surprise - reservations collapsed as case numbers rose, and vice-versa.
Which was a massive problem for the affected industries, who relied on being ordered shut in order to gain from the generous government support made available.
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
Really not sure that’s true. Witness the Lab Leak debate. That was not “everyone trying to do the right thing” that was a section of the scientific elite conniving with politicians and social media to silence the possibility that this was the greatest scientific fuck up in all history - and China/America were and are both implicated
That was not benign intentions gone wrong. It was a conspiracy of malignant lies
And that is true even IF it turns out it came from the wet market (highly unlikely, but let’s allow it)
This isn't about the origins of the virus, this is about understanding how we respond optimally to future health crises. What did we do right? What could we do better?
If it becomes a case of "who is to blame?" then all you'll get is a bunch of people saying "I don't recall", and we learn nothing.
Almost without exception, the people in the government (and yes, the most of the people on SAGE) were trying to do the right thing. They also were coming from a place of limited knowledge, no vaccines, no effective treatments, and were utterly terrified of making decisions that might result in tens or hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
A really good enquiry would also ask, which countries had better outcomes? And why? And we also need to remember that luck (good and bad) plays a massive role.
But you can’t divorce them. Our initial response was crippled from the start by ignorance of the virus, which was deliberately made worse by China’s lying (aided by American guilt) because they were shit-scared the virus escaped from their own labs, and was actually engineered to be more virulent than anything natural
And, again, that is true whether it came from the lab or not (hint: it came from the lab)
Are you a retard?
There are probably multiple enquiries that are needed, but they should absolutely not be bundled together.
Because the goal is to make sure that we understand how to deal with future crises better. What did we do? Was is the optimal path? How could we have performed better with the information we had at the time?
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
Really not sure that’s true. Witness the Lab Leak debate. That was not “everyone trying to do the right thing” that was a section of the scientific elite conniving with politicians and social media to silence the possibility that this was the greatest scientific fuck up in all history - and China/America were and are both implicated
That was not benign intentions gone wrong. It was a conspiracy of malignant lies
And that is true even IF it turns out it came from the wet market (highly unlikely, but let’s allow it)
This isn't about the origins of the virus, this is about understanding how we respond optimally to future health crises. What did we do right? What could we do better?
If it becomes a case of "who is to blame?" then all you'll get is a bunch of people saying "I don't recall", and we learn nothing.
Almost without exception, the people in the government (and yes, the most of the people on SAGE) were trying to do the right thing. They also were coming from a place of limited knowledge, no vaccines, no effective treatments, and were utterly terrified of making decisions that might result in tens or hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
A really good enquiry would also ask, which countries had better outcomes? And why? And we also need to remember that luck (good and bad) plays a massive role.
But you can’t divorce them. Our initial response was crippled from the start by ignorance of the virus, which was deliberately made worse by China’s lying (aided by American guilt) because they were shit-scared the virus escaped from their own labs, and was actually engineered to be more virulent than anything natural
And, again, that is true whether it came from the lab or not (hint: it came from the lab)
When it cones to bat soup versus the lab up the road that studies coronaviruses I'm amazed how many people plumped for the bat soup origin conspiracy for this coronavirus
It is incredible, I don’t quite understand it
The only explanation that makes sense is that Trump espoused the lab leak early on so many left-leaning people - or just people - have developed a tremendous allergy to the notion, plus they tend to be middlebrow thinkers who bow before Science (which was totally behind IT CAME FROM THE MARKET for obvious reasons, until about a year ago)
95% of the evidence points to the lab. Plus, Ockham’s Razor, FFS
Exactly. Then there was the shitting themselves that they might be racist if they accused the lab brigade who plumped for the much better option of blame Chinese peasants dirty eating habits.
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
I largely agree, though feel strongly that the government acted partly to protect itself from as much criticism as possible and so took the line of least resistance rather than applying science and principle, partly by injecting fear into its citizens and partly by contracting out to unelected individuals often to provide cover.
What 'science' could be applied at the beginning? Back in late March 2020, we had little idea of how the virus spread - remember all the stuff about cleaning your hands regularly with gel, which (although good advice generally), did little to prevent the spread of this particular virus?
'virus' is a small word that covers a multitude of sins. We knew something was happening, and the science could tell us it was a virus and even the virus's genetic code. But we are not yet advanced enough to go from that to say 'this is how we deal with it.'
There had to be a certain amount of fear for the first lockdown, as we had little idea *what* we were dealing with. I'd argue that was still the case (though less so) a year later.
The very first lockdown - at three weeks - was understandable in the circumstances. But there has been no official acknowledgement, TTBOMK, that the data suggests strongly that infections had peaked before it started and this had already started to become clear at the end of those three weeks.
If it is indeed true, it demolishes the case for lockdown as a matter of law as opposed to government advice on how to be sensible.
That'll be because people lock themselves down if they think it is dangerous to go outside.
There was a fabulous bit of research by an American academic looking at OpenTable reservation patterns through the pandemic, which he/she thought would be a good proxy for peoples' willingness to socialise. And - surprise, surprise - reservations collapsed as case numbers rose, and vice-versa.
Which was a massive problem for the affected industries, who relied on being ordered shut in order to gain from the generous government support made available.
Which is something we should learn for future crises
Government admits today it may send Ukrainian refugees to Rwanda? Tell me I’m wrong. 😟
You’re wrong. The Ukranian refugees are all being sponsored by UK citizens and residents, and issued visas before they arrive. Those going to Rwanda are the irregular and undocumented arrivals, most of whom turn up on small boats across the Channel.
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
Really not sure that’s true. Witness the Lab Leak debate. That was not “everyone trying to do the right thing” that was a section of the scientific elite conniving with politicians and social media to silence the possibility that this was the greatest scientific fuck up in all history - and China/America were and are both implicated
That was not benign intentions gone wrong. It was a conspiracy of malignant lies
And that is true even IF it turns out it came from the wet market (highly unlikely, but let’s allow it)
This isn't about the origins of the virus, this is about understanding how we respond optimally to future health crises. What did we do right? What could we do better?
If it becomes a case of "who is to blame?" then all you'll get is a bunch of people saying "I don't recall", and we learn nothing.
Almost without exception, the people in the government (and yes, the most of the people on SAGE) were trying to do the right thing. They also were coming from a place of limited knowledge, no vaccines, no effective treatments, and were utterly terrified of making decisions that might result in tens or hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
A really good enquiry would also ask, which countries had better outcomes? And why? And we also need to remember that luck (good and bad) plays a massive role.
But you can’t divorce them. Our initial response was crippled from the start by ignorance of the virus, which was deliberately made worse by China’s lying (aided by American guilt) because they were shit-scared the virus escaped from their own labs, and was actually engineered to be more virulent than anything natural
And, again, that is true whether it came from the lab or not (hint: it came from the lab)
When it cones to bat soup versus the lab up the road that studies coronaviruses I'm amazed how many people plumped for the bat soup origin conspiracy for this coronavirus
It is incredible, I don’t quite understand it
The only explanation that makes sense is that Trump espoused the lab leak early on so many left-leaning people - or just people - have developed a tremendous allergy to the notion, plus they tend to be middlebrow thinkers who bow before Science (which was totally behind IT CAME FROM THE MARKET for obvious reasons, until about a year ago)
95% of the evidence points to the lab. Plus, Ockham’s Razor, FFS
The evidence hasn't changed one jot in two years: the same city where bat viruses are researched is the same city where the virus emerged. It is massive circumstantial evidence, that makes it by far the most likely source of the virus. But it doesn't preclude the small chance that it is entirely zoonotic.
late to this as it was this morning's Times but, wow, this is blistering double barrel stuff from Finkelstein:
"It is perfectly obvious that the government is confused about what it stands for. This is because it is confused about who it stands for.
The prime minister and the chancellor believe in different fiscal policies, the government believes in low taxes but is raising taxes, the party believes in free trade but is presiding over vast increases in trade barriers for Britain. It is a free-market party that has fallen out with the leadership of big business. It is a Conservative Party but isn’t sure how seriously it takes the rule of law. Or treaties. Or standards in public life."
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
Really not sure that’s true. Witness the Lab Leak debate. That was not “everyone trying to do the right thing” that was a section of the scientific elite conniving with politicians and social media to silence the possibility that this was the greatest scientific fuck up in all history - and China/America were and are both implicated
That was not benign intentions gone wrong. It was a conspiracy of malignant lies
And that is true even IF it turns out it came from the wet market (highly unlikely, but let’s allow it)
It's an enormity (in the original sense of the word) too far for most to contemplate that the US, abetted China, may have developed Covid and unleashed it on the world.
No, what you say is crap. It's bullshit. It's tinfoil-hattery of the highest order. The idea that the US abetted China not only has zero evidence, but is propaganda that is borderline evil.
Which is exactly your usual MO.
It was meant to say abetted by China. Not abetted China.
Do you think that 'alteration' makes what you said any better?
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
But how were they supposed to do that with the media screaming that "we're all going to die if you don't Follow The Science"?
Ignore the media. They are the government, not the media. And rather a lot of the time, the media were screaming "but the money" and attacking and discrediting any scientist they could name.
Edit: though, on reflection, if you have a government of journalists and PR manipulators, there is a problem.
Nah. I am right up there with criticism of the Government on most things but on this they had absolutely no choice. People seem to be forgetting that we have lost over 175,000 people in Britain to this virus. If the Government had ignored the advice of the scientists and we had lost not one more person than we have, I would suggest we would still be in a position right now where ministers were not only out of office but were now on trial for manslaughter. Practically every single person in this country - including almost everyone on here - would have been claiming that many, if not most, of those deaths would have been avoided if only the ministers had followed the scientific advice.
Nor would the economy have been in any better state. With hundreds of people dying of the disease every day people would have imposed their own lockdowns and that includes many essential workers who carried on because they were asked to by the Government.
The scientists do bear some responsibility for this. They were dealing with people untutored in science, epidemiology and statistics and they chose to present them time and time again with the worst case scenarios. Again, what minister is going to ignore those?
But in the end no one can be too heavily criticised for the lockdown policies. There is way too much 20:20 hindsight being used from the safety of triple jabbing.
There are lots of valid criticisms of other areas of covid policy but not this one.
I agree with the broad thrust of that. There was some minor commentary about decisions being 'made' by scientists, which was overblown, but by and large people would have agreed if the government had gone even stronger and harder. It is technically possible but not very feasible to think the government, or any government here, would have resisted that. It was a bit of a surprise that the government opened up and loosened up in the ways it eventually did, when the public was still preferring not to.
It's very easy to say "never again", but in the hideous situation where a similarly infectious and dangerous disease comes along, we would have to do much the same as we did.
If you don't believe that, imagine what would have happened had the UK kept going with plan A. The extra deaths and chaos in Summer 2020. Then the variants come and override that natural immunity. And then the vaccines come along in short order afterwards.
I really hope that 2020-2 is the worst thing to happen in the lives of me and my children. But if circumstances demand it- yes, we'd have to do it again. And saying "we don't want to" is not something the virus would hear.
I don't have any experience of foodbanks - Mrs Stodge however (and I don't know how she knows this) tells me some foodbanks actually means test those coming in and will only help those who can prove they are on benefits. I wasn't aware of that.
In Newham, the food banks tend to be religious in nature - the owner of one stood in last week's Council election. My understanding is they will help anyone and on our way home last Saturday the queue at the food bank in East Ham High Street had probably 60-70 waiting.
There is a big problem with food education - as with so much else relating to public health information, the decision to take part of the function from the NHS and give it to councils without any resources probably didn't help. Food education goes with health education - the expression "you are what you eat" is in my case apposite and may be for others, Yet as been said, you can't make people healthy - you can't force people to look after themselves even if, in the face of all the health information, they choose to drink, smoke or eat poor food to excess.
It's possible to eat well, it's just easier and cheaper to eat badly.
Easier - not necessarily cheaper.
Look at the very poorest immigrant areas - lots of home cooking going on there. Transferred skills and tradition from the home country.
Orwell was making this point, back in the day - comfort food, basically.
late to this as it was this morning's Times but, wow, this is blistering double barrel stuff from Finkelstein:
"It is perfectly obvious that the government is confused about what it stands for. This is because it is confused about who it stands for.
The prime minister and the chancellor believe in different fiscal policies, the government believes in low taxes but is raising taxes, the party believes in free trade but is presiding over vast increases in trade barriers for Britain. It is a free-market party that has fallen out with the leadership of big business. It is a Conservative Party but isn’t sure how seriously it takes the rule of law. Or treaties. Or standards in public life."
Wow. Key modeller who demanded more lockdowns admits too much weight was given to models - a regular area of strong discussion on PB (where there are many who are more numerate than most peeps) at the time.
I am going to be charitable and say that this is a very important if belated contribution to the forthcoming public inquiry on covid.
"Britain relied too much on 'very scary' SAGE models to decide on lockdowns, according to the man behind some of those very projections.
Just months after SAGE predicted 6,000 deaths per day and called for a Christmas lockdown in response to Omicron, Professor John Edmunds said the models were only supposed to be 'one component' of decision-making but were leaned on too much by ministers.
He accepted the models failed to account for the economic harm and the knock-on health effects that lockdowns caused."
These absolute shits should be held to account. Along with the indie sage attention seeking scaremongers
YOu think so? He did his best, and the DM is evidently trying to blame him for the wider problems of government decision making. Look at the scope of his work - excluding the wider effects. That was a government duty, to take the wider effects and decide on the result.
I'm referring to them collectively and specifically to anyone recommending lockdown, or appearing on television, radio etc promoting lockdown. It is the most catastrophic policy inflicted in decades.
That's what we should try and establish with a proper inquiry: whether you are right or not. Personally, I am leaning to the conclusion that it was the greatest peacetime public policy mistake in decades, but I would like to see a frank and full debate of the evidence.
Such an inquiry, though, needs to come from a place of realising people were trying to do the right thing. This shouldn't be about who is to blame, but about learning lessons about how we do things better next time.
That is fundamental and well-said. No-one in the government wanted Covid to happen. No-one wanted tens of thousands of people to die. And they had to make decisions in days, from an (in modern times) unprecedented situation, and without the benefit of hindsight.
However much you might hate Boris, he did not want, or gain, from the Covid crisis. If he could have clicked his fingers and made the crisis go away, he would have. Instead the government had to made decisions on very incomplete information.
Agreed.
But we need to know why existing approaches and plans were thrown out of the window.
Comments
Today's 'cones hotline' nonsense seems to be neighbours voting on extensions in their street.
There are probably multiple enquiries that are needed, but they should absolutely not be bundled together.
Because the goal is to make sure that we understand how to deal with future crises better. What did we do? Was is the optimal path? How could we have performed better with the information we had at the time?
Then there was the shitting themselves that they might be racist if they accused the lab brigade who plumped for the much better option of blame Chinese peasants dirty eating habits.
"It is perfectly obvious that the government is confused about what it stands for. This is because it is confused about who it stands for.
The prime minister and the chancellor believe in different fiscal policies, the government believes in low taxes but is raising taxes, the party believes in free trade but is presiding over vast increases in trade barriers for Britain. It is a free-market party that has fallen out with the leadership of big business. It is a Conservative Party but isn’t sure how seriously it takes the rule of law. Or treaties. Or standards in public life."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0d62e7f8-d078-11ec-84ba-2054de44b21e?shareToken=cfb37b7a29183f3fe783ec72bb348f78
If you don't believe that, imagine what would have happened had the UK kept going with plan A. The extra deaths and chaos in Summer 2020. Then the variants come and override that natural immunity. And then the vaccines come along in short order afterwards.
I really hope that 2020-2 is the worst thing to happen in the lives of me and my children. But if circumstances demand it- yes, we'd have to do it again. And saying "we don't want to" is not something the virus would hear.
Look at the very poorest immigrant areas - lots of home cooking going on there. Transferred skills and tradition from the home country.
Orwell was making this point, back in the day - comfort food, basically.