It's still a few thousand behind Italy. At the current rate it will be 3 days until the US becomes global leader.
The US seems determined to spread it round the country with all their flights still going on. Their advantage of low pop density is looking ropey.
Edit: Looks like most of that is Fedex now. Better late than never on that front.
An awful lot of people got out of NY and CA in the last couple of weeks before they became completely locked down. Who knows what the impact of that movement will be, in spreading the virus around the other 48 states?
Most planes now are flying with key workers and cargo, on a skeleton service.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
So these are the sort of questions you want to ask the govt at 5pm?
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
So these are the sort of questions you want to ask the govt at 5pm?
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
So these are the sort of questions you want to ask the govt at 5pm?
Yes. Otherwise, don't waste the time of Witty, Vallance and co.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
So these are the sort of questions you want to ask the govt at 5pm?
I would like them asked. Alternatively we could carry on playing kabuki theatre - "Will you speculate..." - "No, I won't speculate"
Perhaps there is time to do both?
Or maybe ask for more briefings - "Can we have a briefing from the Education Sec on the school exam situation? And on the planning (if any) for remote schooling if this drags on?"
Alcohol-related deaths are mainly chronic conditions so you wouldn't expect to see a relationship between that and a change that happened 8 months ago.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
I just don't see that at all Alastair. Decisions are being made by the Cabinet with the advice of COBRA. Ashworth and Hancock are already working together well in the way I have described. The government has changed its position repeatedly as the facts have evolved away from the models the first decisions were based upon. That is not a climb down, its common sense and intelligent management of the situation. But there is always a risk of groupthink. Critical analysis is very important as you succinctly said in one of the first posts of the thread.
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
I don't want or expect a GNU but I can see the appeal. It's the Starmer effect. I sense that many people deep down - including Conservative supporters - would rather he was in charge right now instead of Boris Johnson. Not because Boris is ailing, if anything that has shored up his position, but because Starmer makes you feel safe, which is what people are craving as the virus stalks the land. They do not want to be stimulated, either positively or negatively, they want to feel secure and looked after. I'm sure they realize - since people are not fools - that Starmer could only be Deputy PM in the GNU, with Boris staying nominally in charge, but that would probably suffice.
The other (more technical) point to note in favour of a GNU is that the GE mandate from Dec 12th last year has been effectively nullified. The Conservative majority was derived from two things - distaste for Jeremy Corbyn and a weariness with the Brexit debate. Both are now redundant. There is no Jeremy Corbyn and there is no Brexit debate. Indeed there is no Brexit and precious little appetite for that to change. So we have a government with no mandate but no practical possibility of a new election. A GNU does seem an elegant solution to this impasse. Combat the virus, that is the one and only task and it suits a GNU better than it does any one party. But anyway, whatever, it's not happening.
Brexit happened on January 31st if you were asleep that day
or roughly 25 political years ago given the current pandemic.
I don't think a government of national unity is needed, regular briefings from the government for the opposition are fine
I think I agree with that. It is hard to publicly scrutinise if you are part of the decision making (although not impossible).
However I do think (as I think they are) that the Govt needs to be very open and involve the opposition parties as much as possible otherwise.
I think it is sad that it is only in times of of national emergencies that politicians take this approach. I wish politicians were more honest and open rather than just slagging each other off with often misrepresentations of their opponents views.
It is possible to disagree honestly and constructively. The public would respect them more for it also.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
So these are the sort of questions you want to ask the govt at 5pm?
Yes.
I think you misunderstand the nature of our political process, its participants, and the appetite for its consumption in the UK.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Regrettably the virus is not vulnerable to a nuclear attack so it doesn't really matter. What is important is that there is what @GeoffM critical feedback.
I think you misunderstand the nature of our political process, its participants, and the appetite for its consumption in the UK.
Not on PB, obvs, but in the UK.
This isn't about a show. There are actually also really serious ethical questions. When Labour wanted to introduce ID cards, the press pack regularly challenged the government on civil liberties, data protection, etc issues.
One strand of the response going forward will absolutely require similar public discussions. Are we willing to let the government know a lot more about our lives and if so what protections will be in place.
I bet the public have absolutely no idea a) this is why South Korea are doing so well and b) it is more than likely we will have to at least entertain this. Instead they just focused on the test numbers, that is only a small part of the story. Contact tracing and forced isolation are really why South Korea wins.
My hunch is that most of the electorate have a better appreciation of the difficulties involved in making big decisions based on inadequate data than the hacks. As an example the distorted crap on the DM site tends to have hostile comments pointing out the obvious flaws in the article with big tick counts. I think that the influence of the MSM will be reduced by this crisis. In the recent past I would have regretted that due to the state of social media. Now? I'm not so sure.
End of the lockdown has to be based on the medical situation, not the calendar.
An artificial timetable will only placate the screeching harpies for a moment before they find something else to shriek about. It would then either be met, by chance, or not, which means that they'd complain they were lied to, or somesuch nonsense.
We aren't even past the peak yet. Ending a lockdown when deaths are rising by nearly a thousand a day would be bloody stupid, and it's obvious to anyone who pauses for half a moment to think.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Raab through Cobra.
Cobra make the decisions and the first ministers implement the same decisions more or less across the devolved nations
Just what is so difficult to understand
Because the media focused on this yesterday. Why even on PB yesterday morning we were questioning what the process was with Johnson out of action.
Otherwise nothing would have happened and to answer your question, for you yes it does seem quite difficult to understand.
This is rubbish. The Government had systems in place for this long before it was necessary and have been following the protocols supported by the Civil Service. Just because they have not chosen to tell the idiot press every last detail does not mean they weren't following those protocols.
Anyone who thinks that the moronic journalism that we have seen so far has done anything to move Government policy is frankly deluded - or more likely following their own politically motivated agenda.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
I think the most banal question was from the Daily Mirror hack asking if the govt would support their campaign for medals for the NHS. Which is rapidly becoming a national obsession/religion.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
I just don't see that at all Alastair. Decisions are being made by the Cabinet with the advice of COBRA. Ashworth and Hancock are already working together well in the way I have described. The government has changed its position repeatedly as the facts have evolved away from the models the first decisions were based upon. That is not a climb down, its common sense and intelligent management of the situation. But there is always a risk of groupthink. Critical analysis is very important as you succinctly said in one of the first posts of the thread.
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
Yes, I agree. The government`s handling on this is impressive so far. Credit where credit`s due. But Johnson`s stay in hospital can only be temporary, or else replacement will regrettably have to be made. My hunch is that he`ll be back in a week or two.
Greater Manchester police have urged people not to flout lockdown rules over Easter after officers broke up 660 parties last weekend.
The force’s chief constable, Ian Hopkins, said:
We understand the desire people will have to spend time with family and friends over the Easter period, however it is vital that we follow the government guidelines.
The force said there were 1,132 coronavirus-related breaches reported between Saturday and Tuesday, including 494 house parties – some with DJs and fireworks – as well as 166 street parties.
A woman in Bury became the first person in Greater Manchester to be charged under the Coronavirus Act 2020 after police were forced to shut down one party several times.
Officers also dispersed 122 groups gathering to play sports and 173 gatherings in parks, and dealt with 112 incidents of antisocial behaviour and public disorder.
On Sunday, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, warned the public that outdoor exercise could be banned if people ignored physical distancing measures during warmer weather.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike. Otherwise constituionally there is no requirement for a PM, it only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state. The PM is simply the head of her majesty's government in parliament
There is a requirement for a PM if decisions are being postponed because he is not available.
The govt was set up to postpone one such decision (a review of the lockdown) for precisely that reason until the press kicked up a fuss and now there is a COBRA meeting today to discuss it.
I am proud to be part of that democratically accountable process that has resulted in the government listening to us as articulated through the free press.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
Nah the media have been instrumental at key moments. In particular, they helped turn the government away from its initial herd immunity approach.
Today the key question the government needs to answer is what is the exit strategy. The government can’t answer it, because we don’t have an exit strategy. But the media must keep pressing the question.
So lets just try and get some facts here.
Neill Ferguson has a model he created 13 years ago. It isn't really fit for purpose, but it was the best thing we had. Not just trusted by the UK, but the US as well.
Using initial data from China, it spat out some finding, which the government advisors based their initial strategy. It is fairly clear China have fiddled the figures (and the model isn't as good as is needed).
Then new data started to emerge, especially from Italy, rerunning the model, it was this updated output stated that the initial strategy would result in twice as many hospitalization and totally crash the system. That resulted in a total change of strategy by the government.
Now, ending the lockdown and our future, we can't do this without much more and improved data and far more sophisticated modelling.
1) Data
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
You left out poetry. As Kipling wrote: Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should, We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
Mr. Floater, I'm sure they'll be complaining the Government didn't do enough if their own irresponsible behaviour leads to them or their loved ones getting this potentially fatal disease.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
The government put a lot of faith in being able to deploy these antibody tests. They have given millions to a British company, who haven't got very far and also tried buying them from China, who yet again, have been found to be billy bullshitting. Porton Down can accurately do the antibody tests, but that is very different from doing it at scale.
Then we come to how are we going to contact trace in the future. Is this app really going to be voluntary (that seems a bad idea to me). Are we going to go the South Korea route and allow government spying? If so, to what extent? What about forced isolation and systems which prevent those affected from using public transport etc.
2) Modelling
We need much improved system to do this. There is work beginning on this, but it will take time. There are masses of questions surrounding this that could and should be raised.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
This is a very good comment. (Which I've had to cut for length.)
The concern I have is that the government defers too much to the scientific advice, effectively delegating decisions which are not amenable too being settled by the science. The scientists themselves (understandably) don't wish to make policy, and perhaps end up being over conservative in their recommendations.
Certainly they end up making assumptions which are not science based.
I posted an article on the last thread about the early government response, which is quite long, but I think worth reading in full.
“We had milder interventions in place,” said Edmunds, because no one thought it would be acceptable politically “to shut the country down.” He added: “We didn’t model it because it didn’t seem to be on the agenda. And Imperial (College) didn’t look at it either.” The NERVTAG committee agreed, noting in its minutes that tough measures in the short term would be pointless, as they “would only delay the UK outbreak, not prevent it.”...
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Is he demanding to be told more in private about the mid to long term thinking, or is he demanding the government start publicly giving dates etc.? If it's the former then fair enough, if it's the latter he can do one.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Raab through Cobra.
Cobra make the decisions and the first ministers implement the same decisions more or less across the devolved nations
Just what is so difficult to understand
Because the media focused on this yesterday. Why even on PB yesterday morning we were questioning what the process was with Johnson out of action.
Otherwise nothing would have happened and to answer your question, for you yes it does seem quite difficult to understand.
This is rubbish. The Government had systems in place for this long before it was necessary and have been following the protocols supported by the Civil Service. Just because they have not chosen to tell the idiot press every last detail does not mean they weren't following those protocols.
Anyone who thinks that the moronic journalism that we have seen so far has done anything to move Government policy is frankly deluded - or more likely following their own politically motivated agenda.
Personally I have no political agenda on this issue aside from wanting the government to succeed in its fight against the virus.
However I do think journalists and journalism can, and will, move govt policy. The reaction to the rabid press and the idiot Piers Morgan ranting about people being out a couple of weekends ago would certainly help hasten the lockdown.
The journalism has been moronic. I dont bother with the press conferences now. I don't want to listen to narcissistic, highly paid, idiots like Peston or Rigby asking stupid questions purely for the sake of feeding the 24 hour news cycle, tripping up politicians and stroking their own useless egos.
Surprised is probably a little too strong but disappointed certainly. It seemed to me a plausible policy to address a particular problem in Scotland which results in far too much premature death and chronic illness as well as domestic violence etc.
I think another year might be worth a go although this year is going to be highly distorted by the closure of pubs and social contact. If it doesn't show any improvement then I think it should be put into the nice idea but didn't work bin.
How are we doing at the 2-weeks behind Italy measure?
The predictable use of it by Boris haters only when we were around the same or worse than Italy is the only reason I ever mentioned it. I just wanted to point out you wouldn’t until you could use it as a criticism, and said so at the time. They call it a free option.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
My hunch is that most of the electorate have a better appreciation of the difficulties involved in making big decisions based on inadequate data than the hacks. As an example the distorted crap on the DM site tends to have hostile comments pointing out the obvious flaws in the article with big tick counts. I think that the influence of the MSM will be reduced by this crisis. In the recent past I would have regretted that due to the state of social media. Now? I'm not so sure.
The role of the 24 hour media in our politics during the last decade has been absolutely lamentable, in good times and bad.
Remember the furore caused by the Pasty Tax? The Aston Villa/West Ham confusion'? These were all whipped up to create a notion of crisis where there was in fact simply smooth government and little to report on. These constructions do not go unnoticed by the public.
When there actually is a crisis, the boys (and girls) who cried wolf go into overdrive, but still manage to overplay their strong hand. Not a single person I have spoken to in real life worries about the constitutional issues at the moment; they're more concerned about the health of themselves, their family, and actually, the PM. God willing when he comes out of this there will probably be more unity in the country than there has been since Blair's early days. That will really be one in the eye for the media, but no doubt they'll find some story to try and divide opinion and get clicks and retweets.
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
I`m with you. Maybe there is an existing relationship between Biden and Harris that we are not aware of?
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Is he demanding to be told more in private about the mid to long term thinking, or is he demanding the government start publicly giving dates etc.? If it's the former then fair enough, if it's the latter he can do one.
He's said 'publish' the strategy, so presumably he's not asking for a sensible briefing on the various highly speculative scenarios which are no doubt being bandied about within government and its advisers, and which will necessarily be hedged about with multiple conditions depending on how things play out here and in other countries, and how the medical research develops. To be fair, he did say he wasn't asking for a specific date, but that is by no means the only uncertainty in this,
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
SKS is actually falling into the howling-at-the-moon opposition position already. I'm surprised, I thought he'd be more measured.
Blair always managed to chip, chip away at Government policy - rather than make outright demands and sound like a petulent child doing so. It worked rather well for him, but no subsequent leader has managed it.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
Our favourite Minister, Ms P Patel is according to the Guardian, being 'accused by an influential group of MPs of avoiding scrutiny at a time of national emergency, a tranche of correspondence has revealed.
Yvette Cooper, the chair of the home affairs select committee, has written to Patel six times – most recently in a letter issued on Wednesday – in an attempt to fix a date for the home secretary to give evidence in public to the committee, but a date for a hearing has not been confirmed.'
It might be interesting if she DID do the afternoon briefing soon.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
I just don't see that at all Alastair. Decisions are being made by the Cabinet with the advice of COBRA. Ashworth and Hancock are already working together well in the way I have described. The government has changed its position repeatedly as the facts have evolved away from the models the first decisions were based upon. That is not a climb down, its common sense and intelligent management of the situation. But there is always a risk of groupthink. Critical analysis is very important as you succinctly said in one of the first posts of the thread.
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
Yes, I agree. The government`s handling on this is impressive so far. Credit where credit`s due. But Johnson`s stay in hospital can only be temporary, or else replacement will regrettably have to be made. My hunch is that he`ll be back in a week or two.
I don't know if @Foxy or anyone else can help with this but Boris has gone through something deeply traumatic. A significant period of rehabilitation/convalescence is likely to be required/advisable.
And, I hate to say, Boris is a long way from being out of the woods yet. Gradual recovery followed by sudden deterioration seems the modus operandi of this virus.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Can't you argue on a distinction between strategy and tactics?
The government should have a strategy - indeed they've stated the broad outlines of one already: large increase in testing, gradual relaxation in restrictions, etc. There will clearly then be tactical decisions about when you can implement elements of the strategy.
It's not unreasonable to ask for more detail on the strategy, things like at what level of easing of restrictions do the extraordinary government support schemes stop, or what broad threshold for new cases are they aiming for before easing restrictions, what order will restrictions be lifted.
You wouldn't expect the government to make the tactical decisions now - like what date that restrictions will end on as the media want to know - but you can have a strategy that indicates how you will make that decision.
The latest analysis of data from the COVID Symptom Tracker app, used by over 2 million people, shows the rate of new symptoms being reported nationally has slowed down significantly in the past few days. The latest figures estimate that 1.4 million people in the UK aged 20-69 have symptomatic COVID, a fall from 1.9 million on the 1st April. https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-isolation
So overall herd immunity up to, what, 5%?
Infection rate, not herd immunity, which is the specific case of a high infection rate.
You’d expect it to be higher, because only two million are using the App and this will exclude many older people, and because people with symptoms are being added and deducted all the time even from a stable total. And you need to add whatever is the rate of asymptomatic/mild infection.
On the other hand, there is the human tendency to imagine whatever symptoms are in the news.
Yes, I mean the herd is the UK population and if 5% of us have now had it you'd expect most of that 5% to have some level of immunity to it in future.
I presume it needs to get up to 80%+ or so for everyone to be "covered".
"Herd immunity" means that the herd is immune because a sufficient percentage of individuals are immune that fresh outbreaks no longer grow exponentially.
It requires 1 minus 1 over R to be immune, where R is the average number of new cases produced by each case in the absence of any immunity in the population. So probably something like 60% if everyone behaved normally, based on R=2.4. (80% was the estimate of how many would have been infected if everyone had behaved normally, but that would have overshot the level needed for herd immunity.)
But if some counter-measures remained in place, leading to a lower R, you would get a kind of temporary herd immunity at a lower level. For example, if counter-measures reduced R by a third, to 1.6, you would get it at about 40%.
On such evidence as we have, it looks to me as though (if our lockdown works in a similar way to the ones in Italy and Spain, but not quite as well) maybe 15% will have been infected when the first wave subsides. Perhaps twice that in London. If on top of that we could keep in place counter-measures sufficient to halve the R number, it might be enough to prevent another significant wave.
I would guess a lot of economic activity could be normalised consistent with that, but I suspect it mostly spreads through people socialising, and I doubt enough people would be willing to forgo that over a longer period.
If we reach such a point, it becomes possible to return to the government's plan A, with just enough social restrictions to keep the steady flow of critical patients below the capacity (local or national) of the NHS.
I can however sadly foresee a lot of PTSD and other stress-related problems among health workers.
The government's Plan A was to achieve herd-immunity by means of a single wave peaking over two months! There was never any way the NHS would have been able to cope with that. I suspect the real point about "flattening the curve" was to try to get to herd immunity (say 60%) without overshooting to the 80% that the models suggested.
The BBC mentions a "Home Office scientific adviser" who apparently doesn't understand the difference between the herd immunity level and the percentage who would be infected in that single wave: On Tuesday, staff [at the Passport Office] were told by a Home Office scientific adviser 80% of people would get Covid-19 in the end and "we can't hide away from it forever". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219930
Perhaps a disturbing insight into official thinking - or lack of it.
The Home Office scientific adviser (which I assume = mid level civil servant) doesn't say anything about a single wave.
S/he says "get it in the end". If you assume that the herd immunity level is = 80% then +/- you'd expect about that percentage to "get it in the end" absent a vaccine or some other way of acquiring immunity
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
Either he hasn't asked, hasn't researched it or is being purely political. There is a body of scientific work being undertaken on this and a timeline that this work will take to report. Any demands to publish this second, will be mostly hand wavey.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
I just don't see that at all Alastair. Decisions are being made by the Cabinet with the advice of COBRA. Ashworth and Hancock are already working together well in the way I have described. The government has changed its position repeatedly as the facts have evolved away from the models the first decisions were based upon. That is not a climb down, its common sense and intelligent management of the situation. But there is always a risk of groupthink. Critical analysis is very important as you succinctly said in one of the first posts of the thread.
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
Yes, I agree. The government`s handling on this is impressive so far. Credit where credit`s due. But Johnson`s stay in hospital can only be temporary, or else replacement will regrettably have to be made. My hunch is that he`ll be back in a week or two.
I don't know if @Foxy or anyone else can help with this but Boris has gone through something deeply traumatic. A significant period of rehabilitation/convalescence is likely to be required/advisable.
And, I hate to say, Boris is a long way from being out of the woods yet. Gradual recovery followed by sudden deterioration seems the modus operandi of this virus.
On R4 this morning it was said that it can take up to a year to recover fully from having been on a ventilator. Fortunately Boris hasn't/didn't reach this stage, nor had he pneumonia, which also takes time to recover from and can leave lasting damage.
Someone creative living in a high rise or a place with no out door space should make a song or short film sampling ‘An English Country Garden’ contrasting inner city lockdown life with that of those in the leafy parts of the UK
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
I just don't see that at all Alastair. Decisions are being made by the Cabinet with the advice of COBRA. Ashworth and Hancock are already working together well in the way I have described. The government has changed its position repeatedly as the facts have evolved away from the models the first decisions were based upon. That is not a climb down, its common sense and intelligent management of the situation. But there is always a risk of groupthink. Critical analysis is very important as you succinctly said in one of the first posts of the thread.
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
Yes, I agree. The government`s handling on this is impressive so far. Credit where credit`s due. But Johnson`s stay in hospital can only be temporary, or else replacement will regrettably have to be made. My hunch is that he`ll be back in a week or two.
I don't know if @Foxy or anyone else can help with this but Boris has gone through something deeply traumatic. A significant period of rehabilitation/convalescence is likely to be required/advisable.
And, I hate to say, Boris is a long way from being out of the woods yet. Gradual recovery followed by sudden deterioration seems the modus operandi of this virus.
Yes, I`ve heard that too. However, he has had the virus for at least 13 days now - so one would hope that the chance of a second attack has passed (or has already occurred)?
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
There is nothing to level with people about, other than that this is going to be a hard and uncertain route. Surely the very first test of a vaguely grown-up approach is to accept that we, and the government, simply cannot know how this will develop, or what action might be taken when. At best we can speculate about possibilities.
Alcohol-related deaths are mainly chronic conditions so you wouldn't expect to see a relationship between that and a change that happened 8 months ago.
Not against deaths, I asusme the comaprison is against consumption.
And if we can't trust "The UK's original free-market think-tank" for impartial analysis, who can we trust?
Are you suggesting that a man who quotes the BBC calling him an "Ultra-Libertarian" in his Twitter bio, might come out against government interference in free markets?
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
That is a literal answer to what was a metaphorical question.
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
But can anyone accurately forecast where we will be in 3 weeks time? What possible benefit is there to create policies now that may be based upon assumptions that will be proven to be false over those 3 weeks? Nothing more than the broadest of outlines is possible and even then...
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
That is a literal answer to what was a metaphorical question.
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
Well they've told us who has seniority to therefore rule on such arguments, even a formal deputy would no clearer and if mandate is a concern no temporary other figure even to replace Boris would have a mandate either.
So im not clear what people think the solution is to the finger on the button question, as any alternatives seem to be equally unclear even if it were said Boris is no longer PM, Y is, given the mandate question.
Collective responsibility is to a degree a polite fiction to how we operate now, but given other concerns of mandate and the like making it less of a fiction as is the case seems as much an answer as any since the issues people are throwing up would speak against even a replacement or formal deputy doing it.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
Completely disagree, sorry.
After a very few days Starmer has outed himself as just another typical tedious petty point scoring politician.
A few weeks ago people were screaming why aren't we in lockdown, now they are screaming Why aren't we being told when it's ending? FFS
It's risible - Read all the entirely valid criticism of the idiotic way journalists are behaving - Starmer's comment achieves nothing at all other than get him on the news. If he wants to be seen as a step up from Corbyn he needs to grow up a bit.
Publishing guesses which will inevitably not turn out exactly as stated would be a hiding to nothing for the government and achieve precisely nothing other than to give the likes of Starmer something to criticise about when the future does not pan out as predicted even on the best evidence available today. Pointless
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
There is nothing to level with people about, other than that this is going to be a hard and uncertain route. Surely the very first test of a vaguely grown-up approach is to accept that we, and the government, simply cannot know how this will develop, or what action might be taken when. At best we can speculate about possibilities.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
There is nothing to level with people about, other than that this is going to be a hard and uncertain route. Surely the very first test of a vaguely grown-up approach is to accept that we, and the government, simply cannot know how this will develop, or what action might be taken when. At best we can speculate about possibilities.
The 'grown-up' approach is to share and discuss the criteria on which the decision will be made. You don't need to say exactly when it will happen to make progress on the goals of the policy. If a relaxation is weeks away, we should know what we want to achieve by the lockdown now.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
That is a literal answer to what was a metaphorical question.
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
Do we know with certainty that there is no letter to Cabinet? If he has been sat up in bed, it's not a great leap to write a couple of paragraphs of "look here, you lot...."
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
So completely does the death cult have journalists on ignore that they spend about 6 hours a day wailing about them.
If ever there was a more inapporpriate time to splash about your derogatory term "death cult"....
Maybe try using it humourously in South Korea. See how well it goes down there.
If there’s one good thing about Covid-19 as opposed to Brexit it’s that the risks of death, pain and suffering are quite evenly distributed. The death cult were entirely happy to risk the lives of other people to secure carcrash Brexit. They still are: witness how mute they are in the face of the government’s continued insistence that the transition period should end, deal or no deal, on 31 December.
Somehow when their own lives are at risk, they aren’t so nonchalant about the risks being run. Funny that.
Posting for the fifth time as you haven't bothered to acknowledge or reflect on the other times. Instead you continue to recycle your trope.
The last thing the country needs is an argument about Brexit at this point.
If the government says it is being extended then Farage and a small group of idiots will start creaming about betrayal and plots and cause unnecessary division.
So the government says that it is not being extended.
But if there comes a point when it needed to be extended then it will. If you were being uncharitable you could say that the government is misleading people. That is certainly arguable, possibly probable. But also in the national interest.
Not so sure what people are getting from Maitlis' intro.
Yes, the pandemic is unfair.
That doesn't mean it's a pretext to suddenly re-evaluate the way those who are deemed essential are treated or paid in normal circumstances. Wait staff can't work at all. They're not hugely well-paid when they do work. Using the pandemic as the basis of making changes would see shelfstackers and doctors get pay rises, whilst wait staff don't.
It reminds me a bit of people who refer to the Black Death and the ensuing economic and social changes. Most of those had been in the pipeline anyway.
And yeah, life in a tower block is worse than life in a big, detached house. What's the practical policy to change that? Because if you build more houses people bitch about that too. And there isn't unlimited taxpayers' money, despite recent promises, to spray around endlessly to make us all effortlessly comfortable and rich.
As an aside, fascinating to have her give a speech on the way different groups are affected by the measures taken to combat the disease, whilst missing out that old men are far and away the biggest group at risk.
When a problem mostly affects women (domestic violence, for example) it tends to get gendered. This happens much less with mostly male problems (homelessness), although that is changing somewhat with suicide.
Here is another tack of questions for journalists.
97% of the supply of antibiotics are made in China, insert other facts about dominance of China in the supply chain of crucial chemicals, drugs and equipment e.g. China seized the stock pile and production of the largest British owned producer of PPE.
Do you think the government relaxed attitude to China increasing dominance of sectors crucial to national security and self sufficiency have been a mistake. Will we see a shift going forward? Are the government undertaking any further assessments of other crucial sectors that are being affected by the fact we rely on a few countries for many items e.g. Germany for reagents, in case this crisis continues for many months or years.
What about food supplies. We get a lot from Europe, but also from Africa and Central America. The virus is hitting central America hard and I think concern that Africa could be really badly hit. What impact could that have on the availability of foods in the UK going forward. Minister have the government modelled any of these scenarios, etc etc etc.
See it really isn't hard to think of important questions, that don't involve the minute details of the 0.0000000000000000001% chance that the fourth in line is also taken ill and Russia launches a nuke.
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
Didn't she have a massive go at Biden over his attitudes to/record on race in one of the debates? If it came to pass it'd look like a cynical lash up (though not the first or last time that'll happen).
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
Whitmer is the better choice as Michigan governor yes and Biden knows that too
Mr. C, I agree. Starmer was very quick to throw out the loony mayor, for which he rightly got praise, but wibbling about an exit strategy from lockdown when we aren't even at the peak is just opposition for the sake of it.
Alcohol-related deaths are mainly chronic conditions so you wouldn't expect to see a relationship between that and a change that happened 8 months ago.
Not against deaths, I asusme the comaprison is against consumption.
If you read the report (and I suggest you don't since it's flawed) the author says that the 7.3% reduction in alcohol related deaths in Scotland is basically the same as the 7.1% reduction in alcohol related deaths in England and Wales.
Ergo no health benefit from minimum pricing.
It's a bit like saying, we introduced healthy meals in schools yesterday, but the children still seem to be overweight. Clearly the policy has failed.
My hunch is that most of the electorate have a better appreciation of the difficulties involved in making big decisions based on inadequate data than the hacks. As an example the distorted crap on the DM site tends to have hostile comments pointing out the obvious flaws in the article with big tick counts. I think that the influence of the MSM will be reduced by this crisis. In the recent past I would have regretted that due to the state of social media. Now? I'm not so sure.
The role of the 24 hour media in our politics during the last decade has been absolutely lamentable, in good times and bad.
Remember the furore caused by the Pasty Tax? The Aston Villa/West Ham confusion'? These were all whipped up to create a notion of crisis where there was in fact simply smooth government and little to report on. These constructions do not go unnoticed by the public.
When there actually is a crisis, the boys (and girls) who cried wolf go into overdrive, but still manage to overplay their strong hand. Not a single person I have spoken to in real life worries about the constitutional issues at the moment; they're more concerned about the health of themselves, their family, and actually, the PM. God willing when he comes out of this there will probably be more unity in the country than there has been since Blair's early days. That will really be one in the eye for the media, but no doubt they'll find some story to try and divide opinion and get clicks and retweets.
No, the pasty tax really was significant in two ways. The West Ham/Aston Villa confusion was more akin to Tony Blair's favourite food changing as he drove north to watch Jackie Milburn play (even though he'd not actually claimed that).
The pasty tax and the omnishambles budget as a whole showed: 1) Osborne was out of touch with the Conservative Party in the country running small businesses and repairing the church roof; 2) Osborne's much-vaunted political antennae were actually his ability to read focus group output and thus useless in advance, as the budget contained a number of measures that McBride happily revealed were proposed by the Treasury every year but rejected by politicians alert to their toxicity.
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
Didn't she have a massive go at Biden over his attitudes to race in one of the debates? If it came to pass it'd look look a cynical lash up (though not the first or last time that'll happen).
She already endorsed him. And yes, it was a cynical lash up.
On topic: It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that Sir Keir Starmer is already, presumably for cynical party-political reasons, making ludicrous demands for the government to publish its lockdown exit strategy.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
Keir is absolutely right to push this. The government needs to publish its approach or at least the options it is considering. Time to level with the British people.
Completely disagree, sorry.
After a very few days Starmer has outed himself as just another typical tedious petty point scoring politician.
A few weeks ago people were screaming why aren't we in lockdown, now they are screaming Why aren't we being told when it's ending? FFS
It's risible - Read all the entirely valid criticism of the idiotic way journalists are behaving - Starmer's comment achieves nothing at all other than get him on the news. If he wants to be seen as a step up from Corbyn he needs to grow up a bit.
Publishing guesses which will inevitably not turn out exactly as stated would be a hiding to nothing for the government and achieve precisely nothing other than to give the likes of Starmer something to criticise about when the future does not pan out as predicted even on the best evidence available today. Pointless
You are wrong. We can make progress with the post lockdown policy. We need to know what the goals are. There is a big political decision coming up and we need to start work now.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Regrettably the virus is not vulnerable to a nuclear attack so it doesn't really matter. What is important is that there is what @GeoffM critical feedback.
geoffw. GeoffM was an interesting poster based in Gibraltar iirc.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
It would be nice if the health/science correspondents were asking the questions rather than the political correspondents who seem to want to reduce everything down to "are you disagreeing with your cabinet colleagues?"
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
Didn't she have a massive go at Biden over his attitudes to/record on race in one of the debates? If it came to pass it'd look look a cynical lash up (though not the first or last time that'll happen).
In fairness, former rivals often endorse and campaign together.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
So completely does the death cult have journalists on ignore that they spend about 6 hours a day wailing about them.
If ever there was a more inapporpriate time to splash about your derogatory term "death cult"....
Maybe try using it humourously in South Korea. See how well it goes down there.
If there’s one good thing about Covid-19 as opposed to Brexit it’s that the risks of death, pain and suffering are quite evenly distributed. The death cult were entirely happy to risk the lives of other people to secure carcrash Brexit. They still are: witness how mute they are in the face of the government’s continued insistence that the transition period should end, deal or no deal, on 31 December.
Somehow when their own lives are at risk, they aren’t so nonchalant about the risks being run. Funny that.
Posting for the fifth time as you haven't bothered to acknowledge or reflect on the other times. Instead you continue to recycle your trope.
The last thing the country needs is an argument about Brexit at this point.
If the government says it is being extended then Farage and a small group of idiots will start creaming about betrayal and plots and cause unnecessary division.
So the government says that it is not being extended.
But if there comes a point when it needed to be extended then it will. If you were being uncharitable you could say that the government is misleading people. That is certainly arguable, possibly probable. But also in the national interest.
I don`t think that resistance to extending the transition period would be great, given current circumstances. It all hinges on the what is the best tactic to get the best deal for the UK. The EU is our competitor now. If extending transition is needed to secure this aim then so be it. On the other hand it may be that sticking to the timetable (and the law) helps secure a good deal for us, in which case it should definitely not be extended. I don`t know the answer to that.
Who in their right minds would want any of the labour front bench in government? There isn't one of them who would be an improvement on the actual 80 seat majority government and as they are all remainers, you just know they'd spend most their time trying to rescind and stop Brexit, all over again.
The 'grown-up' approach is to share and discuss the criteria on which the decision will be made. You don't need to say exactly when it will happen to make progress on the goals of the policy. If a relaxation is weeks away, we should know what we want to achieve by the lockdown now.
You are making the same error Sir Keir deliberately makes - to pretend that the only uncertainty is the duration.
As for what we want to achieve by lockdown, what could possibly be clearer? To save lives and to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. It's not exactly complicated, and it has been repeated ad nauseam by the government. How we end it - indeed how any country ends it - is completely unknown at this stage. We just have to be patient.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
That is a literal answer to what was a metaphorical question.
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
Yes there is a clear leader. Its Raab. Raab is deputising for Johnson.
If Raab gets incapacitated too then next in line is Sunak.
This is getting more bonkers by the day. Media now screaming: tell us how the lockdown will end, when will it end, why can't you tell us when it will end.
Two weeks ago: screaming - why are we not locked down now, why are we still allowed to go out of our houses, you must lock us all down now.
I hope it will be recalled that the experts and Johnson and co, warned that we shouldn't start it too soon, because would get fed up of it after a few weeks.
Media are still losing their collective minds over this, more than any other group of people they are having a terrible crisis - and still don't realise it, probably won't until this is all over and they're left talking only to each other in their little echo chamber, while the rest of us have them on ignore.
So completely does the death cult have journalists on ignore that they spend about 6 hours a day wailing about them.
If ever there was a more inapporpriate time to splash about your derogatory term "death cult"....
Maybe try using it humourously in South Korea. See how well it goes down there.
If there’s one good thing about Covid-19 as opposed to Brexit it’s that the risks of death, pain and suffering are quite evenly distributed. The death cult were entirely happy to risk the lives of other people to secure carcrash Brexit. They still are: witness how mute they are in the face of the government’s continued insistence that the transition period should end, deal or no deal, on 31 December.
Somehow when their own lives are at risk, they aren’t so nonchalant about the risks being run. Funny that.
Posting for the fifth time as you haven't bothered to acknowledge or reflect on the other times. Instead you continue to recycle your trope.
The last thing the country needs is an argument about Brexit at this point.
If the government says it is being extended then Farage and a small group of idiots will start creaming about betrayal and plots and cause unnecessary division.
So the government says that it is not being extended.
But if there comes a point when it needed to be extended then it will. If you were being uncharitable you could say that the government is misleading people. That is certainly arguable, possibly probable. But also in the national interest.
There is no evidence that there is going to be an extension other than your wishful thinking. The man who might be in charge is on the record as opposing one. The only people being deceived, as usual, are the self-proclaimed moderate Leavers who yet again are persuading themselves that they need do nothing to get what they want. And yet again they will be confounded them persuade themselves they wanted that all along.
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
It would be nice if the health/science correspondents were asking the questions rather than the political correspondents who seem to want to reduce everything down to "are you disagreeing with your cabinet colleagues?"
Trouble is, the presenter ego.
Have them stand down in favour of people who quietly know what they are talking about, and getting forensic examination of the Government - they fear they won't get invited back. But that can't be allowed to happen, because they are the most important people in their media outlet....
The demands of minute by minute updates by the media, literally every day now asking the same numb nut question of when to the second the lockdown will end aren't doing their job at all.
If they did some reading and some research, they would know there isn't a straight answer to this. Instead, if they want to do their job, challenge the government, they should be focusing on asking questions to the two sections I raised above.
These are hugely challenging and also include many very difficult ethical decisions. If the government screw these up, it could be far worse than any decision taken so far.
It would be nice if the health/science correspondents were asking the questions rather than the political correspondents who seem to want to reduce everything down to "are you disagreeing with your cabinet colleagues?"
When its Mr Yorkshire Tea, have the economist editors, when it is Hancock, health correspondence. It would be far more sensible to alternate CMO / CSO / Head of NHS, and then line up the appropriate journalist for them too.
Instead we get these ridiculous scenarios of Prof Peston trying to educate Jonathan Van-Tam about reagent production.
Also, the political journalists clearly don't really understand the maths behind a lot of this. You can tell the way in which they misreport the death numbers and do a very poor job of explaining the timescales and how they effect the numbers. Perhaps, get some journalists with a maths / mathematical modelling backgrounds on.
Of topic: just thought I`d remind everyone that in the budget Sunak doubled - yes doubled - the junior ISA allowance. Those with children can invest up to £9000 for each child as from Monday. With the markets down it may be a good time to do this??
Not sure why he doubled the JISA allowance - I don`t think any reasoning was given, it was unexpected and hadn`t been lobbied for.
The 'grown-up' approach is to share and discuss the criteria on which the decision will be made. You don't need to say exactly when it will happen to make progress on the goals of the policy. If a relaxation is weeks away, we should know what we want to achieve by the lockdown now.
You are making the same error Sir Keir deliberately makes - to pretend that the only uncertainty is the duration.
As for what we want to achieve by lockdown, what could possibly be clearer? To save lives and to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. It's not exactly complicated, and it has been repeated ad nauseam by the government. How we end it - indeed how any country ends it - is completely unknown at this stage. We just have to be patient.
Nope. We can and should look further ahead. We need a realistic discussion post lockdown.
Are we aiming to eradicate CV19 for the UK now and close borders until a vaccine arises? Are we aiming to keep CV19 cases within he capacity of the NHS to deal with them until a vaccine arises? Are we returning to herd immunity?
Assume it is (2), then it is perfectly possible to model that and suggest what that might mean for people.
Joking aside, I do wonder what level of compliance this suggests. I go on a daily bike ride for exercise which passes a couple of parks and it looks pretty quiet, but I don't see a proper sample of people of course.
Of topic: just thought I`d remind everyone that in the budget Sunak doubled - yes doubled - the junior ISA allowance. Those with children can invest up to £9000 for each child as from Monday. With the markets down it may be a good time to do this??
Not sure why he doubled the JISA allowance - I don`t think any reasoning was given, it was unexpected and hadn`t been lobbied for.
Of topic: just thought I`d remind everyone that in the budget Sunak doubled - yes doubled - the junior ISA allowance. Those with children can invest up to £9000 for each child as from Monday. With the markets down it may be a good time to do this??
Not sure why he doubled the JISA allowance - I don`t think any reasoning was given, it was unexpected and hadn`t been lobbied for.
Didn't realize that. Another big giveaway to the wealthy.
I don't really understand why Harris is a strong favourite to be the VP nominee. Electorally a white woman from the Midwest would seem more appealing, and there are good options there. Harris would be a fine choice, but she doesn't seem the standout choice to me. What am I missing?
Didn't she have a massive go at Biden over his attitudes to/record on race in one of the debates? If it came to pass it'd look look a cynical lash up (though not the first or last time that'll happen).
In fairness, former rivals often endorse and campaign together.
Oh, I know. I just wonder if an unimpressive candidate and cynical president & vp package is the way to go.
Answer: It's the Dems, of course it is!
I think some minimal effort to get Sanders and his enthusiastic supporters on board might be in order.
The 'grown-up' approach is to share and discuss the criteria on which the decision will be made. You don't need to say exactly when it will happen to make progress on the goals of the policy. If a relaxation is weeks away, we should know what we want to achieve by the lockdown now.
You are making the same error Sir Keir deliberately makes - to pretend that the only uncertainty is the duration.
As for what we want to achieve by lockdown, what could possibly be clearer? To save lives and to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. It's not exactly complicated, and it has been repeated ad nauseam by the government. How we end it - indeed how any country ends it - is completely unknown at this stage. We just have to be patient.
Nope. We can and should look further ahead. We need a realistic discussion post lockdown.
Are we aiming to eradicate CV19 for the UK now and close borders until a vaccine arises? Are we aiming to keep CV19 cases within he capacity of the NHS to deal with them until a vaccine arises? Are we returning to herd immunity?
Assume it is (2), then it is perfectly possible to model that and suggest what that might mean for people.
I agree, but a grown-up discussion about multiple complex scenarios and trade-offs, all complicated by the current huge uncertainties, is not what Sir Keir is asking for. He is asking for an official strategy - which of course he must know cannot exist, he's not stupid - to be published. I expected much better of him.
Who in their right minds would want any of the labour front bench in government? There isn't one of them who would be an improvement on the actual 80 seat majority government and as they are all remainers, you just know they'd spend most their time trying to rescind and stop Brexit, all over again.
It would allow the blame for any bad decisions to be shared around.
Labour would be absolutely mad if they accepted it.
Brexit happened on January 31st if you were asleep that day
It did. But applying the long established principle of 'substance over form' it didn't and we remain in the EU. With the advent of coronavirus, a global catastrophe on a scale not seen outside apocalyptic fiction, this state of quasi Remain seems likely to persist for many years. Indeed I wonder, when the time finally comes that we can turn our attention back to leaving, whether there will be much of an appetite for it.
I don't see the need for a unity government but the Opposition should be involved to the extent of having open access to all expert briefings and access as required to the ministers that they are shadowing. Parliament was eventually closed after a frightening number of them got the virus but the government still needs to be held to account, challenged by different points of view and made to address awkward facts. This needs to be done more one to one at the moment but it also needs to be done on an informed basis.
This need is all the more urgent given the lamentable performance by the Westminster press pack. Why they are still giving questions to people who may (or may not) know about politics but who seem essentially innumerate and unable to grasp the clear explanations being presented by the experts is beyond me. Surely the media employ some people with science degrees?
This government has made and will continue to make mistakes. Frankly, if they are not making mistakes they are not moving nearly fast enough. The priority is to spot and correct those mistakes early. An opposition led by someone with a brain can assist with that. Its a really important role.
The government is refusing point blank to discuss how it is even making decisions just now. The idea that different questions will elicit answers with any meaning when it is so contemptuous of being held to account and so readily supported by gullible followers is fanciful.
But they have. Cabinet are meeting and cabinet are making decisions.
Collective responsibility is a polite fiction not a decision-making process. Unless you believe that all decisions are inevitably unanimous because no other decision could be reached on the evidence.
Whose finger is on the button?
Boris is still PM and his letter of last resort to Trident sub commanders still stands in the very unlikely event we are hit by a nuclear strike.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
That is a literal answer to what was a metaphorical question.
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
Yes there is a clear leader. Its Raab. Raab is deputising for Johnson.
If Raab gets incapacitated too then next in line is Sunak.
What's confusing about that?
Nothing; but in reality, Raab is the nominal leader only. Controversial decisions - and what happens next will be hugely controversial - are not going to be made by Raab.
In a split cabinet, Boris would prevail given his clear mandate. That is simply not the case for Raab.
Comments
Most planes now are flying with key workers and cargo, on a skeleton service.
Perhaps there is time to do both?
Or maybe ask for more briefings - "Can we have a briefing from the Education Sec on the school exam situation? And on the planning (if any) for remote schooling if this drags on?"
As an example I was speaking to a friend on Skype last night. He is not a doctor or an epidemiologist but he is a brilliant mathematician in his own field which is physics/geology based. He has been asked to be part of a group of non epidemiologists who are to construct models of the virus to see if they bring different insights or identify flawed assumptions. I was delighted to hear this. Lives will be lost when mistakes are made.
However I do think (as I think they are) that the Govt needs to be very open and involve the opposition parties as much as possible otherwise.
I think it is sad that it is only in times of of national emergencies that politicians take this approach. I wish politicians were more honest and open rather than just slagging each other off with often misrepresentations of their opponents views.
It is possible to disagree honestly and constructively. The public would respect them more for it also.
Not on PB, obvs, but in the UK.
Otherwise constitutionally there is no requirement for a PM other than by convention, the position only arose as the most senior of the monarch's ministers in the 18th century but it is the monarch, not the PM who is head of state.
The PM is simply the most senior member of her majesty's government in parliament
One strand of the response going forward will absolutely require similar public discussions. Are we willing to let the government know a lot more about our lives and if so what protections will be in place.
I bet the public have absolutely no idea a) this is why South Korea are doing so well and b) it is more than likely we will have to at least entertain this. Instead they just focused on the test numbers, that is only a small part of the story. Contact tracing and forced isolation are really why South Korea wins.
Anyone who thinks that the moronic journalism that we have seen so far has done anything to move Government policy is frankly deluded - or more likely following their own politically motivated agenda.
Greater Manchester police have urged people not to flout lockdown rules over Easter after officers broke up 660 parties last weekend.
The force’s chief constable, Ian Hopkins, said:
We understand the desire people will have to spend time with family and friends over the Easter period, however it is vital that we follow the government guidelines.
The force said there were 1,132 coronavirus-related breaches reported between Saturday and Tuesday, including 494 house parties – some with DJs and fireworks – as well as 166 street parties.
A woman in Bury became the first person in Greater Manchester to be charged under the Coronavirus Act 2020 after police were forced to shut down one party several times.
Officers also dispersed 122 groups gathering to play sports and 173 gatherings in parks, and dealt with 112 incidents of antisocial behaviour and public disorder.
On Sunday, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, warned the public that outdoor exercise could be banned if people ignored physical distancing measures during warmer weather.
The govt was set up to postpone one such decision (a review of the lockdown) for precisely that reason until the press kicked up a fuss and now there is a COBRA meeting today to discuss it.
I am proud to be part of that democratically accountable process that has resulted in the government listening to us as articulated through the free press.
Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
I think it must be for party-political reasons, because Sir Keir surely can't be so stupid as to genuinely think that it is even remotely possible to define an exit strategy in the current hugely uncertain and fast-changing situation.
The concern I have is that the government defers too much to the scientific advice, effectively delegating decisions which are not amenable too being settled by the science. The scientists themselves (understandably) don't wish to make policy, and perhaps end up being over conservative in their recommendations.
Certainly they end up making assumptions which are not science based.
I posted an article on the last thread about the early government response, which is quite long, but I think worth reading in full.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci-idUSKBN21P1VF
As they watched China impose its lockdown, the British scientists assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK. Among those modelling the outbreak, such stringent counter-measures were not, at first, examined.
“We had milder interventions in place,” said Edmunds, because no one thought it would be acceptable politically “to shut the country down.” He added: “We didn’t model it because it didn’t seem to be on the agenda. And Imperial (College) didn’t look at it either.” The NERVTAG committee agreed, noting in its minutes that tough measures in the short term would be pointless, as they “would only delay the UK outbreak, not prevent it.”...
However I do think journalists and journalism can, and will, move govt policy. The reaction to the rabid press and the idiot Piers Morgan ranting about people being out a couple of weekends ago would certainly help hasten the lockdown.
The journalism has been moronic. I dont bother with the press conferences now. I don't want to listen to narcissistic, highly paid, idiots like Peston or Rigby asking stupid questions purely for the sake of feeding the 24 hour news cycle, tripping up politicians and stroking their own useless egos.
I think another year might be worth a go although this year is going to be highly distorted by the closure of pubs and social contact. If it doesn't show any improvement then I think it should be put into the nice idea but didn't work bin.
Second time you’ve fallen into the trap.
Remember the furore caused by the Pasty Tax? The Aston Villa/West Ham confusion'? These were all whipped up to create a notion of crisis where there was in fact simply smooth government and little to report on. These constructions do not go unnoticed by the public.
When there actually is a crisis, the boys (and girls) who cried wolf go into overdrive, but still manage to overplay their strong hand. Not a single person I have spoken to in real life worries about the constitutional issues at the moment; they're more concerned about the health of themselves, their family, and actually, the PM. God willing when he comes out of this there will probably be more unity in the country than there has been since Blair's early days. That will really be one in the eye for the media, but no doubt they'll find some story to try and divide opinion and get clicks and retweets.
Blair always managed to chip, chip away at Government policy - rather than make outright demands and sound like a petulent child doing so. It worked rather well for him, but no subsequent leader has managed it.
Yvette Cooper, the chair of the home affairs select committee, has written to Patel six times – most recently in a letter issued on Wednesday – in an attempt to fix a date for the home secretary to give evidence in public to the committee, but a date for a hearing has not been confirmed.'
It might be interesting if she DID do the afternoon briefing soon.
And, I hate to say, Boris is a long way from being out of the woods yet. Gradual recovery followed by sudden deterioration seems the modus operandi of this virus.
The government should have a strategy - indeed they've stated the broad outlines of one already: large increase in testing, gradual relaxation in restrictions, etc. There will clearly then be tactical decisions about when you can implement elements of the strategy.
It's not unreasonable to ask for more detail on the strategy, things like at what level of easing of restrictions do the extraordinary government support schemes stop, or what broad threshold for new cases are they aiming for before easing restrictions, what order will restrictions be lifted.
You wouldn't expect the government to make the tactical decisions now - like what date that restrictions will end on as the media want to know - but you can have a strategy that indicates how you will make that decision.
S/he says "get it in the end". If you assume that the herd immunity level is = 80% then +/- you'd expect about that percentage to "get it in the end" absent a vaccine or some other way of acquiring immunity
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52182509?source=122648
I should know, I am involved.
https://www.thefore.org/covid-19-response-raft/
He has certainly not left a letter indicating how he wished pandemic policy to change over the next weeks and months. There are going to be some hard choices to be made, and the only person with a strong mandate to lead the cabinet in those choices is Boris.
Constitutionally you are correct - but practically, there is for now no clear leader who might rule on cabinet arguments.
*©Donald Trump and various roasters.
https://us.cnn.com/2020/04/08/politics/what-matters-april-8/index.html
So im not clear what people think the solution is to the finger on the button question, as any alternatives seem to be equally unclear even if it were said Boris is no longer PM, Y is, given the mandate question.
Collective responsibility is to a degree a polite fiction to how we operate now, but given other concerns of mandate and the like making it less of a fiction as is the case seems as much an answer as any since the issues people are throwing up would speak against even a replacement or formal deputy doing it.
After a very few days Starmer has outed himself as just another typical tedious petty point scoring politician.
A few weeks ago people were screaming why aren't we in lockdown, now they are screaming Why aren't we being told when it's ending? FFS
It's risible - Read all the entirely valid criticism of the idiotic way journalists are behaving - Starmer's comment achieves nothing at all other than get him on the news. If he wants to be seen as a step up from Corbyn he needs to grow up a bit.
Publishing guesses which will inevitably not turn out exactly as stated would be a hiding to nothing for the government and achieve precisely nothing other than to give the likes of Starmer something to criticise about when the future does not pan out as predicted even on the best evidence available today. Pointless
The last thing the country needs is an argument about Brexit at this point.
If the government says it is being extended then Farage and a small group of idiots will start creaming about betrayal and plots and cause unnecessary division.
So the government says that it is not being extended.
But if there comes a point when it needed to be extended then it will. If you were being uncharitable you could say that the government is misleading people. That is certainly arguable, possibly probable. But also in the national interest.
Yes, the pandemic is unfair.
That doesn't mean it's a pretext to suddenly re-evaluate the way those who are deemed essential are treated or paid in normal circumstances. Wait staff can't work at all. They're not hugely well-paid when they do work. Using the pandemic as the basis of making changes would see shelfstackers and doctors get pay rises, whilst wait staff don't.
It reminds me a bit of people who refer to the Black Death and the ensuing economic and social changes. Most of those had been in the pipeline anyway.
And yeah, life in a tower block is worse than life in a big, detached house. What's the practical policy to change that? Because if you build more houses people bitch about that too. And there isn't unlimited taxpayers' money, despite recent promises, to spray around endlessly to make us all effortlessly comfortable and rich.
As an aside, fascinating to have her give a speech on the way different groups are affected by the measures taken to combat the disease, whilst missing out that old men are far and away the biggest group at risk.
When a problem mostly affects women (domestic violence, for example) it tends to get gendered. This happens much less with mostly male problems (homelessness), although that is changing somewhat with suicide.
97% of the supply of antibiotics are made in China, insert other facts about dominance of China in the supply chain of crucial chemicals, drugs and equipment e.g. China seized the stock pile and production of the largest British owned producer of PPE.
Do you think the government relaxed attitude to China increasing dominance of sectors crucial to national security and self sufficiency have been a mistake. Will we see a shift going forward? Are the government undertaking any further assessments of other crucial sectors that are being affected by the fact we rely on a few countries for many items e.g. Germany for reagents, in case this crisis continues for many months or years.
What about food supplies. We get a lot from Europe, but also from Africa and Central America. The virus is hitting central America hard and I think concern that Africa could be really badly hit. What impact could that have on the availability of foods in the UK going forward. Minister have the government modelled any of these scenarios, etc etc etc.
See it really isn't hard to think of important questions, that don't involve the minute details of the 0.0000000000000000001% chance that the fourth in line is also taken ill and Russia launches a nuke.
Ergo no health benefit from minimum pricing.
It's a bit like saying, we introduced healthy meals in schools yesterday, but the children still seem to be overweight. Clearly the policy has failed.
The pasty tax and the omnishambles budget as a whole showed:
1) Osborne was out of touch with the Conservative Party in the country running small businesses and repairing the church roof;
2) Osborne's much-vaunted political antennae were actually his ability to read focus group output and thus useless in advance, as the budget contained a number of measures that McBride happily revealed were proposed by the Treasury every year but rejected by politicians alert to their toxicity.
This is why Theresa May threw Osborne out.
As for what we want to achieve by lockdown, what could possibly be clearer? To save lives and to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. It's not exactly complicated, and it has been repeated ad nauseam by the government. How we end it - indeed how any country ends it - is completely unknown at this stage. We just have to be patient.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688
If Raab gets incapacitated too then next in line is Sunak.
What's confusing about that?
Have them stand down in favour of people who quietly know what they are talking about, and getting forensic examination of the Government - they fear they won't get invited back. But that can't be allowed to happen, because they are the most important people in their media outlet....
Instead we get these ridiculous scenarios of Prof Peston trying to educate Jonathan Van-Tam about reagent production.
Also, the political journalists clearly don't really understand the maths behind a lot of this. You can tell the way in which they misreport the death numbers and do a very poor job of explaining the timescales and how they effect the numbers. Perhaps, get some journalists with a maths / mathematical modelling backgrounds on.
Not sure why he doubled the JISA allowance - I don`t think any reasoning was given, it was unexpected and hadn`t been lobbied for.
Are we aiming to eradicate CV19 for the UK now and close borders until a vaccine arises?
Are we aiming to keep CV19 cases within he capacity of the NHS to deal with them until a vaccine arises?
Are we returning to herd immunity?
Assume it is (2), then it is perfectly possible to model that and suggest what that might mean for people.
Joking aside, I do wonder what level of compliance this suggests. I go on a daily bike ride for exercise which passes a couple of parks and it looks pretty quiet, but I don't see a proper sample of people of course.
https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history
Answer: It's the Dems, of course it is!
I think some minimal effort to get Sanders and his enthusiastic supporters on board might be in order.
Labour would be absolutely mad if they accepted it.
In a split cabinet, Boris would prevail given his clear mandate. That is simply not the case for Raab.