Categories
Revisiting Covid – politicalbetting.com
Revisiting Covid – politicalbetting.com
In hindsight, do you think the government’s handling of the Covid-19 outbreak was…All Britons? About right: 34%?? Not strict enough: 37%? Too strict: 19%Con voters? 50%?? 20%? 25%Lab voters ? 23%?? 54%? 14%https://t.co/tyuPj74snx pic.twitter.com/xeZSyHKlvJ
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
“Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”
Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.
FWIW I expect there to be a lot of agonising over very long winded inquiries with conclusions that could probably be written today after a few minutes thought. There will also be attempts to play the hindsight game but I suspect very few will be interested and most of the players will have left the stage before anything is published. A classic British Inquiry in other words.
To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.
But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.
People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
DeSantis and Pence and Haley are all still firmly pro Ukraine and anti Putin
Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
Lessons to be learned. Don't trust politicans or journalists with an inflated idea of their knowledge (that's most of them). When scientists give definite answers to vaguely sensible questions, they're probably out of their own field of excellence, and it's not a journalist asking the question.
Even if they are accurate the government spent a billion pounds on military grade propaganda to achieve that result.
They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?
2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?
3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?
4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?
5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
Going for the herd immunity approach would have been a disaster.
PPE was badly managed. If you stockpile vast amounts you need to regularly rotate it into use. But it costs money to store it and we’ve not had a pandemic needing it for many, many years.
I’m not sure the models were biased, but those making decisions needed to be better at balancing ‘how do you minimise the disease’ with ‘how do minimise damage to the economy and peoples health’. Currently our political elite is not up to that task.
You also have a toxic press, ready to leap on the slightest thing, looking for a killer question (the Pesto effect) in press conferences, that might get them a snapshot on the news. Idiots splitting hairs over the rules/laws. The police not understanding the laws, and victimising people going for a walk out side.
Testing was more important for covid because of the asymptomatic issue - a future pandemic may not have the same problem.
There were of course some failings but that they got more right than wrong especially with the bigger decisions that had to be made.
“The government” ?!?
How are Welsh or Scottish respondents meant to answer that one?
Yes, he's an improvement on Johnson, no that's not enough.
My recollection was the decision to impose restrictions on movement was to try to slow the spread of the virus and prevent the NHS becoming overwhelmed by patients requiring oxygen to fight the virus. The problem was ICU beds were full and oxygen supplies were becoming dangerously depleted as more cases came in.
The decision to restrict movement and encourage hundreds of thousands of people to remain at home had other consequences which were seen at local authority level - the provision of PPE, feeding those who could not leave their homes as well as other vulnerable people, the provision of temporary mortuaries. An enormous amount was done in a very short time and even after three years I don't think many recognise just how effectively public and private agencies responded to the crisis.
The true restrictions lasted to Easter - after that, I was out most days for exercising or food shopping (as allowed) and while there were few people out and about, I read at an early stage external transmission of the virus was very rare so I felt comparatively safe.
The legacy of those events and messages remain - there are those who still wear masks because they think or know they are potentially highly vulnerable to the consequences of Covid and for them the virus might not be a few days in bed but a death sentence. The fear hasn't gone away with time.
2. A bit of both
3. The government wanted to continue to scare people disproportionally (nudge unit)
4. Impressive in some ways but way too much testing of people with no symptoms
5. came down to whom they appointed to formulate the advice. In consequence, lack of focus on non-health principles: e.g. economics and liberties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country
UK 3250 per million
France 2434 per million
Germany 2019 per million
We can, should, investigate how comparable those numbers really are before leaping on culpability, but those seem to be the numbers.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1631689846443102208?s=46
Hence the need for secrecy, but so many things can go wrong, unless you have bags of information. Random mutations are favoured by transmission-gains, not virulence. Your host is precious.
I've no idea if anyone is actively looking into this, but hopefully Porton Down is.
The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
Speaking of rubbish, Stroll has lost no time in trying to wipe out his new teammate.
Lockdowns 2 and 3 - not sure although the public health exposure remained high as we were essentially in a mass pre vaccine environment
Masks, curfews, substantial meal rules, cordoning off seats, one way systems - cost a lot to businesses in particular, reduced public confidence and were a complete waste of time!
Vaccines - excellent! 👍👍👍
6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?
7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?
8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?
9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-travel-bans-ineffective-who-says/a-60485256
Perhaps because any genuine and worthwhile analysis of the impact would require data that would take years to collate, when decisions need to be made in days or weeks?
"Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties"
Because they were sensible.
"...when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?"
It was not.
There's a fuckload of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on in here.
Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
But even if with hindsight they hadn't been effective, it is a very obvious precaution with an infectious disease to put arrivals from an infected area in quarantine to limit the spread.
They even got that in the Middle Ages, but it was beyond what passes for the the minds of Cummings, Hancock and Johnson.
But.
The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.
It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
On masks: I have an issues with your statement. Personally I *think* (though not conclusively) that they helped stop the virus spreading. Incidentally, not just directly, but indirectly: the mere wearing of a mask sends a message to others that might limit the spread.
In addition, we did not, and still don't, know the effectiveness. There're studies both ways on the effectiveness of masks wrt Covid 19, especially the initial variants. And much relies on the type and the wearing. We may never actually now for sure, and anyone citing certainty is a fool.
But there's also another issue here. The anti-vaxer and anti-mask shits (*) are creating a situation where, when another pandemic occurs, vast numbers of people won't take appropriate action. Because they've been told it was all a con in 2020. That's a real worry for the future.
(*) And that's a nice word for them.
So if a new Covid variant emerges which is temporarily vaccine immine, expect a likely Starmer government to impose the strictest of lockdowns with the Conservative Leader of the Opposition pushing a much more libertarian line in opposition
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/closing-parks-ineffective-pandemic-theater/609580/
https://inews.co.uk/news/coronavirus-catch-outside-indoors-why-get-covid-19-explained-426628
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21232696/reopen-parks-coronavirus-covid-19
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/risks-coronavirus/story?id=70624608
https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2020/05/coronavirus-spread-outside
The risks to people's mental health and waistlines from closing outdoor spaces was almost certainly much larger.
8 - For 2 reasons. They agreed with the approach. They knew the public did too.
Agree on Travel and overzealous policing. Although on the latter it wasn't the norm. I always felt I could do as I pleased (within reason). It was hardly Colditz.
The greengrocer tells him: "That’s 50 pounds please mate".
The man is shocked - "50 pounds? Last week these tomatoes only cost me two pounds!"
"Well, today it is 50 pounds."
"But why 50 pounds? You’re having a laugh!"
Greengrocer says : "I'll explain it,
- two pounds for the tomatoes,
- ten pounds to pay for Brexit,
- twenty pounds to pay for the Kami-Kwazi budget,
- ten pounds to pay the Tory donors for their PPE that never worked
- And finally, eight pounds to pay for Boris Johnson’s legal fees.
The man silently but angrily took out a fifty pound note and gave it to the greengrocer.
The greengrocer took the fifty pound note, entered in the cash register and gave him 2 pounds back.
The man said in disbelief : "Wait, you said 50 pounds, right ? I gave you 50, why are you giving me back 2 pounds?"
".....There are no tomatoes."
https://twitter.com/richardascott/status/1632283177510219777?s=46
I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB.
Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.
And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
There was lots anecdotal evidence during covid that many people were worried and exercising caution, possibly undue caution. A poll that shows only 1 in 5 thought the restrictions were too tight seems plausible to me.
Those on here who hated lockdowns and/or thought them pointless or damaging would do well imo to recognise they are in a small minority.
And will destroy himself.
"There’s only one way to protect yourself from the censors
Disentangling ourselves from digital dependence is now a radical but necessary step"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/one-way-protect-censors/
"The risks to people's mental health and waistlines from closing outdoor spaces was almost certainly much larger."
Opinion, not data. Even worse: opinion based on what we know now, not what we knew then - which is all those having to make decisions had to go on.
But if he has to speak on his feet, then he's not good. In some ways, Blair was better *because* he was a better dissembler.
"I didn't steal these cigarettes. I paid for them from a bloke who smuggled them into the country."
But I also think he will keep trying to return until his dying day.
And it will be tempting to divide his corpse into seven, buried in distant places.
Just to be sure.