It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
Mr. Meeks, you just criticised Leavers as unreasonable and unwilling to accept any deal the EU would want, yet are happy to ignore the fact that the EU itself is now unwilling to accept a deal the EU offered up until the point the UK wanted it.
You said: "You have this naive idea that reasonableness is a relevant test in any negotiation."
I also have the naive idea that reasonableness is a relevant aspect for people.
As Thucydides noted, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Leavers have just decided to move Britain from column A to column B and have introduced this weird idea of reasonableness into the process.
@Foxy how long do you think it will be before elective procedures are restarted or is it impossible to say?
I’m going to email my gastro dr on Monday to ask if there’s any plans to reschedule my cancelled colonoscopy yet...
Cases are being rescheduled along the lines of how time critical they are. Some will be slower than others, particularly when hygiene rules and procedures require review, revision and equipping.
It will vary from place to place too, depending on local pressures and resources.
Some of this is worrying. A friend is sitting at home with a burst appendix, managing it with rest and antibiotics.
Why can’t we put the private hospitals to work on this sort of thing now?
Err, I’m no doctor but people die of that. I’d be calling 999 if I had a burst appendix.
Sent home from hospital. Apparently hers is temporarily stable. There is a class of burst appendix where a mass forms around the rupture. It needs surgery very soon, but they won’t open her up until all this blows over,
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
That is exactly what is being alleged (by the Guardian, if not by their “source’ isn’t it? Admittedly to some extent by insinuation and innuendo, but what else is the basis for the prominence of the story?
It is just a gotcha. It would be more compelling if it weren't a variation on the "Boris didn't chair COBRA" theme.
I can't see the connection. Surely the number of Tories trying to minimise the story, whilst neither denying nor discrediting it, tells us it has struck a nerve.
The reality is that, in trade deals, there are few countries that look to maximize the size of the pot, and they are mostly pretty one sided.
Look at Australia-US, or China-Switzerland, for example. Both deals where you find yourselves asking why the smaller country would take such humiliating terms.
The UK will find it a lot easier to come to agreements with midsized countries like Australia, South Korea and Canada, than they will with the US, China or the EU.
The problem is, of course, that those three trade blocs probably account for 60% of world imports.
I'm reposting this, because I thought it was good comment...
I'm going to quote George W Bush here: “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
It's not a very encouraging start.
I agree with this completely. We need to approach any discussions and deals with the EU openly, candidly and offering a genuine hand of friendship looking for win win solutions. The days of politicians playing the Eurosausage to score points with a rabid and incoherent domestic press must be over. We have left, it is over, now grow up and sort out the practicalities so that they impinge on both parties' lives as little as possible. We have far more important things to worry about.
Not going to happen. There are far too many votes in pandering to the unreasoning and infinite hatred that Leavers have for the EU, an unreasoning and infinite hatred shared by those in power.
Problem is as we know most Leavers are not really able to work things out for themselves and now with Covid 19 the government has exploited their essentially docile nature and hence has a bit of a free pass with its negotiations, such as they are, with the EU.
They don’t care. They would rather eat grass than reach any deal with the EU. By definition, any deal which the EU would accept is unacceptable to Leavers.
And again by definition, any deal that involves anything other than complete acceptance of all EU demands would be unacceptable to you. Never forget Alastair that you are the extremist on here. Even the most committed Leavers have been more accepting of delays, compromises and negotiation than you.
@Foxy how long do you think it will be before elective procedures are restarted or is it impossible to say?
I’m going to email my gastro dr on Monday to ask if there’s any plans to reschedule my cancelled colonoscopy yet...
Cases are being rescheduled along the lines of how time critical they are. Some will be slower than others, particularly when hygiene rules and procedures require review, revision and equipping.
It will vary from place to place too, depending on local pressures and resources.
Some of this is worrying. A friend is sitting at home with a burst appendix, managing it with rest and antibiotics.
Why can’t we put the private hospitals to work on this sort of thing now?
They don't have provision for emergencies, just planned surgery. You really need full on call teams of surgeons and anaesthetists to run an appendix service.
If he genuinely has a burst appendix then he needs to be seen and treated at his local NHS hospital. Untreated appendicitis has a far higher mortality than Covid-19.
OK here is the lineup for the last time SAGE was activated (August last year, potential breach of Toddbrook reservoir). The score is 7 scientists plus the chair and 14 non scientists "attending," mostly from the Environment Agency but one from the Cabinet Office.
The reality is that, in trade deals, there are few countries that look to maximize the size of the pot, and they are mostly pretty one sided.
Look at Australia-US, or China-Switzerland, for example. Both deals where you find yourselves asking why the smaller country would take such humiliating terms.
The UK will find it a lot easier to come to agreements with midsized countries like Australia, South Korea and Canada, than they will with the US, China or the EU.
The problem is, of course, that those three trade blocs probably account for 60% of world imports.
I see the Insurance Industry is saying it is facing its biggest ever payout this year, because of the various reasons connected with the pandemic.
I recall a discussion here when someone from inside the industry had some apparently convincing reasons why it wouldn't be so bad?
Some bits of the insurance industry will be in terrible trouble: US health care, for example, business continuity guys, or those people that sold you insurance on your concert tickets. Others, in areas like auto insurance, will be laughing. Fewer cars, fewer accidents, fewer payouts.
I expect this will be a bad year for the insurance industry in aggregate. But not as bad as the 1989 or 1994 California earthquakes.
Travel insurance will be having an utter nightmare of a year. Home insurance about even (fewer burglaries but more DIY screwups), car insurance sitting pretty.
How do you think your flexible car insurance would have worked - lots of cancellations as cars stay off the road?
We launched at the beginning of this month (good timing). Right now we're seeing less driving (lower revenue, bad) but no accidents (therefore no payouts, good)
The point on which Sir David King was commenting is whether there were political lay observers on scientific committees. He said not.
Then there should have been.
As someone on the technical side of the fence, one of the big problems in organisations is getting non-techies to understand technical issues. Unfortunately each side is not very good at explaining their position to the other.
Having someone who can bridge the gap is very useful and can avoid cock-ups due to misunderstandings.
I see there is still this 'EU is trying to control us' narrative. As far as I understand it we don't want a hard border, customs checks etc. What do you expect?
I see the Insurance Industry is saying it is facing its biggest ever payout this year, because of the various reasons connected with the pandemic.
I recall a discussion here when someone from inside the industry had some apparently convincing reasons why it wouldn't be so bad?
Some bits of the insurance industry will be in terrible trouble: US health care, for example, business continuity guys, or those people that sold you insurance on your concert tickets. Others, in areas like auto insurance, will be laughing. Fewer cars, fewer accidents, fewer payouts.
I expect this will be a bad year for the insurance industry in aggregate. But not as bad as the 1989 or 1994 California earthquakes.
Well, the UK industry is predicting its worst ever.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
I am not sure I even have a problem with that as long as the scientists are robust enough to maintain their independence. So if the scientists think we should do X but X is simply not achievable given resource or supply issues that Whitehall has already explored this should be fed into their discussions so that they can decide what is the best outcome that can be achieved. If, OTOH, they were minded to change their advice about when patients cease to become infectious and DC said, well we can't really say that because it would be too embarrassing then there would be an issue. I see absolutely no evidence of that to date or in the Guardian story.
The point on which Sir David King was commenting is whether there were political lay observers on scientific committees. He said not.
Then there should have been.
As someone on the technical side of the fence, one of the big problems in organisations is getting non-techies to understand technical issues. Unfortunately each side is not very good at explaining their position to the other.
Having someone who can bridge the gap is very useful and can avoid cock-ups due to misunderstandings.
I see the Insurance Industry is saying it is facing its biggest ever payout this year, because of the various reasons connected with the pandemic.
I recall a discussion here when someone from inside the industry had some apparently convincing reasons why it wouldn't be so bad?
Some bits of the insurance industry will be in terrible trouble: US health care, for example, business continuity guys, or those people that sold you insurance on your concert tickets. Others, in areas like auto insurance, will be laughing. Fewer cars, fewer accidents, fewer payouts.
I expect this will be a bad year for the insurance industry in aggregate. But not as bad as the 1989 or 1994 California earthquakes.
Travel insurance will be having an utter nightmare of a year. Home insurance about even (fewer burglaries but more DIY screwups), car insurance sitting pretty.
How do you think your flexible car insurance would have worked - lots of cancellations as cars stay off the road?
We launched at the beginning of this month (good timing). Right now we're seeing less driving (lower revenue, bad) but no accidents (therefore no payouts, good)
Interesting time to launch something new, just as the world is turned upside-down. Good luck with the project.
I'm reposting this, because I thought it was good comment...
I'm going to quote George W Bush here: “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
It's not a very encouraging start.
I agree with this completely. We need to approach any discussions and deals with the EU openly, candidly and offering a genuine hand of friendship looking for win win solutions. The days of politicians playing the Eurosausage to score points with a rabid and incoherent domestic press must be over. We have left, it is over, now grow up and sort out the practicalities so that they impinge on both parties' lives as little as possible. We have far more important things to worry about.
Not going to happen. There are far too many votes in pandering to the unreasoning and infinite hatred that Leavers have for the EU, an unreasoning and infinite hatred shared by those in power.
Problem is as we know most Leavers are not really able to work things out for themselves and now with Covid 19 the government has exploited their essentially docile nature and hence has a bit of a free pass with its negotiations, such as they are, with the EU.
They don’t care. They would rather eat grass than reach any deal with the EU. By definition, any deal which the EU would accept is unacceptable to Leavers.
And again by definition, any deal that involves anything other than complete acceptance of all EU demands would be unacceptable to you. Never forget Alastair that you are the extremist on here. Even the most committed Leavers have been more accepting of delays, compromises and negotiation than you.
An evidence-free attack that is, unsurprisingly, given how it has been plucked from your fevered imagination, entirely untrue. But no doubt that ridiculous outburst makes you feel better.
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
Our government does not believe in the 14 day isolation advocated by WHO, post resolution of symptoms.
I don't know why, and one wonders if SAGE has ever discussed the issue.
I'm reposting this, because I thought it was good comment...
I'm going to quote George W Bush here: “Too often we judge other groups by their worst examples, while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”
The reality is that while the EU has been bad, we've been fucking atrocious too. We signed up, just a few months ago, which Johnson was already PM, to a political declaration. And we've publicly decried large chunks of that declaration. If I was an EU negotiatior, I'd be feeling like the UK was Perfidious Albion.
I'm not saying the EU is blameless (they're clearly not), but the GWB quote is apposite, we're seeing the bad things they're doing while excusing ourselves. And I'm sure in Brussels they're doing it the other way around.
It's not a very encouraging start.
I agree with this completely. We need to approach any discussions and deals with the EU openly, candidly and offering a genuine hand of friendship looking for win win solutions. The days of politicians playing the Eurosausage to score points with a rabid and incoherent domestic press must be over. We have left, it is over, now grow up and sort out the practicalities so that they impinge on both parties' lives as little as possible. We have far more important things to worry about.
Not going to happen. There are far too many votes in pandering to the unreasoning and infinite hatred that Leavers have for the EU, an unreasoning and infinite hatred shared by those in power.
Then that would be sub-optimal and should give rise to legitimate criticism of the government for not acting in the national interest. We shall see.
In an alternate universe Dom Cummings didn't go to the meetings and The Guardian are running with "Exclusive: top advisor ignores key meetings" this is a completely made up issue. It would be more surprising if he (or other political advisors) weren't there to ask questions and get insight, s dereliction of duty.
I see the Insurance Industry is saying it is facing its biggest ever payout this year, because of the various reasons connected with the pandemic.
I recall a discussion here when someone from inside the industry had some apparently convincing reasons why it wouldn't be so bad?
Some bits of the insurance industry will be in terrible trouble: US health care, for example, business continuity guys, or those people that sold you insurance on your concert tickets. Others, in areas like auto insurance, will be laughing. Fewer cars, fewer accidents, fewer payouts.
I expect this will be a bad year for the insurance industry in aggregate. But not as bad as the 1989 or 1994 California earthquakes.
Well, the UK industry is predicting its worst ever.
Yeah, but the world economy gets bigger every year, so "worst year" needs to be compared to the size of the world economy
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
That is exactly what is being alleged (by the Guardian, if not by their “source’ isn’t it? Admittedly to some extent by insinuation and innuendo, but what else is the basis for the prominence of the story?
It’s the innuendo. There’s no evidence provided for it though.
Then they should find the evidence before running prominently with the story as their main headline. By all means if they think it might lead to something then put it out there as a more minor piece, sticking strictly to the facts that they can verify and can’t be rebutted. Then if some/more evidence begins to come to light then begin to push more prominently. That is how political exposes worked traditionally when newspapers reputation depended on getting their stories accurate, and not pushing them beyond what the facts could sustain. Obviously the most textbook example being Watergate.
There was another story yesterday or the day before splashed on the Guardian front page about Pandemic preparedness. “Govt was warned about risk of Coronavirus pandemic and urged to take action”. What was missing from the story was any analysis of the Govt response or what action they did or did not actually take. The innuendo/insinuation was just left out there for the reader to draw their own conclusion, and link with other stories of alleged govt failing. They couldn’t be bothered to actually do any hard work in gathering the evidence to allow the story to break out from influencing people who are inclined to think the worse of the Govt in any story, to influencing those who might otherwise be prepared to give the Govt the benefit of the doubt. Because it is by persuading the latter that you actually make political scandals stick, not just by pandering to the prejudices of your readership.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
That is exactly what is being alleged (by the Guardian, if not by their “source’ isn’t it? Admittedly to some extent by insinuation and innuendo, but what else is the basis for the prominence of the story?
It is just a gotcha. It would be more compelling if it weren't a variation on the "Boris didn't chair COBRA" theme.
I can't see the connection. Surely the number of Tories trying to minimise the story, whilst neither denying nor discrediting it, tells us it has struck a nerve.
No-one is denying the PM's advisor was in the room, they're just wondering why this is a story at all - except for the Guardian thinking said advisor is the personification of evil?
On the subject of science, thanks very much for pointing out the C4 Scientists' programme the other evening - undoubtedly the best television output so far discussing the pandemic.
The point on which Sir David King was commenting is whether there were political lay observers on scientific committees. He said not.
Then there should have been.
As someone on the technical side of the fence, one of the big problems in organisations is getting non-techies to understand technical issues. Unfortunately each side is not very good at explaining their position to the other.
Having someone who can bridge the gap is very useful and can avoid cock-ups due to misunderstandings.
Surely the danger is that misunderstandings are introduced rather than avoided. The alternative would be to dumb down scientific exchanges so the lay observers can keep up or even participate. The aim should be a high-level discussion whose conclusions can then be simplified for a political audience.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.
Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.
Not good.
Why is it not good? Suppose DC says, "look guys, we are under enormous pressure to reduce the severity of the lockdown and get people back to work, what are the least damaging options and how damaging do you think that they would be?" That is shaping their discussion, its also getting the advice that the government needs.
In an alternate universe Dom Cummings didn't go to the meetings and The Guardian are running with "Exclusive: top advisor ignores key meetings" this is a completely made up issue. It would be more surprising if he (or other political advisors) weren't there to ask questions and get insight, s dereliction of duty.
Trouble is the presence of someone in Cummings role changes the nature of the meeting. Can there be a full and frank discussion of the performance of government policy with him listening in? Could, for example, the current care home policy be discussed openly from a scientific point of view?
It is important to remember that this meeting is supposed to provide the gold standard, objective, scientific advice. I am sure there are plenty of other moments when Cummings could be briefed. There has to be a forum when the scientists sort their shit out, SAGE was supposed to be it.
Strong whiff of hypocrisy over Cummings. Not as if the Red team didn’t place Mandelson et al on every committee they could. Media desperate for a Gotcha, nothing to see here, move on.
The reality is that, in trade deals, there are few countries that look to maximize the size of the pot, and they are mostly pretty one sided.
Look at Australia-US, or China-Switzerland, for example. Both deals where you find yourselves asking why the smaller country would take such humiliating terms.
The UK will find it a lot easier to come to agreements with midsized countries like Australia, South Korea and Canada, than they will with the US, China or the EU.
The problem is, of course, that those three trade blocs probably account for 60% of world imports.
It's been admitted that he attends SAGE meetings and that he contributes. Arguing that he is not "on" the committee is little more than semantics.
The Mail online is running a story tonight that in a report a year ago the government were advised to stockpile PPE. People are angry about front-line carers and medical staff catching the virus and dying due to lack of PPE and it does transpire that all that was avoidable but the government chose not to act on the advice it was given a year ago it's going to take a bit more than semantic jiggery-pokery to get out of that one.
The Mail story relates to the risk register of all the things people should do in a perfect world to mitigate all risks. Quite a lot of the items were worked through but that one wasn’t.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.
Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.
Not good.
Good or not, it is simply what routinely happens at SAGE meetings where in some cases observers outnumber scientists. 3 sets ofminutes, to recap
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
Our government does not believe in the 14 day isolation advocated by WHO, post resolution of symptoms.
I don't know why, and one wonders if SAGE has ever discussed the issue.
I don't know whether the WHO advice is good or not, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory in this and much of their research seems to be based upon an uncritical acceptance of what China reported. But there seems almost no doubt that vulnerable people in care homes have been infected by patients returning from hospital. The precautionary principle surely applies here.
Time to release the SAGE minutes from Feb and March then, so we can see what was discussed and when.
It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.
You know why and I know why. Let's not pretend otherwise. This committee is going to be responsible for a lot of tough decisions and hardship. Better to let them make the sausage in private.
(I hadn’t seen it before I posted my response to @DecrepitJohnL above!)
Really?
It is an acceptance that they were there and participated in meetings including asking questions.
Yes. That is not disputed.
But the guardian is claiming they are a member of SAGE which they are not.
SAGE members are big boys and girls. They can take care of themselves.
So someone who attends consecutive SAGE meetings, including asking questions and queries is somehow not a member?
That seems a curious and spurious distinction to make for what is clearly a fluid meeting, constituted according to what subject is discussed.
The government made a big thing about "following the scientific advice" then later that "the science has changed". Why not just release all that information? No state secrets in this at all.
I see the Insurance Industry is saying it is facing its biggest ever payout this year, because of the various reasons connected with the pandemic.
I recall a discussion here when someone from inside the industry had some apparently convincing reasons why it wouldn't be so bad?
Some bits of the insurance industry will be in terrible trouble: US health care, for example, business continuity guys, or those people that sold you insurance on your concert tickets. Others, in areas like auto insurance, will be laughing. Fewer cars, fewer accidents, fewer payouts.
I expect this will be a bad year for the insurance industry in aggregate. But not as bad as the 1989 or 1994 California earthquakes.
Well, the UK industry is predicting its worst ever.
Yeah, but the world economy gets bigger every year, so "worst year" needs to be compared to the size of the world economy
Time to release the SAGE minutes from Feb and March then, so we can see what was discussed and when.
It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.
You know why and I know why. Let's not pretend otherwise. This committee is going to be responsible for a lot of tough decisions and hardship. Better to let them make the sausage in private.
Exactly. Which is why Cumstain shouldn't be there.
OK here is the lineup for the last time SAGE was activated (August last year, potential breach of Toddbrook reservoir). The score is 7 scientists plus the chair and 14 non scientists "attending," mostly from the Environment Agency but one from the Cabinet Office.
A quick google search on the Environment Agency nominees named finds the Head of Emergency Planning (including flood response) at the Red Cross, the EA's flood and coastal risk manager, and the EA's research director and chief scientist. Not quite the same thing.
The reality is that, in trade deals, there are few countries that look to maximize the size of the pot, and they are mostly pretty one sided.
Look at Australia-US, or China-Switzerland, for example. Both deals where you find yourselves asking why the smaller country would take such humiliating terms.
The UK will find it a lot easier to come to agreements with midsized countries like Australia, South Korea and Canada, than they will with the US, China or the EU.
The problem is, of course, that those three trade blocs probably account for 60% of world imports.
So there won't be trade deals with the big blocs.
There might be but they wont be favourable to the UK, they will be favourable to the bigger player. Doing deals with all of them is probably impossible in an age with a US-China open trade war and lively trade tensions with US-EU and EU-China.
Time to release the SAGE minutes from Feb and March then, so we can see what was discussed and when.
It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.
You know why and I know why. Let's not pretend otherwise. This committee is going to be responsible for a lot of tough decisions and hardship. Better to let them make the sausage in private.
Exactly. Which is why Cumstain shouldn't be there.
But Dom is the one they need to actually make the sausage. Of all people, he needs to be there because he can get the machinery of government moving. He can ask "what's next". You're looking for s story because you don't like the person.
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
Our government does not believe in the 14 day isolation advocated by WHO, post resolution of symptoms.
I don't know why, and one wonders if SAGE has ever discussed the issue.
I don't know whether the WHO advice is good or not, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory in this and much of their research seems to be based upon an uncritical acceptance of what China reported. But there seems almost no doubt that vulnerable people in care homes have been infected by patients returning from hospital. The precautionary principle surely applies here.
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
Our government does not believe in the 14 day isolation advocated by WHO, post resolution of symptoms.
I don't know why, and one wonders if SAGE has ever discussed the issue.
I don't know whether the WHO advice is good or not, they have not exactly covered themselves in glory in this and much of their research seems to be based upon an uncritical acceptance of what China reported. But there seems almost no doubt that vulnerable people in care homes have been infected by patients returning from hospital. The precautionary principle surely applies here.
In terms of clinical management, all the information coming out of China has been pretty accurate, including on infectivity.
Of course the political spin coming from China has been misleading, but that is the case pretty much everywhere.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.
Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.
Not good.
Why is it not good? Suppose DC says, "look guys, we are under enormous pressure to reduce the severity of the lockdown and get people back to work, what are the least damaging options and how damaging do you think that they would be?" That is shaping their discussion, its also getting the advice that the government needs.
A bit of a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question there. You are asking them how to go about sacrificing lives, rather than saving lives.
Are you saying he has influence on what SAGE decide? I think you underestimate people who are at the top of their subject. Would a Guardian journalist expect to influence a Sage decision by being there? Hmm … you might have a point.
What I think is increasingly clear is that the extra capacity created in the NHS, at some cost to non Covid patients, is not being used efficiently. The responses to this are:
(a) thank god. So much better than having misjudged this the other way and have failed to lock down before the system collapsed. (b) Hmm...maybe its time to recalibrate but we need to be very sure that there is not a second wave incoming first so lets start to relax the lockdown and see what happens for a little while first. (c) People are dying of other things in unacceptable numbers now. We need to recalibrate immediately and take our chances on any second wave, possibly using the Nightingale extra capacity.
(b) involves accepting that very expensive medical resources are not being efficiently used but I can see the temptations. The primary objective was to prevent the virus from overwhelming the NHS. That mission has clearly been accomplished with a bit to spare but I think, for all the human cost, I am still a bit more of a (b) man than a (c) man.
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
I am really angry about this. Would it be possible to bring manslaughter charges against those responsible for this decision?
My other point is that care home staff have had a bad press in the past with horrific stories of staff abusing clients in care homes but we have seen the other side with stories of how dedicated and caring many of the staff are. The local news has featured staff who have moved into a tent into the grounds of the care home where they work so that if they pick up the virus they do not transfer it to their families.
I have no problem with government appointees hearing the discussions of scientific committees directly.
I would have a problem if those government appointees were guiding the debate. So far as I can see, that is not being alleged yet.
I do have a problem with anyone outside of the committee listening in. You want to have an open debate, throwing ideas into the mix and being supportive or critical of what is being suggested until reaching an agreed position to present to government.
Having someone listening in will inhibit the debate and, if he is asking questions, even shape the direction of the discussion.
Not good.
Why is it not good? Suppose DC says, "look guys, we are under enormous pressure to reduce the severity of the lockdown and get people back to work, what are the least damaging options and how damaging do you think that they would be?" That is shaping their discussion, its also getting the advice that the government needs.
A bit of a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question there. You are asking them how to go about sacrificing lives, rather than saving lives.
You are asking them to address the real problems and real solutions available. This is not some academic discussion group, it is an advisory group that is helping to shape government policy.
As with all of the horrors that come from America, that is what Americans want because that is what they vote for. They choose to run their society that way, isn't that their choice no mater how barbarous it may seem? We can hardly complain about the lunacy of others considering our own hard Brexit no trade deals with anyone we won't need them we're great cos we're England madness.
The YouGov poll doesn’t show confidence in journalists has fallen, it just shows its low, just as it has always been. Yet for decades we have allowed journalists to shape the debate while governments, including this one, have used them as conduits for leaks, kite-flying and unattributable quotes. Even now, journalists are being used to place stories, settle scores, brief against political opponents and so on. We are all complicit in the media we have. The politicians most of all. https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1253592227512832001?s=21
I think probably there used to be a larger gap between the different types of media. The tabloids were obviously always at rock bottom. But the quality dailies? And the broadcast media (with the BBC at its heart)? Not so much I think.
Civil Service figures are pretty astonishing - what could explain that? Did Yes-Minister do that much damage in the early eighties?
Just a logical result of anti-eu propaganda, I suspect. If unelected Brussels bureaucrats are ruining Britain you have to ease off on the the attacks on the unelected British bureaucrats. At least until Brexit is done and dusted, then normal service will be resumed.
Given the amount of bile chucked at the civil service for being closest remainers wanting to frustrate Brexit it doesn’t seem to me to be a rationale explanation for the difference.
I remember the eighties. Endless stories in the tabloids attacking British civil servants. In the 90s and noughties these were largely replaced by endless stories in the tabloids attacking the EU.
“Yes, Minister” has been proven over time to have been a pretty good documentary about the inner workings of government.
The people that the public want in charge, actually making the decisions, are those whom they elected - and can choose to fire at the ballot box should they desire. Not some unaccountable civil servant in Whitehall or Brussels, who never has to fear for his job and gets to retire with a big pension no matter how much he screws up.
The question is why public trust in civil servants seems to have risen so much since the eightees. I don't see the relevance of your reply.
It is indeed and it appears to come from poor medical advice about when patients cease to be infectious. Advice that has still not been updated, at least in Scotland.
I am really angry about this. Would it be possible to bring manslaughter charges against those responsible for this decision?
My other point is that care home staff have had a bad press in the past with horrific stories of staff abusing clients in care homes but we have seen the other side with stories of how dedicated and caring many of the staff are. The local news has featured staff who have moved into a tent into the grounds of the care home where they work so that if they pick up the virus they do not transfer it to their families.
Not if they are acting on government advice as to what is safe. They are then taking reasonable care. But that is secondary to the question of whether the government advice is right or not. We really need to know the answer to this.
Time to release the SAGE minutes from Feb and March then, so we can see what was discussed and when.
It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.
You know why and I know why. Let's not pretend otherwise. This committee is going to be responsible for a lot of tough decisions and hardship. Better to let them make the sausage in private.
Maybe they haven’t written them yet. And haven’t yet decided what they want them to say
I see certain people are cheering themselves up with an old game of being a big baby over Brexit and pretending that's reasonable.
That's great news, it means we're getting back to normal, but the game playing nature of it is a little too obviously juvenile to be convincing or serious.
It wasn’t a “non denial denial”. Such an argument means any disputing of a published story containing a mixture of facts, exaggerations, innuendo and speculation could be thus characterised.
The Guardian story was an attempt to exaggerate an undisputed fact (Cummings sometimes attends/observes SAGE meetings and sometimes asks questions of those there) into something deep and sinister and drawing unfounded speculative conclusions that this attendance has changed the basis for the scientific advice to imply that when the Govt say they are “following the scientific advice”, they are actually following their own path under the bogus cover of science. Speculative conclusions for which they have no basis, but which they know will grab headlines and be lapped up by those who share their world view.
If the issue of substance was his being there at all then the Guardian wouldn’t have felt the need to pad it up to the extent that they did.
What about Lewis" point that there is a Trumpian going after the media? Public support for the media has not collapsed, so that's a lie for a start, if you believe the polling someone posted here the other day
Trump goes after the media
That does not mean the media should not be criticised
Here the Guardian has confected a story out of gossamer thin strands. They should be criticised. This is one of a few similar stories in recent days.
Mr. Meeks, the EU said Canada-style was the only trade deal possible. Then, when such a deal became desired by the new PM, it was apparently not possible.
That's not exactly reasonable behaviour.
Do you remember Barnier's staircase diagram? It clearly illustrates the EU's view that only one kind of trade deal was possible and that you are not at all spouting brainless propaganda bullshit.
Comments
Look at Australia-US, or China-Switzerland, for example. Both deals where you find yourselves asking why the smaller country would take such humiliating terms.
The UK will find it a lot easier to come to agreements with midsized countries like Australia, South Korea and Canada, than they will with the US, China or the EU.
The problem is, of course, that those three trade blocs probably account for 60% of world imports.
If he genuinely has a burst appendix then he needs to be seen and treated at his local NHS hospital. Untreated appendicitis has a far higher mortality than Covid-19.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf
As someone on the technical side of the fence, one of the big problems in organisations is getting non-techies to understand technical issues. Unfortunately each side is not very good at explaining their position to the other.
Having someone who can bridge the gap is very useful and can avoid cock-ups due to misunderstandings.
If, OTOH, they were minded to change their advice about when patients cease to become infectious and DC said, well we can't really say that because it would be too embarrassing then there would be an issue. I see absolutely no evidence of that to date or in the Guardian story.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf
Typical Leaver.
I don't know why, and one wonders if SAGE has ever discussed the issue.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52384622
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf
Source for all this
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage
There was another story yesterday or the day before splashed on the Guardian front page about Pandemic preparedness. “Govt was warned about risk of Coronavirus pandemic and urged to take action”. What was missing from the story was any analysis of the Govt response or what action they did or did not actually take. The innuendo/insinuation was just left out there for the reader to draw their own conclusion, and link with other stories of alleged govt failing. They couldn’t be bothered to actually do any hard work in gathering the evidence to allow the story to break out from influencing people who are inclined to think the worse of the Govt in any story, to influencing those who might otherwise be prepared to give the Govt the benefit of the doubt. Because it is by persuading the latter that you actually make political scandals stick, not just by pandering to the prejudices of your readership.
On the subject of science, thanks very much for pointing out the C4 Scientists' programme the other evening - undoubtedly the best television output so far discussing the pandemic.
But the guardian is claiming they are a member of SAGE which they are not.
SAGE members are big boys and girls. They can take care of themselves.
It is not as if the Coronavirus is going to read them. There is no need of secrecy in these things.
It is important to remember that this meeting is supposed to provide the gold standard, objective, scientific advice. I am sure there are plenty of other moments when Cummings could be briefed. There has to be a forum when the scientists sort their shit out, SAGE was supposed to be it.
But have any hospitals actually run out of PPE?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/459812/sage-ebola-minutes-8-december-2014.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584356/160802_PreSAGE_Zika_Minutes_Meeting_5.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf
That seems a curious and spurious distinction to make for what is clearly a fluid meeting, constituted according to what subject is discussed.
The government made a big thing about "following the scientific advice" then later that "the science has changed". Why not just release all that information? No state secrets in this at all.
NEW THREAD
Of course the political spin coming from China has been misleading, but that is the case pretty much everywhere.
FFS!
Are you saying he has influence on what SAGE decide? I think you underestimate people who are at the top of their subject. Would a Guardian journalist expect to influence a Sage decision by being there? Hmm … you might have a point.
(a) thank god. So much better than having misjudged this the other way and have failed to lock down before the system collapsed.
(b) Hmm...maybe its time to recalibrate but we need to be very sure that there is not a second wave incoming first so lets start to relax the lockdown and see what happens for a little while first.
(c) People are dying of other things in unacceptable numbers now. We need to recalibrate immediately and take our chances on any second wave, possibly using the Nightingale extra capacity.
(b) involves accepting that very expensive medical resources are not being efficiently used but I can see the temptations. The primary objective was to prevent the virus from overwhelming the NHS. That mission has clearly been accomplished with a bit to spare but I think, for all the human cost, I am still a bit more of a (b) man than a (c) man.
My other point is that care home staff have had a bad press in the past with horrific stories of staff abusing clients in care homes but we have seen the other side with stories of how dedicated and caring many of the staff are. The local news has featured staff who have moved into a tent into the grounds of the care home where they work so that if they pick up the virus they do not transfer it to their families.
New Thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNKjShmHw7s
That's great news, it means we're getting back to normal, but the game playing nature of it is a little too obviously juvenile to be convincing or serious.
That does not mean the media should not be criticised
Here the Guardian has confected a story out of gossamer thin strands. They should be criticised. This is one of a few similar stories in recent days.