Today's journalist's jamboree, the so-called press conference, was embarrassing.
Is Boris bonkers? and when we will we be set free from lockdown?
They knew the experts would tell them neither but they kept on asking the same questions anyway in case they extracted a word or two which could be twisted into a headline which has already been printed.
A complete shambles. Even Laura K ventured into the Westminster title-tattle.
I was impressed by the two experts' equanimity. Mr Peston, please remember the old adage … say nothing and let people think you're an idiot ...
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.
Thank you, I was just about to post the same thing. It is not just in the UK, many countries report lower numbers on Sunday and or Monday. There seems to be a clear weekend effect, which I am assuming is an administrative rather than medical issue.
Perhaps he is in for observation in the fear it might get worse? That doesn't mean it got worse straight away.
The public is entitled to understand how it is being governed. The government is doing an atrocious job of explaining. Speculation will run riot if more clarity is not provided.
This was obvious last night, still more obvious by lunchtime today and blisteringly clear now.
The obvious answer is that s normal person with a fever and a serious illness would take sick leave. You really shouldn't be trying to do any sort of high powered job, let alone run the country. Boris looked seriously rough when pictured on Thursday clapping NHS staff. What we need to understand is why this hasn't happened. Raab should have been formally in charge since the Friday Boris took ill.
Well yes of course. As the day's gone on and he's not been discharged then clearly this has changed from "routine tests" to something much more serious.
I'd say if Boris is still in hospital and showing no signs of getting better and/or getting worse by Friday he'll have to resign (temporarily at least) but i's worth leaving it a few more days to see if he can bounce back.
When was the last time power was formally if temporarily handed over to a deputy because of long term illness? I want to say Eden to Butler in 1956, but is there a more recent example?
David Cameron took paternity leave.
And so did Tony Blair, of course, but that’s not quite what I meant. Paternity leave you can just call them back from.
Perhaps he is in for observation in the fear it might get worse? That doesn't mean it got worse straight away.
Has he really never encountered the phenomenon of people in hospital doing things - not just staring at the ceiling?
As the symptoms have continued so long, is it possible he has a secondary infection? In which case they might want him on intravenous antibiotics. Or at least to closely monitor progress.
If broadly speaking we are seeing the outworkings of actions from two weeks ago, then today's relatively positive numbers are surely the first signs of lockdown, and they will continue to improve as days go by.
If broadly speaking we are seeing the outworkings of actions from two weeks ago, then today's relatively positive numbers are surely the first signs of lockdown, and they will continue to improve as days go by.
Today's numbers come from a Sunday, I know no-one has a clue what day it is but numbers will always be lower over a weekend.
Perhaps he is in for observation in the fear it might get worse? That doesn't mean it got worse straight away.
The public is entitled to understand how it is being governed. The government is doing an atrocious job of explaining. Speculation will run riot if more clarity is not provided.
This was obvious last night, still more obvious by lunchtime today and blisteringly clear now.
Is it, or is it the media speculation? He might just be in for observation, exactly what they have 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.
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.
Oh, I understand now. You're not arguing over whether or not it was sensible or not - it's purely a political point-scoring thing.
Strawman arguments. Got it.
No - you prat - I'm pointing out that you were implying Sweden supported the crazy herd immunity policy, when they did no such thing.
Are you brain-dead?
I’m obviously missing something here. The conventional wisdom (albeit challenged by some) is that the U.K. were following a herd immunity strategy aimed at maximising infection over the next few months to avoid a second wave peak in the autumn winter. Believing it could be managed within existing NHS capacity. This changed when the IC study came out dramatically increasing the number of serious cases this would cause that would overwhelm the NHS and result in 250k plus deaths, and many of the mitigation measures that were planned were rapidly ramped up or accelerated.
Since then all European countries have been following broadly the same strategy with slightly different interpretations of “lockdown” (U.K. looser than most) with the exception of Sweden which has been carrying on as before.
The scientists leading the Swedish strategy have publicly questioned the U.K. change of approach, saying specifically that they disagree with the conclusions of the IC study.
Now whether or not to characterise the U.K. strategy before as “herd immunity” or the Swedish strategy now likewise, it is clear that Sweden are broadly following the path the the U.K. switched from.
So I don’t follow how you can characterise the U.K. original strategy as “monumentally stupid” but fail to do the same with Sweden. With bells on. Or you are mischaracterising either the initial U.K. approach or the current Swedish one. What am I missing?
Much better numbers for the UK again today. Maybe yesterday was a blip and we really have peaked.
As for Boris he needs a consultant that tells him to cut this running the country crap out, to rest as much as he possibly can and to concentrate on getting well. He does not want an unborn child to lose its father before it is even born.
Comments
Is Boris bonkers? and when we will we be set free from lockdown?
They knew the experts would tell them neither but they kept on asking the same questions anyway in case they extracted a word or two which could be twisted into a headline which has already been printed.
A complete shambles. Even Laura K ventured into the Westminster title-tattle.
I was impressed by the two experts' equanimity. Mr Peston, please remember the old adage … say nothing and let people think you're an idiot ...
https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/1247205962592763906?s=21
NEW THREAD
Since then all European countries have been following broadly the same strategy with slightly different interpretations of “lockdown” (U.K. looser than most) with the exception of Sweden which has been carrying on as before.
The scientists leading the Swedish strategy have publicly questioned the U.K. change of approach, saying specifically that they disagree with the conclusions of the IC study.
Now whether or not to characterise the U.K. strategy before as “herd immunity” or the Swedish strategy now likewise, it is clear that Sweden are broadly following the path the the U.K. switched from.
So I don’t follow how you can characterise the U.K. original strategy as “monumentally stupid” but fail to do the same with Sweden. With bells on. Or you are mischaracterising either the initial U.K. approach or the current Swedish one. What am I missing?
As for Boris he needs a consultant that tells him to cut this running the country crap out, to rest as much as he possibly can and to concentrate on getting well. He does not want an unborn child to lose its father before it is even born.