I am still interested as to what the standard hospital treatment is for someone struggling with coronavirus.
We know that they are monitored, and we know that their breathing is supported with oxygen and ventilation to a greater or lesser degree.
Is there anything else? Vitamins and minerals on a drip? Any of the existing drugs that have been mentioned? It would be fascinating to hear how the treatment of this is developing in real time.
At Bournemouth Hospital they are trialing the HIV and Malaria combination
In Basingstoke it’s neubulised interferon and HCQ (malaria) under investigation
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
scientific.
Sorry, I forgot the extremely high standards of empirical rigour that we always apply to comments on blog website politicalbetting.com.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
If somebody has to pretend not to understand you to score internet argument points, it means that on some level they know they're wrong.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Well, my point is it depends on those input parameters.
The thing with Boris's hospital visit, is that they could just be telling the truth, fully aware that people will assume a lie.
Boris has got coronavirus. Clearly symptoms have rumbled on and he's not doing the best with it. But all around, people are bouncing back to work like nothing has happened, and that would no doubt have become the media's expectation, and they'd started asking 'where's sicknote Boris?' etc. So rather than allow people to underestimate his symptoms, they are going out to make very clear that he is ILL, and he won't be in a fit state to fend off Robert Peston and Kay Burleigh for a while.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
scientific.
Sorry, I forgot the extremely high standards of empirical rigour that we always apply to comments on blog website politicalbetting.com.
Sorry, what site are you referring to? This is www.pandemicbetting.com
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
You, at 3:46pm:
Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy.
What am I missing? "Might or might not"? That doesn't seem to justify the opprobrium you're throwing around.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
Are you suggesting that HMG could have avoided all the deaths
A new high quality poll just came out showing Biden six points ahead in Florida. This is before COVID is about to wreak disaster there. It is impossible for Trump to win without the state.
A million or more newly unemployed are/will be trying to sign on via the new system the Republicans just deployed. It was designed deliberately to make it more difficult to register.
The Florida party is in a state approaching civil war, as a consequence.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
I think virtually all western countries are on the herd immunity path. If a vaccine comes early to give us herd immunity painlessly then that will be wonderful. We are trying to reduce casualties by keeping the number of acute cases lower than the health service capacity to treat. Also buying time should mean better treatments are developed. The elderly and vulnerable will remain in greater isolation for longer as the lock down unwinds. Only herd immunity, possibly via vaccine will see the end to the threat. Given the widespread presence of the virus isolating and eliminating small outbreaks is not viable now.
For the umpteenth time. The crazy herd immunity policy I am talking about was for around 60% of the population to be infected over a two month period - May to June this year.
Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy. But that wasn't the idea. The idea was to do it all in one go. I remember the Deputy Medical Officer saying that if measures were applied too soon there might be another wave in the Autumn. No - the idea was to get it all over and done with in a couple of months. Insanity, that no other country on Earth is now subscribing to.
My interpretation was that not applying measures too early was based on a view of how long a lock down can be made to last and trying to avoid stopping too soon. More data about the degree of mortality and length of time in IC and estimates on increasing ICU capacity will presumably have governed decisions. I strongly suspect that there won't be a lot for the government's critics to exploit because I suspect that they have basically followed a synthesis of advice from experts. I agree that there should be a full publication of the decision making trail and an objective review to learn any lessons.
I don't know whether you read what you were replying to at all (if you didn't, what the hell is the point?).
As I said in rather plain English, I remember Dr Harries explaining that if we had taken measures earlier, there would have been a second wave in the Autumn. That is why I said that the idea in their minds was to get it over in one go. Which was insane.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Re your last sentence many would say the same about yourself
Piers Morgan needs skin in the game. He should shut up or agree to be executed if any of his advice subsequently proves to be sub-optimal.
People shrink quite a bit through their lives, so if he was 5'10 as a youngster it is unlikely he would be taller than 5'9 now. Most people seem to think they are the height they were when they were a youngster, so often overquote not out of false pride but because of not allowing for shrinkage. Some just round up as well.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Re your last sentence many would say the same about yourself
Fine. It's obviously a waste of time trying to talk sense to the ignoramuses here,
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
You, at 3:46pm:
Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy.
What am I missing? "Might or might not"? That doesn't seem to justify the opprobrium you're throwing around.
You're missing the fact I said it "might or might not be a feasible strategy", whereas you represented me as saying it "is fine".
"Whatever one’s personal party preferences, we all need a viable opposition." Indeed. But is this known to journalists who write for The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun? Until supporters of the Conservatives can stop vilifying Labour, Labour's transformation under Starmer won't beat appreciated.
The press has never stopped Labour winning elections as abundant evidence testifies - Labour wins elections, and when they are the best option they win more than one in succession. A free press/media (which BTW includes Guardian, Mirror, Morning Star, Indi, FT, Channel 4, BBC) will include elements that are biased every way - that's what free press means.
As for 'vilification' this centrist floating voter thinks that this is a speciality of the hard left. I would be delighted if and when Labour can go back on the list of parties a responsible centrist democrat could vote for.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
Piers Morgan needs skin in the game. He should shut up or agree to be executed if any of his advice subsequently proves to be sub-optimal.
People shrink quite a bit through their lives, so if he was 5'10 as a youngster it is unlikely he would be taller than 5'9 now. Most people seem to think they are the height they were when they were a youngster, so often overquote not out of false pride but because of not allowing for shrinkage. Some just round up as well.
Actually people vary in height over their lives - not just shrinking with age.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Re your last sentence many would say the same about yourself
Fine. It's obviously a waste of time trying to talk sense to the ignoramuses here,
To be honest there are many and varied opinions as is inevitable and you may be correct, but equally you may not, and it will only be resolved in years to come as the world learns the lessons
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
It is by definition impossible to prove whether an alternative scenario would have been better in the long run. We can't rewind and try again, and nor can we today even quantify or define "better" as it depends on timescale and must surely include other factors beyond our current morbid obsession with the Cornoavirus stats of the day. This is about more than the virus eventually - it has to be
This will likely drag on for many many months, with relaxation and reimposition of lockdown or lockdown-lite. So you can't possibly know now - even by comparison with other countries, what will be deemed as having worked "best" in hindsight.
The deaths due to Coronavirus may be possible to count with some accuracy, but the deaths and other hardship and misery due to economic almighty clusterfuckedness over the next - lets face it - decade or more of financial disaster that millions of us will face, will not be quantifiable. So how to compare and decide what to do? Almost impossible.
It may well all depend on when we get a vaccine that works. If we knew one was available on May 1st we could all happily hunker down in 100% total lockdown until then. If it's May next year though (and it's not very likely to be much earlier by all accounts), then what? I don't see how you can be so definite about what is best in that situation. What sort of future would a tight lockdown for that long mean? Many other factors would become more and more important - the near ruin of our economy surely not the least.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
You, at 3:46pm:
Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy.
What am I missing? "Might or might not"? That doesn't seem to justify the opprobrium you're throwing around.
You're missing the fact I said it "might or might not be a feasible strategy", whereas you represented me as saying it "is fine".
Can you you really not understand the difference?
In general terms, of course.
In the terms of you announcing that Johnson has blood of tens of thousands of people on his hands, no.
If the policy "might" be ok, then maybe you should dial down the rhetoric until it's been shown not to be.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
Yes it does.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Re your last sentence many would say the same about yourself
Fine. It's obviously a waste of time trying to talk sense to the ignoramuses here,
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
We realise that this whole virus thing must be hugely frustrating for you given how you would have handled it.
Oh, speaking of which, I missed that post where you explained what that would have been. Many apologies - could you re-post.
The thing with Boris's hospital visit, is that they could just be telling the truth, fully aware that people will assume a lie.
Boris has got coronavirus. Clearly symptoms have rumbled on and he's not doing the best with it. But all around, people are bouncing back to work like nothing has happened, and that would no doubt have become the media's expectation, and they'd started asking 'where's sicknote Boris?' etc. So rather than allow people to underestimate his symptoms, they are going out to make very clear that he is ILL, and he won't be in a fit state to fend off Robert Peston and Kay Burleigh for a while.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
You are just wriggling Chris because you are so desperate to pin this on the politicians no matter what the evidence.
If they had not followed the official guidance rom the experts then you would be on here screaming about it just as loudly as you are now. It is implicit in your comments that you are criticising the advice given and claiming that the politicians should have ignored the CMO and CSA.
Basically all you are interested in is pushing whatever story makes the politicians look bad.
I presume that would include deaths that weren't declared over the weekend. For both of the past two weekends, Sweden's had a strange levelling out for the weekend alone, followed by a big jump on the Monday. I suspect some deaths aren't recorded or declared on Saturday and Sunday but held over for Monday.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
No one is talking about January and February.
We're talking about the UK's policy of herd immunity in early March. It was crazy. Is anyone really claiming that it wasn't crazy? If you're saying you couldn't see it was crazy, fair enough.
But I think anyone with a brain could see it was crazy. How could the NHS have continued to function if two thirds of the population had been infected with this virus?
I think most of us could see it was crazy. Trying to suggest it wasn't obviously crazy says more about you than anything else.
I see your certainty of your inherent rightness has increased since my other post. How wonderful it must be to be as wise as you.
Our curve is basically the same as France, Spain, Italy. Not sure there's huge evidence about who is "right" As i say below, don't think it's possible to decide anyway even in principle.
Much as I think Cyclefree often offers a reasonable perspective, there is no chance whatever of Starmer completely purging the Corbynites. It would be an express repudiation of the platform towards unity he was elected on, and essentially make a party which what is now such a large grassroots Left membership - quite a number of whom are young and idealistic, rather than 80's era fixers and machine operators with foreign policy obsessions - essentially un-governable, and ready to split. What he has done looks very good so far - I particularly like seeing Ed Miliband in the energy post again.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
Hi Chris,
Hope I find you well in these uncertain and challenging times.
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
No-one is saying that we should be quick to absolve politicians. They are saying that we equally shouldn't be quick to blame them, especially not in the personalised terms you did.
As for the experts, as a layman I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that I know better - and, crucially. knew better in the very early stages of this - than the Chief Medical Officer, Deputing Medical Officer, Chief Scientist, and the Imperial College experts in epidemiology, all of whom were in any case basing their recommendations on very uncertain information. It seems however rather unlikely, to put it mildly, that something that seemed 'obvious' to you was actually quite so obvious to the experts with far more expertise than you and with access to far more information. Indeed it's by no means obvious that the UK has got anything wrong compared with any other government; it will be some considerable time before we can form a reasonable, evidence-based conclusion on that.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If they had not followed the official guidance from the experts t
Some British experts.
The rest of the world knew it was total bollocks.
Fortunately, Imperial College brought the madness to a swift close. Not swift enough to save some lives, but still better late than never.
Lammy being the shadow cabinet does obviously suggest though that soft Brexit is still very much SKS's agenda. Paul Embery and the other lexiteers won't be pleased.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
Just one more attempt to penetrate your incredible denseness -
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Much as I think Cyclefree often offers a reasonable perspective, there is no chance whatever of Starmer completely purging the Corbynites. It would be an express repudiation of the platform towards unity he was elected on, and essentially make a party which what is now such a large grassroots Left membership essentially un-governable, and ready to split. What he has done looks very good so far - I particularly like seeing Ed Miliband in the energy post again.
He has purged the idiots, which is always a good place to start.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
Are you suggesting that HMG could have avoided all the deaths
That is crazy
No. But the population of South Korea is ~50m to our ~70m. They had their 10th death on Feb 25th, 16 days before ours. We'd overtaken them in deaths by by March 18th, and now we've had almost 5k deaths to their 183. They followed the WHO's advice, we didn't.
Maybe the difference in deaths won't quite be 10s of thousands by the time this is all over, but it doesn't seem at all unrealstic. And we'll never really know what trajectory we would have followed had we listened to the experts, it might not have been the same as SK's. But I don't think either assertion is at all "crazy" or requires "losing it" to believe, as you've said.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
Hi Chris,
Hope I find you well in these uncertain and challenging times.
I think TOPPING was on your side there.
Best wishes,
?? No he wasn't. It was a Grade A deliberate back-handed compliment (and I say that with admiration).
Much as I think Cyclefree often offers a reasonable perspective, there is no chance whatever of Starmer completely purging the Corbynites. It would be an express repudiation of the platform towards unity he was elected on, and essentially make a party which what is now such a large grassroots Left membership essentially un-governable, and ready to split. What he has done looks very good so far - I particularly like seeing Ed Miliband in the energy post again.
He has purged the idiots, which is always a good place to start.
Indeed, but the fringe are not the same as the whole generation of young idealists who have been brought into the party alongside the '80s veterans.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
Just one more attempt to penetrate your incredible denseness -
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Even if the world had carried on as normal, it would have been going some to have 44 million people infected within 2 months.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
I thought that was a compliment!
Die and people might take him seriously? Is that a compliment?
Am I reading right that Priti Patel is only just now trying to close UK borders or some such. I forgot to bolt in one of our nags last night, she didn't wonder off very far, there might be an analogy I'm seaching for here...
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
Just one more attempt to penetrate your incredible denseness -
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Even if the world had carried on as normal, it would have been going some to have 44 million people infected within 2 months.
Only two and a half weeks before we get to 100 million. According to henrietta’s model.
As long as the government isn't seen as actively going against the advice of their scientific officers they will generally be fine.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
As I recollect, the choice that the government had to make boiled down to one of mitigation or suppression. Mitigation was the high-risk, low-cost strategy, based on optimistic assumptions about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus. This was the path the government initially chose, hoping to contain the virus without the major economic damage of a full lockdown (like Sweden). The danger with this approach was that if the assumptions made were too optimistic, and a suppression approach were needed, then valuable time would have been lost.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
You are just wriggling Chris because you are so desperate to pin this on the politicians no matter what the evidence.
If they had not followed the official guidance rom the experts then you would be on here screaming about it just as loudly as you are now. It is implicit in your comments that you are criticising the advice given and claiming that the politicians should have ignored the CMO and CSA.
Basically all you are interested in is pushing whatever story makes the politicians look bad.
I say yet again. The policy of two thirds of the population getting the virus in two months was so obviously insane that anyone in their right mind should have been able to understand that.
You should have been able to. Everyone here should have been able to.
I hope this is all brought out into the open in due course. But let's be clear that politicians should have been as able to tell the policy was insane as anyone else.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
Hi Chris,
Hope I find you well in these uncertain and challenging times.
I think TOPPING was on your side there.
Best wishes,
No. No I wasn't.
That said, the virus is doing all kinds of crazy things to us all and I perfectly understand why venting on an internet chat room is a useful outlet for pent up frustration.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
Just one more attempt to penetrate your incredible denseness -
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Even if the world had carried on as normal, it would have been going some to have 44 million people infected within 2 months.
Only two and a half weeks before we get to 100 million. According to henrietta’s model.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If they had not followed the official guidance from the experts t
Some British experts.
The rest of the world knew it was total bollocks.
Fortunately, Imperial College brought the madness to a swift close. Not swift enough to save some lives, but still better late than never.
Imperial College were the people providing the modelling behind the original strategy in the first place! It wasn’t as if the U.K. were off doing their own thing, and then Imperial College rocked up and saved the day.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If it's an obviously idiotic plan, then the leaders of Sweden have to be, in your eyes, genocidally stupid to be sticking to it for so long after everyone else has given up on it.
As long as the government isn't seen as actively going against the advice of their scientific officers they will generally be fine.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
As I recollect, the choice that the government had to make boiled down to one of mitigation or suppression. Mitigation was the high-risk, low-cost strategy, based on optimistic assumptions about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus. This was the path the government initially chose, hoping to contain the virus without the major economic damage of a full lockdown (like Sweden). The danger with this approach was that if the assumptions made were too optimistic, and a suppression approach were needed, then valuable time would have been lost.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
Am I reading right that Priti Patel is only just now trying to close UK borders or some such. I forgot to bolt in one of our nags last night, she didn't wonder off very far, there might be an analogy I'm seaching for here...
The casual attitude to border control would be astonishing if it hadn't been already happening for decades.
Well,just before I wrote this on Saturday, I asked pretty please for Shabby Shami to be sacked and today I find that this wonderful event has happened. Hooray!
Everything else is as gloomy as hell but in these dark days we must find our solace where we can.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
Chris take heart, mate. They all thought Galileo was an idiot who couldn't marshall coherent and logical arguments as well.
What a crushing blow you've dealt me.
I thought that was a compliment!
Die and people might take him seriously? Is that a compliment?
I thought it was a simple comparison to Galileo who was initially dismissed. I didn't read into it that deeply.
A friend of mine from church died of it this morning.
So sorry Foxy. My condolences.
Re the weekend effect, I find the fraction of positives (under 30%) as more encouraging. The number of deaths will likely have a weekend effect unfortunately.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
You are just wriggling Chris because you are so desperate to pin this on the politicians no matter what the evidence.
If they had not followed the official guidance rom the experts then you would be on here screaming about it just as loudly as you are now. It is implicit in your comments that you are criticising the advice given and claiming that the politicians should have ignored the CMO and CSA.
Basically all you are interested in is pushing whatever story makes the politicians look bad.
I say yet again. The policy of two thirds of the population getting the virus in two months was so obviously insane that anyone in their right mind should have been able to understand that.
You should have been able to. Everyone here should have been able to.
I hope this is all brought out into the open in due course. But let's be clear that politicians should have been as able to tell the policy was insane as anyone else.
"Obviously insane" is a bit OTT; I'd have gone with "highly risky". Basically, the models suggested that the initial government approach would work, but there was a high risk that it wouldn't. Boris chose to accept that risk.
Am I reading right that Priti Patel is only just now trying to close UK borders or some such. I forgot to bolt in one of our nags last night, she didn't wonder off very far, there might be an analogy I'm seaching for here...
The casual attitude to border control would be astonishing if it hadn't been already happening for decades.
I wonder if part of the problem is that no one wanted to make the first move. What would the reaction have been had our government shutdown travel to/from the UK just as European football was about to start up again (effectively removing our teams from the competitions)?
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.
And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.
I hope he is called to account for it.
Tens of thousands?
You forget not only could he have told us what to do 3 months ago he also can predict the future. Truly a poster to admire.
Just one more attempt to penetrate your incredible denseness -
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Even if the world had carried on as normal, it would have been going some to have 44 million people infected within 2 months.
Only two and a half weeks before we get to 100 million. According to henrietta’s model.
If it had 2x every two days then we would be on around 6.6million by today, starting with the 204 who were positive on 7th March.
Of course that could still be the real figure with millions asymptomatic.
Well,just before I wrote this on Saturday, I asked pretty please for Shabby Shami to be sacked and today I find that this wonderful event has happened. Hooray!
Everything else is as gloomy as hell but in these dark days we must find our solace where we can.
I look forward to the Human Rights case over her sacking, due to racism.
Is there a kimono wearing lawyer, going equipped with a baseball bat, in the house?
As long as the government isn't seen as actively going against the advice of their scientific officers they will generally be fine.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
As I recollect, the choice that the government had to make boiled down to one of mitigation or suppression. Mitigation was the high-risk, low-cost strategy, based on optimistic assumptions about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus. This was the path the government initially chose, hoping to contain the virus without the major economic damage of a full lockdown (like Sweden). The danger with this approach was that if the assumptions made were too optimistic, and a suppression approach were needed, then valuable time would have been lost.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
tl;dr: Boris took a gamble, and lost.
That is broadly true, but the exact timeline doesn't match. Johnson was not supporting closing sporting events on the 12th March which was 3 days after the Italians had decided to lockdown. The evidence was there at that point.
We probably delayed the inevitable by a week or two, thereby making for a bigger and longer lockdown. The other mistake was not screening and quarantining arrivals, and I think that is still the case, though there are far fewer of them.
For the last couple of weeks numbers have shot up on Tuesday after being steady or declining the days before that (54 to 87 & 180 to 381), if we can see an improvement on that tomorrow then that's something to be positive about.
A friend of mine from church died of it this morning.
So sorry Foxy. My condolences.
Re the weekend effect, I find the fraction of positives (under 30%) as more encouraging. The number of deaths will likely have a weekend effect unfortunately.
Yes, the positives are an interesting straw in the wind.
Before this is out, more of us will have a familiar face in the statistics.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
If it's an obviously idiotic plan, then the leaders of Sweden have to be, in your eyes, genocidally stupid to be sticking to it for so long after everyone else has given up on it.
How stupid do you have to be to portray the Swedish government as having a policy of infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - when in fact what they are doing is adopting a different approach to other countries in trying to slow the spread of the virus?
Feel free to clarify whether you really were so stupid that you thought that's what the Swedish government was trying to do - infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - or whether you weren't that stupid, but were just tryng to score a cheap point on an Internet discussion board - perhaps assuming that most readers would be too stupid to appreciate the difference.
As long as the government isn't seen as actively going against the advice of their scientific officers they will generally be fine.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
As I recollect, the choice that the government had to make boiled down to one of mitigation or suppression. Mitigation was the high-risk, low-cost strategy, based on optimistic assumptions about the infectiousness and lethality of the virus. This was the path the government initially chose, hoping to contain the virus without the major economic damage of a full lockdown (like Sweden). The danger with this approach was that if the assumptions made were too optimistic, and a suppression approach were needed, then valuable time would have been lost.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
tl;dr: Boris took a gamble, and lost.
That is broadly true, but the exact timeline doesn't match. Johnson was not supporting closing sporting events on the 12th March which was 3 days after the Italians had decided to lockdown. The evidence was there at that point.
We probably delayed the inevitable by a week or two, thereby making for a bigger and longer lockdown. The other mistake was not screening and quarantining arrivals, and I think that is still the case, though there are far fewer of them.
Fair enough. Replace "quickly switched" with "belatedly switched"!
Nick Timothy in The Telegraph is not impressed with Starmer. Commenting on Starmer's wooden video presentation on Saturday and suggesting Starmer could be Iain Duncan Smith 2, taking over a party in the midst of a crisis. (911 in IDS's case).
The nub of Mr Timothy's article is that the 'Tories mustn't allow Keir Starmer to turn the coronavirus crisis into an opportunity for Labour'. With a focus on even suggesting Coronavirus is an apportunity to score, or bat away political points, I now see why many PBers view this man as a moron!
I'm amazed that PBers are still talking about their hoped for foreign holidays.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
My sister and family are booked to go to Greece in May - Tui won't cancel and refund them the money.
Just hang tight - TUI will have to cancel then they'll be entitled to a full refund.
I had the same thing with BA - insisting for weeks that a flight was going ahead - "but if you want to change your travel have a voucher" - in the end they cancelled - I'm now entitled to a full refund.
Maybe, maybe not. Iran has a very young population and, outside Tehran, a low population density. They probably don't travel about as much as westerners either.
Promising numbers today. If the UK line continues to flatten and the government start to make noises about relaxing lockdown they will justifiably get credit for how they have handled this shit-fest so far. Deferring to scientific advisors was the key.
I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.
I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.
It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.
I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.
Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
" "herd immunity" nonsense"
It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.
You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.
Don't you remember what they said?
Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.
But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.
I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
You are just wriggling Chris because you are so desperate to pin this on the politicians no matter what the evidence.
If they had not followed the official guidance rom the experts then you would be on here screaming about it just as loudly as you are now. It is implicit in your comments that you are criticising the advice given and claiming that the politicians should have ignored the CMO and CSA.
Basically all you are interested in is pushing whatever story makes the politicians look bad.
I say yet again. The policy of two thirds of the population getting the virus in two months was so obviously insane that anyone in their right mind should have been able to understand that.
You should have been able to. Everyone here should have been able to.
I hope this is all brought out into the open in due course. But let's be clear that politicians should have been as able to tell the policy was insane as anyone else.
"Obviously insane" is a bit OTT; I'd have gone with "highly risky". Basically, the models suggested that the initial government approach would work, but there was a high risk that it wouldn't. Boris chose to accept that risk.
It depends what you mean by "work". Of course it might work for the economy. But that would be to treat the population as virus-fodder - and fodder for other diseases that would have been treatable if the NHS had still been functioning. It was being sold as "flattening the curve" so that the NHS could have continued to function. That was a lie. Obviously the NHS couldn't have continued to function if two thirds of the population had been infected in a two-month period.
Comments
Leicester is another site in the study.
Another drug to watch is Giapreza, but that is for the most severe patients, while beta interferon is probably best in the early stages.
Are you saying that it wasn't obvious to you that infecting two thirds of the UK population with this virus within a two-month period would be disastrous?
I really can't understand what is passing through your mind.
Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy.
What am I missing? "Might or might not"? That doesn't seem to justify the opprobrium you're throwing around.
That is crazy
As I said in rather plain English, I remember Dr Harries explaining that if we had taken measures earlier, there would have been a second wave in the Autumn. That is why I said that the idea in their minds was to get it over in one go. Which was insane.
That doesn't mean that mistakes weren't made, and that questions won't (rightly be asked) of course.
Can you you really not understand the difference?
As for 'vilification' this centrist floating voter thinks that this is a speciality of the hard left. I would be delighted if and when Labour can go back on the list of parties a responsible centrist democrat could vote for.
This will likely drag on for many many months, with relaxation and reimposition of lockdown or lockdown-lite. So you can't possibly know now - even by comparison with other countries, what will be deemed as having worked "best" in hindsight.
The deaths due to Coronavirus may be possible to count with some accuracy, but the deaths and other hardship and misery due to economic almighty clusterfuckedness over the next - lets face it - decade or more of financial disaster that millions of us will face, will not be quantifiable. So how to compare and decide what to do? Almost impossible.
It may well all depend on when we get a vaccine that works. If we knew one was available on May 1st we could all happily hunker down in 100% total lockdown until then. If it's May next year though (and it's not very likely to be much earlier by all accounts), then what? I don't see how you can be so definite about what is best in that situation. What sort of future would a tight lockdown for that long mean? Many other factors would become more and more important - the near ruin of our economy surely not the least.
In the terms of you announcing that Johnson has blood of tens of thousands of people on his hands, no.
If the policy "might" be ok, then maybe you should dial down the rhetoric until it's been shown not to be.
*FLOUNCE*
Oh, speaking of which, I missed that post where you explained what that would have been. Many apologies - could you re-post.
TIA x2.
If they had not followed the official guidance rom the experts then you would be on here screaming about it just as loudly as you are now. It is implicit in your comments that you are criticising the advice given and claiming that the politicians should have ignored the CMO and CSA.
Basically all you are interested in is pushing whatever story makes the politicians look bad.
For both of the past two weekends, Sweden's had a strange levelling out for the weekend alone, followed by a big jump on the Monday. I suspect some deaths aren't recorded or declared on Saturday and Sunday but held over for Monday.
Our curve is basically the same as France, Spain, Italy. Not sure there's huge evidence about who is "right" As i say below, don't think it's possible to decide anyway even in principle.
It would be an express repudiation of the platform towards unity he was elected on, and essentially make a party which what is now such a large grassroots Left membership - quite a number of whom are young and idealistic, rather than 80's era fixers and machine operators with foreign policy obsessions - essentially un-governable, and ready to split. What he has done looks very good so far - I particularly like seeing Ed Miliband in the energy post again.
Hope I find you well in these uncertain and challenging times.
I think TOPPING was on your side there.
Best wishes,
As for the experts, as a layman I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that I know better - and, crucially. knew better in the very early stages of this - than the Chief Medical Officer, Deputing Medical Officer, Chief Scientist, and the Imperial College experts in epidemiology, all of whom were in any case basing their recommendations on very uncertain information. It seems however rather unlikely, to put it mildly, that something that seemed 'obvious' to you was actually quite so obvious to the experts with far more expertise than you and with access to far more information. Indeed it's by no means obvious that the UK has got anything wrong compared with any other government; it will be some considerable time before we can form a reasonable, evidence-based conclusion on that.
The rest of the world knew it was total bollocks.
Fortunately, Imperial College brought the madness to a swift close. Not swift enough to save some lives, but still better late than never.
There is no claim that I could have told you what to do three months ago - that's just a straw-man argument plucked out of some part of the anatomy of the empty-heads here.
All I'm saying is that the initial UK policy of two-thirds of the population being infected with the virus over a two-month period was insane. And to bear out the fact that it was insane, it was entirely dropped.
That doesn't mean it had no consequences. It delayed action that could have saved tens of thousands of lives.
And I couldn't give a damn whether people here are too stupid or too partisan to admit it, but it's a fact.
Maybe the difference in deaths won't quite be 10s of thousands by the time this is all over, but it doesn't seem at all unrealstic. And we'll never really know what trajectory we would have followed had we listened to the experts, it might not have been the same as SK's. But I don't think either assertion is at all "crazy" or requires "losing it" to believe, as you've said.
No, 13,313 more people... they are now reporting tests and people.
This, of course, is exactly what happened. Data from Italy showed that the assumptions were indeed too optimistic, and so the government quickly switched to a suppression strategy. Sadly, the delay in implementing the suppression strategy means that more lives will be lost than if the strategy had been implemented immediately, and that a longer, harder lockdown is required, meaning even more economic damage.
tl;dr: Boris took a gamble, and lost.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/apr/06/honor-blackman-james-bond-pussy-galore-avengers-dies-aged-94?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
You should have been able to. Everyone here should have been able to.
I hope this is all brought out into the open in due course. But let's be clear that politicians should have been as able to tell the policy was insane as anyone else.
That said, the virus is doing all kinds of crazy things to us all and I perfectly understand why venting on an internet chat room is a useful outlet for pent up frustration.
A friend of mine from church died of it this morning.
Everything else is as gloomy as hell but in these dark days we must find our solace where we can.
Re the weekend effect, I find the fraction of positives (under 30%) as more encouraging. The number of deaths will likely have a weekend effect unfortunately.
Of course that could still be the real figure with millions asymptomatic.
Is there a kimono wearing lawyer, going equipped with a baseball bat, in the house?
We probably delayed the inevitable by a week or two, thereby making for a bigger and longer lockdown. The other mistake was not screening and quarantining arrivals, and I think that is still the case, though there are far fewer of them.
No chance.
Aside from the medical situation people would be well advised saving their money for the hard years ahead.
https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1246145580402966528
Before this is out, more of us will have a familiar face in the statistics.
Feel free to clarify whether you really were so stupid that you thought that's what the Swedish government was trying to do - infecting two-thirds of the population over a two month period - or whether you weren't that stupid, but were just tryng to score a cheap point on an Internet discussion board - perhaps assuming that most readers would be too stupid to appreciate the difference.
The nub of Mr Timothy's article is that the 'Tories mustn't allow Keir Starmer to turn the coronavirus crisis into an opportunity for Labour'. With a focus on even suggesting Coronavirus is an apportunity to score, or bat away political points, I now see why many PBers view this man as a moron!
I had the same thing with BA - insisting for weeks that a flight was going ahead - "but if you want to change your travel have a voucher" - in the end they cancelled - I'm now entitled to a full refund.