Shameful of the opposition to try and make hay with this non-story.
Oh, wait...
Well he's a dork, isn't he? Because we know for certain that non-scientists attend every meeting. And why on earth wouldn't they? Would giving the scientists access to immediate advice about what they are being asked to advise on be making it too easy for them?
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
You could be describing any government of the last fifty or a hundred years. Who was it broke the Northern Rock story, and which government was in power at the time?
Well, indeed. They are all part of the same bubble. They are all in it together. That's why attacks on the media that ignore the role the government plays in feeding that media are so ridiculous. I could take them a bit more seriously if ministers across Whitehall, from Number 10 down, were not leaking stories like sieves every single day.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
That's quite enough about Alastair Campbell.
Im guessing from your post you dont think Campbell was a force for good government? Yet seem happy to refer to him to justify the current govt.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
So exactly like every other government.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
Governments use the media, governments attack the media, no-one trusts journalists. It's an age old story.
The government could, of course, invite journalists with scientific and technical knowledge to its press conferences or give them the opportunity to interview ministers. It is possible to reach out to specialist publications. It chooses not to.
The government is clearly happy with the incompetents the media send.
Perhaps the media should contemplate that.
But it wont because that would require some original thinking and flexible action.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
I'm not interested unless it has a trend line manipulated to confirm my viewpoint.
The next few days will be exciting for Covid Data Wranglers.
After having their beloved "SW3den PEEKed on ThE 8th" taken from them they are about to get the gift of Sweden's massive weekend reporting lag to claim the numbers have dropped precipitously.
They will memory hole all their previous pronouncements.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
That's quite enough about Alastair Campbell.
Im guessing from your post you dont think Campbell was a force for good government? Yet seem happy to refer to him to justify the current govt.
Whataboutery.
Tories will never get over the wound of Campbell doing them up like complicit kippers over Iraq. The preferred position would be YOOGE scepticism over anything to do with Campbell and Cummings.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
So exactly like every other government.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
Governments use the media, governments attack the media, no-one trusts journalists. It's an age old story.
The government could, of course, invite journalists with scientific and technical knowledge to its press conferences or give them the opportunity to interview ministers. It is possible to reach out to specialist publications. It chooses not to.
The government is clearly happy with the incompetents the media send.
Perhaps the media should contemplate that.
But it wont because that would require some original thinking and flexible action.
And few organisations encourage those.
They are all in it together. They have been for years. We all know it but we don't really care even though we say we do.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
That's quite enough about Alastair Campbell.
Im guessing from your post you dont think Campbell was a force for good government? Yet seem happy to refer to him to justify the current govt.
Whataboutery.
I don't and neither am I a fan of Dominic Cummings and this kind of modus operandi. I'm not sure at present there are any favourite media to be fed juicy nuggets of bile and misinformation. Do you have examples?
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Latest data Brazil, Nigeria and Russia don't seem to be "bending the curve".
Yet despite Brazil, Nigeria and Russia all having bigger populations than any nation in Western Europe they have all had fewer deaths than the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany from Covid 19, mainly as they have far fewer over 80s.
On that graph the increase in their cases and deaths is also still lower than the US and Western Europe
Latest data Brazil, Nigeria and Russia don't seem to be "bending the curve".
Yet despite Brazil, Nigeria and Russia all having bigger populations than any nation in Western Europe they have all had fewer deaths than the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany from Covid 19, mainly as they have far fewer over 80s.
On that graph the increase in their cases and deaths is also still lower than the US and Western Europe
Fewer reported deaths, which may be an important factor.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Maybe, but to appoint a controversial celebrity to a secret committee and expect it to be a non-story when it comes out is very silly.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Maybe, but to appoint a controversial celebrity to a secret committee and expect it to be a non-story when it comes out is very silly.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Maybe, but to appoint a controversial celebrity to a secret committee and expect it to be a non-story when it comes out is very silly.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
Vox pops from my fairly lefty friends - one is apoplectic with rage, but he has been ever since 2016. Some are in the "who is that?" Crowd. Most are in the "why wouldn't be be there?" crowd though and think the guardian are making something out of nothing.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
I think people ascribe an unrealistic level of power and control to Cummings. He seems like a disruptive and difficult figure, and i don't like much of what I hear of his ideas and personality, but I dont understand this degree of fear of him, that all he touches is compromised. Is it because he was played by Benedict Cumberbatch on TV?
I don't think it's fear it's more suspicion of what influence he has behind the scenes. That suspicion is , of course, amplified when we have a PM who has a reputation for being lazy and unconcerned with detail.
The level of suspicion is because of the fear. I agree the worry is hes too influential, and he is very influential, but the theme of do many stories is outrage he offers advice, which is his job even if we dont like him. Now, is there something to him having too much pull with people besides Johnson?
The implication behind the accusations appears to be SAGE is now useless because Cummings either affected what they recommended by his very presence, or the PM will have ignored what they said to listen solely to Cummings.
The idea Cummings is that powerful I dont think can be explained other than fear. Abd to be clear I dont want his advice driving things either.
Look, I don't think Cummings is running the SAGE committee meetings but I would like to be assured that he is not unduly influencing them. If it's all a fuss about nothing why not simply release the minutes of any Cummings interventions ?
Cummings is an operator for sure and there are more than one way of getting what you want as we saw by the way he manoeuvred the last Chancellor out of office.
I would also be less concerned about Cummings activities if I felt Johnson had a grip on things but we knew that was going to unlikely when we elected him.
Why not have a look at Patrick Vallence’s statement.
Whatever the public's view of the media, its quite clear they have a big say in running the country.
The government's policy has been tailor made to do one thing above all and that's keep the likes of Piers Morgan and Adam Boulton quiet.
The economy is being throttled, liberty is being destroyed, The health of the nation denuded and colossal sums of money spent to ensure these people have as little as possible to shriek about from one day to the next.
The colossal stupidity and cowardliness of this approach is already becoming apparent in the economic numbers, and the size of the human toll is starting to panic a few too.
Today we have a desperate attempt by the NHS to ask people with serious illnesses to come forward instead of conveniently passing away or becoming more seriously ill to let them get on with fighting Corona.
Think of the sheer absurdity of the head of the NHS saying that people who are having a heart attack should seek treatment.
In the months to come somebody will start to tally up the lives being lost. The number will come as a staggering blow to a country that will then be in the deepest of recessions.
Sounds to me like the Kim rumours are more likely true than false.
If so, what next? Base case I guess is the regime persisting under a new face. As you were.
But I don’t think we should easily rule out a circumstance where the Chinese army effectively annexes North Korea, if that’s the best way of stopping hoards of covid ridden refugees from sweeping over the border. Moving the Red army to a DMZ distance from US forces. And killing dead the trade deal.
Corona is going to throw up any number of geopolitical black swans before it’s done. Which is why current stock prices are just bonkers.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
It is not totally clear to me whether you understand the risk but judge it acceptably small or you do not understand the risk. If it's the first, please advise and we can stop. Because I'm not sure I disagree. If it's the second, also please advise and I will have another bash.
Latest data Brazil, Nigeria and Russia don't seem to be "bending the curve".
Yet despite Brazil, Nigeria and Russia all having bigger populations than any nation in Western Europe they have all had fewer deaths than the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Germany from Covid 19, mainly as they have far fewer over 80s.
On that graph the increase in their cases and deaths is also still lower than the US and Western Europe
Fewer reported deaths, which may be an important factor.
I doubt it, we also have fewer reported deaths.
As I have said before Covid 19 is a rich countries disease mainly, only countries with average life expectancy over 80 will be mostly badly hit in terms of death rate as over 80s have a higher death rate than those of any other age or with a pre existing health condition but under 80 from coronavirus
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Maybe, but to appoint a controversial celebrity to a secret committee and expect it to be a non-story when it comes out is very silly.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
The whole episode is a game typical of British politics. If Labour had been in power the Tories would have been screaming about it and vice versa, its a non story typical of the sort of crap journalism we get these days. Stories are investigated up to a point, as full investigation would not suit the writer. The smear is what matters, as long as some shit sticks, the result is achieved.
Maybe, but to appoint a controversial celebrity to a secret committee and expect it to be a non-story when it comes out is very silly.
Celebrity? I don't think so.
I expect all the folks down the pub ( yes I know) cannot get enough of him!!!
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
Indeed. I am quite confident, however, that if a monarch ever does refuse royal assent again (say with an act to make us a republic), parliament would declare itself able to proceed or retroactively make it impossible for a monarch to refuse. A way would be found.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
It is not totally clear to me whether you understand the risk but judge it acceptably small or you do not understand the risk. If it's the first, please advise and we can stop. Because I'm not sure I disagree. If it's the second, also please advise and I will have another bash.
Presumably the furore would be even greater if the government hadn't sent anyone to the SAGE meetings? Or, even worse, sent a deputy assistant SPAD from the Department of Health (England branch).
I reckon Cummings and the government are delighted he is the story rather than the failure to test key workers at an adequate rate
Exactly. The media are obsessed with process and "gotcha" hackery, even when it comes at the expense of asking probing questions, questions which could hold the government to account at a time of crisis that's causing many thousands of deaths.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
Indeed. I am quite confident, however, that if a monarch ever does refuse royal assent again (say with an act to make us a republic), parliament would declare itself able to proceed or retroactively make it impossible for a monarch to refuse. A way would be found.
Last time a monarch decide to ignore parliament when making the law we had a civil war, that effectively decided in parliament' s favour when the parliamentarian forces beat the royalist forces and Charles 1st was beheaded but technically laws still need assent from parliament and the crown
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
Yes and we all know what "Downing St sources" means.
The media are not at fault for raising the issue and role of a political advisor at what is supposed to be an expert advisory group.
The pretence that government policy was being directed by science, rests on the integrity of that advice.
As I speculated - this story is a means of giving another angle to criticism of the government, as the government has attempted to place its defence on the grounds of scientific advice.
This story is not really about Cummings at all then, but about declaring (when convenient) that the advice itself is (or 'may be', with talk of 'how can we know'), tainted, thus broadening acceptable attack lines. Now when the government says it is following advice, then whether that is true or not or reasonable or not, the response will be 'but the advice is not trustworthy because of Cummings'.
How very convenient. I've no doubt the government was seeking to avoid criticism for political decisions by parking itself under the banner of science (and it is the case that there will and have been things which are political choices which they should face consequences positive and negative for), but now there is carte blanche to decide the government should not follow any such advice, because the eeeviil Cummings was involved. And even if he had no impact on what they advised, the argument will be he 'might' have.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
I, for one, have been rooting for Sweden all through this process.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
It is not totally clear to me whether you understand the risk but judge it acceptably small or you do not understand the risk. If it's the first, please advise and we can stop. Because I'm not sure I disagree. If it's the second, also please advise and I will have another bash.
Presumably the furore would be even greater if the government hadn't sent anyone to the SAGE meetings? Or, even worse, sent a deputy assistant SPAD from the Department of Health (England branch).
Possibly. Certainly I can see the argument for Cummings being there. It's an efficiency argument. Then again, it's more efficient if the M&A dept of a bank talks to its trading arm. Yet there are rules to prevent this in certain circumstances - where it is deemed more important to prevent a conflict of interest, real or perceived.
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
And we know the media will wank themselves cross eyed over this story.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
What this situation and the polling shows is less than 10% of the UK population are true libertarians
Okay M. Barnier. If you won't agree a deal then we leave transition without one.
Does anyone think that isn't what's going to happen now?
Like most, I want to see a trade deal agreed that looks like Canada or Korea, but IMO there's too much space between the two positions.
Barnier appears to be acting as if he's still negotiating with 2019 Theresa May, who doesn't have a majority to tell the EU to go screw themselves if they overplay their hand. No-one has even mentioned the next EU bailout yet, but I wouldn't put it past them to expect UK contributions in the dozens of billions.
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
Yep, I agree. The Guardian story is full of holes and is therefore entirely unconvincing. It is a gift to the government.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
I, for one, have been rooting for Sweden all through this process.
Yes, me too. You’d like to think everyone would be
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
Indeed. I am quite confident, however, that if a monarch ever does refuse royal assent again (say with an act to make us a republic), parliament would declare itself able to proceed or retroactively make it impossible for a monarch to refuse. A way would be found.
Last time a monarch decide to ignore parliament when making the law we had a civil war
The civil war was not the last time a monarch refused royal assent for something. I don't think the complexities of the causes of that war, or that its aims to start out with do not quite match what many people think its aims were, need be gotten in to as a result.
Okay M. Barnier. If you won't agree a deal then we leave transition without one.
Does anyone think that isn't what's going to happen now?
Like most, I want to see a trade deal agreed that looks like Canada or Korea, but IMO there's too much space between the two positions.
Barnier appears to be acting as if he's still negotiating with 2019 Theresa May, who doesn't have a majority to tell the EU to go screw themselves if they overplay their hand.
Neither side wants a deal enough to get one. We would all be much better off preparing for the consequences of that rather than going through the ridiculous charade of talks.
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
Yep, I agree. The Guardian story is full of holes and is therefore entirely unconvincing. It is a gift to the government.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
The desire to be proved right on a subject they feel strongly about is very intense in people. In ALL people. It is strong enough to override matters of life and death so long as those living and dying are stats rather than known personally. You will be no exception.
Okay M. Barnier. If you won't agree a deal then we leave transition without one.
Does anyone think that isn't what's going to happen now?
It seems a high chance, but I don't think we can take ranty pronouncements from either side on what they will and won't accept at totally face value. And certainly we cannot take pronouncements on what is reasonable or not at face value at either side, since they all adore shifting arguments and picking cherries so much.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
I, for one, have been rooting for Sweden all through this process.
Me too. I desperately want them to be right, for their own sake and mine. I just don't think they are.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
What this situation and the polling shows is less than 10% of the UK population are true libertarians
Well they probably aren't! To me, "libertarian" conjours an image of a posh, rich man who wants to do whatever he wants and to hell with the rest of society though, and very few people are really like that. Even fewer like to tell opinion pollsters they are!
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
I would hope there is not joy if Sweden has gotten it wrong and they suffer as bad as other places, or worse. What I can understand is trepidation if they are right, as there are many many nations, large and small, left wing and right wing controlled, which have gone down other routes, and it might mean a great deal of future suffering which could have been avoided.
If they have gotten it right, the context that so many others went down the same route we did would be important, but I imagine will be ignored.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
It is not totally clear to me whether you understand the risk but judge it acceptably small or you do not understand the risk. If it's the first, please advise and we can stop. Because I'm not sure I disagree. If it's the second, also please advise and I will have another bash.
Presumably the furore would be even greater if the government hadn't sent anyone to the SAGE meetings? Or, even worse, sent a deputy assistant SPAD from the Department of Health (England branch).
Possibly. Certainly I can see the argument for Cummings being there. It's an efficiency argument. Then again, it's more efficient if the M&A dept of a bank talks to its trading arm. Yet there are rules to prevent this in certain circumstances - where it is deemed more important to prevent a conflict of interest, real or perceived.
The last conflict of interest problem SAGE had was with the scientists - over swine flu, 5 of them forgot to disclose links to pharma companies.
more relevantly, there are 20 odd big hitters in the room with Cummings, not by any means guaranteed to be tory by inclination, and not easily bullied. The dodgy dossier was compiled in private by nicking stuff off the internet; no one would get it past a proper committee like this one.
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
Yep, I agree. The Guardian story is full of holes and is therefore entirely unconvincing. It is a gift to the government.
A dead cat?
But one thrown through the window by someone else rather than dropped on the table by itself?
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
What this situation and the polling shows is less than 10% of the UK population are true libertarians
Well they probably aren't! To me, "libertarian" conjours an image of a posh, rich man who wants to do whatever he wants and to hell with the rest of society though, and very few people are really like that. Even fewer like to tell opinion pollsters they are!
A libertarian is generally someone rich enough not to need the NHS or state education or welfare, who has an active sex life and has taken drugs in the past and is socially liberal but does not want to pay much tax.
So yes a small minority. Not that we have any such examples here of course...
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
New Zealand's strategy isn't.
.... applicable to most of the rest of the world....
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
The desire to be proved right on a subject they feel strongly about is very intense in people. In ALL people. It is strong enough to override matters of life and death so long as those living and dying are stats rather than known personally. You will be no exception.
I don't really feel strongly about it, I don't know what the best strategy is. I know which one I want to work though
I think the whole Sweden thing is a proxy argument for Big State vs Liberty for a lot of people, and Leave vs Remain for a lot of others. The fact it was Boris' original plan means there is big premium in it failing for his haters, they can't say he didn't lock down quickly enough if Sweden is proved right
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
At least it would clarify things. One feasible strategy. Control until vaccine.
Unless the vaccine doesn't work either - but let's not go there.
For a man nobody knows or cares about, Dom gets himself on the front pages a LOT...
I think you mean the papers get him on the front page, I doubt he seeks the publicity.
6 of one, half a dozen of another. There is a disproportionate fascination with him even considering he is indeed a powerful adviser, but his approach to his work seems like he seeks the attention.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
What this situation and the polling shows is less than 10% of the UK population are true libertarians
Who is? Unless you think I should be able to drink drive my way to town to pick up an AK47 and some meth, not you. And you don't think that.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
Indeed. I am quite confident, however, that if a monarch ever does refuse royal assent again (say with an act to make us a republic), parliament would declare itself able to proceed or retroactively make it impossible for a monarch to refuse. A way would be found.
Last time a monarch decide to ignore parliament when making the law we had a civil war
The civil war was not the last time a monarch refused royal assent for something. I don't think the complexities of the causes of that war, or that its aims to start out with do not quite match what many people think its aims were, need be gotten in to as a result.
A monarch has not refused royal assent for over 300 years.
The last time was 1707 when Queen Anne refused to assent to send the militia to Scotland
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
What this situation and the polling shows is less than 10% of the UK population are true libertarians
Who is? Unless you think I should be able to drink drive my way to town to pick up an AK47 and some meth, not you. And you don't think that.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
Why are you interpreting it like that?
From my point of view, I'm frustrated by people who have been desperately trying to find "evidence" to support what they have decided has to be true: that the lockdown is wrong and must be released (regardless of what the outcome would actually be).
The Sweden situation is their latest cause celebre. We've had that there aren't really that many deaths (which has fallen by the wayside), that those who died would somehow have died anyway (likewise fallen by the wayside), that countries that lockdown don't gain any control (still pushed by some diehards, but dropping off), and the "hey, look at Sweden - they're free from any restrictions and we could do that too" crowd.
The latter carefully ignoring the differences between countries (Sweden's social culture makes for a lower R0 level to start with, the population distribution further reduces R0 in large areas of the country) and have previously been ignoring that they do, in fact, have quite a lot of restrictions - albeit less than us.
They've gone out of their way to misrepresent data (such as that graph made up by someone to pretend that the death rates in Sweden and the UK had followed an identical trajectory, which was easily shown as false based on looking up the real data), to loudly trumpet weekend days of low reporting as PROOF it has turned the corner, and to ignore reporting delays in all countries to try to compare the most recent incomplete data to PROVE they've peaked.
I don't have joy in Swedish deaths. I'm sorry for them. I'd love it to be possible to get back in the air, for example (First World problems: I'm a microlight pilot, this last winter was horrible for flying, and since the lockdown started, it's been ideal weather).
But all their rationale has been shown as flawed and can be compared to real life outcomes, the death toll in Stockholm is horrifying and still climbing, and the "Stop the lockdown - Sweden proves it's possible" crowd will, if listened to, cause widespread (lonely and lingering) deaths. Which is why they frustrate me.
If Rt is down at 0.68 here, then we can look at slightly lifting some restrictions when the death rate has fallen further. We just need to work out what we can lift, and those trying to "prove" whatever they can by misrepresenting facts are getting in the way and muddying the waters on what we can do.
I'm actually now convinced that this is going to help the government. Where there was some doubt over how engaged they were with the process before (missed some meetings) now we have the guardian splashing an exclusive that the PM's chief advisor was attending meetings.
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
You've used words of more than one syllable.
Too many for those obsessed with this 'story'.
Meanwhile the government is vulnerable on testing, care home, unrestricted air travel and dependence on PPE imports but escapes questioning.
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
New Zealand's strategy isn't.
.... applicable to most of the rest of the world....
Lots isn't known about this virus, our strategy seems to based on plenty of optimism about the pathology and so forth. The death stats have never really worried me, more the potential long term effects of it. Everyone is fixated on the deaths but what if the lung scar tissue causes something akin to mesothelioma in the long term ?!
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
At least it would clarify things. One feasible strategy. Control until vaccine.
Unless the vaccine doesn't work either - but let's not go there.
Control just kicks the can and ensures your healthcare system doesn't become overloaded, even the likes of Merkel have said ultimately no vaccine 80% of the population will end up getting it over the course of several waves.
To be fair though, i was extremely heartened by Prof Farzan talk. A man who worked on AIDs for 20 years, listed a whole range of weaknesses with CV that could be utilized to attack this thing.
Sorry everyone, spent a happy couple of hours painting walls.
On regional government I voted no to the NE Regional talking shop - didn't see the point in what had been proposed. What I'm proposing now is more along the lines of the former Scottish regions, so they would be big on the kind of scale of Northumbria or Wessex. England is not remotely a united country - economics, culture, identity. Give people a bit of space to develop their own way seems like a reasonable approach, I'm replacing idiocy like the "Tees Valley Combined Authority" with Northumbria etc.
On Brexit we're both exiting with No Deal and not exiting with No Deal. Its not physically possible to create the hard border that no agreement with the EU requires in the time available - on either side of the border, so we'll agree a drop hands deal where we don't diverge. A train with two locos where instead of one driver controlling both, the jumper cables are unplugged and they are uncoupled, but both independently going the same way along the same track at the same speed buffered up against each other...
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Cummings and his kind ate a malign influence on democracy. The response of a healthy democracy would be to tske steps to defend and strengthen democracy, not stick the guy taking the piss in no. 10. I hope Britain isn't following the path of the US into pseudo-democracy.
In my experience the biggest supporters of an extended lockdown are those with close families, big houses, large savings, and a big garden. Not those who are lonely, worried about finances, and in a tiny flat with no outside space. It comes from a position of privilege.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
Perhaps they realise that there isn't a one size fits all solution for different societies and cultures, and interpreting stats in another country to reflect one's hopes for one's own country isn't very useful.
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
At least it would clarify things. One feasible strategy. Control until vaccine.
Unless the vaccine doesn't work either - but let's not go there.
Control just kicks the can and ensures your healthcare system doesn't become overloaded, even the likes of Merkel have said ultimately no vaccine 80% of the population will end up getting it over the course of several waves.
To be fair though, i was extremely heartened by Prof Farzan talk. A man who worked on AIDs for 20 years, listed a whole range of weaknesses with CV that could be utilized to attack this thing.
"Johnson’s tragedy is that he has no safe option
Every political decision means weighing costs and benefits but rarely are the choices as grim as those the PM faces now"
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
Indeed. I am quite confident, however, that if a monarch ever does refuse royal assent again (say with an act to make us a republic), parliament would declare itself able to proceed or retroactively make it impossible for a monarch to refuse. A way would be found.
Last time a monarch decide to ignore parliament when making the law we had a civil war
The civil war was not the last time a monarch refused royal assent for something. I don't think the complexities of the causes of that war, or that its aims to start out with do not quite match what many people think its aims were, need be gotten in to as a result.
A monarch has not refused royal assent for over 300 years.
The last time was 1707 when Queen Anne refused to assent to send the militia to Scotland
In my experience the biggest supporters of an extended lockdown are those with close families, big houses, large savings, and a big garden. Not those who are lonely, worried about finances, and in a tiny flat with no outside space. It comes from a position of privilege.
In terms of probability of catching the virus, those who support it most probably are least affected by it, those who support it least probably have viral risk lowered the most.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
I, for one, have been rooting for Sweden all through this process.
Me too. I desperately want them to be right, for their own sake and mine. I just don't think they are.
They may be right for Sweden.
What is right for one country may not be right for another.
If the FTPA ends up not being repealed anytime soon, the next General Election will be due on the first Thurday in May 2024 - 2nd May I think. This Parliament will have been limited to 4 years and 4 months.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
The point is about a specific situation - where the government is selling a policy on grounds that it is based on information from independent apolitical experts. The implication is that the information is free of political bias. For example, if senior intelligence officials report that Iraq has WMD, that this is not influenced by them being aware that the PM wishes it to be so.
Isn't that what they do for all crises where SAGE is involved? I don't buy the argument that Dominic Cummings is the only person capable of influencing the others on this panel to such a level that it distorts their reasoning.
It is not totally clear to me whether you understand the risk but judge it acceptably small or you do not understand the risk. If it's the first, please advise and we can stop. Because I'm not sure I disagree. If it's the second, also please advise and I will have another bash.
Presumably the furore would be even greater if the government hadn't sent anyone to the SAGE meetings? Or, even worse, sent a deputy assistant SPAD from the Department of Health (England branch).
Possibly. Certainly I can see the argument for Cummings being there. It's an efficiency argument. Then again, it's more efficient if the M&A dept of a bank talks to its trading arm. Yet there are rules to prevent this in certain circumstances - where it is deemed more important to prevent a conflict of interest, real or perceived.
The last conflict of interest problem SAGE had was with the scientists - over swine flu, 5 of them forgot to disclose links to pharma companies.
more relevantly, there are 20 odd big hitters in the room with Cummings, not by any means guaranteed to be tory by inclination, and not easily bullied. The dodgy dossier was compiled in private by nicking stuff off the internet; no one would get it past a proper committee like this one.
Regarding the seeming joy in which deaths in Sweden are greeted, I have to say I’m baffled... why doesn’t everybody hope that Sweden have got it right, and that there’s a way of dealing with covid-19 that doesn’t require such strict closure of society?
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
Why are you interpreting it like that?
The reason I interpret it that way is the likes of @Alistair, who is obviously quite a clever fellow who knows his stuff and is worth listening to, and @TheScreamingEagles, keep gloating/trolling about fools who thought Sweden's deaths from Covid-19 might have peaked on the 8th April, or trends that might have looked hopeful but weren't, as if they are such statistical data/computer coding purists that anyone not up to their standards actively offends them. Well I say again... so what if Swedish deaths didn't peak then and people hoped they had, etc?
I have posted loads of graphs on Sweden, I am quite fascinated by what is going on and people's attempts to make sense of it, and some of them are the ones you have identified as misleading. But I don't see the people making those graphs as wilfuly trying to mislead, actually - they are probably having a go at trying to figure stuff out that is puzzling the world, and if they make amateurish mistake sometimes... so what? The corrections educate us all. Better than just swallowing one line and not querying it. I thought scientific experiment, of which I am a bit of a dunce, was about testing things out in an attempt to find the truth rather than ego and agenda?
If this turns out to be truth, every strategy is screwed...
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
New Zealand's strategy isn't.
.... applicable to most of the rest of the world....
Lots isn't known about this virus, our strategy seems to based on plenty of optimism about the pathology and so forth. The death stats have never really worried me, more the potential long term effects of it. Everyone is fixated on the deaths but what if the lung scar tissue causes something akin to mesothelioma in the long term ?!
Yes, the stories of not just terrible lung damage, but damage to other vital organs. I won't be surprised even if everything goes really well and we get a vaccine in less than a year, that for years to come will be see significant increase on the healthcare system and more deaths due to complications.
Comments
Whataboutery.
Perhaps the media should contemplate that.
But it wont because that would require some original thinking and flexible action.
And few organisations encourage those.
https://www.facebook.com/176663550714/posts/10158602283775715/?extid=tJFWzMI5tCMYxaey&d=null&vh=e
On that graph the increase in their cases and deaths is also still lower than the US and Western Europe
The government's policy has been tailor made to do one thing above all and that's keep the likes of Piers Morgan and Adam Boulton quiet.
The economy is being throttled, liberty is being destroyed, The health of the nation denuded and colossal sums of money spent to ensure these people have as little as possible to shriek about from one day to the next.
The colossal stupidity and cowardliness of this approach is already becoming apparent in the economic numbers, and the size of the human toll is starting to panic a few too.
Today we have a desperate attempt by the NHS to ask people with serious illnesses to come forward instead of conveniently passing away or becoming more seriously ill to let them get on with fighting Corona.
Think of the sheer absurdity of the head of the NHS saying that people who are having a heart attack should seek treatment.
In the months to come somebody will start to tally up the lives being lost. The number will come as a staggering blow to a country that will then be in the deepest of recessions.
If so, what next? Base case I guess is the regime persisting under a new face. As you were.
But I don’t think we should easily rule out a circumstance where the Chinese army effectively annexes North Korea, if that’s the best way of stopping hoards of covid ridden refugees from sweeping over the border. Moving the Red army to a DMZ distance from US forces. And killing dead the trade deal.
Corona is going to throw up any number of geopolitical black swans before it’s done. Which is why current stock prices are just bonkers.
As I have said before Covid 19 is a rich countries disease mainly, only countries with average life expectancy over 80 will be mostly badly hit in terms of death rate as over 80s have a higher death rate than those of any other age or with a pre existing health condition but under 80 from coronavirus
Surely people aren’t such fans of big state politics that they actively want the Swedes to fail, and to sneer at anyone rooting for them?
https://twitter.com/robcorb/status/1253978277754089473/photo/1
It also takes attention away from the shambles that is essential/key worker testing which Hancock needs fix or resign over if he can't.
This story is not really about Cummings at all then, but about declaring (when convenient) that the advice itself is (or 'may be', with talk of 'how can we know'), tainted, thus broadening acceptable attack lines. Now when the government says it is following advice, then whether that is true or not or reasonable or not, the response will be 'but the advice is not trustworthy because of Cummings'.
How very convenient. I've no doubt the government was seeking to avoid criticism for political decisions by parking itself under the banner of science (and it is the case that there will and have been things which are political choices which they should face consequences positive and negative for), but now there is carte blanche to decide the government should not follow any such advice, because the eeeviil Cummings was involved. And even if he had no impact on what they advised, the argument will be he 'might' have.
Barnier appears to be acting as if he's still negotiating with 2019 Theresa May, who doesn't have a majority to tell the EU to go screw themselves if they overplay their hand. No-one has even mentioned the next EU bailout yet, but I wouldn't put it past them to expect UK contributions in the dozens of billions.
The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently 'no evidence' that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.
If they have gotten it right, the context that so many others went down the same route we did would be important, but I imagine will be ignored.
more relevantly, there are 20 odd big hitters in the room with Cummings, not by any means guaranteed to be tory by inclination, and not easily bullied. The dodgy dossier was compiled in private by nicking stuff off the internet; no one would get it past a proper committee like this one.
So yes a small minority. Not that we have any such examples here of course...
I think the whole Sweden thing is a proxy argument for Big State vs Liberty for a lot of people, and Leave vs Remain for a lot of others. The fact it was Boris' original plan means there is big premium in it failing for his haters, they can't say he didn't lock down quickly enough if Sweden is proved right
Unless the vaccine doesn't work either - but let's not go there.
https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1254003414813605888?s=20
drapersonline, big hospitality, propertyweek, retail gazette, the grocer, retail week... that list is because I work in retail/hospitality/property.
Are others finding the same in their various worlds of work?
The last time was 1707 when Queen Anne refused to assent to send the militia to Scotland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561.stm
From my point of view, I'm frustrated by people who have been desperately trying to find "evidence" to support what they have decided has to be true: that the lockdown is wrong and must be released (regardless of what the outcome would actually be).
The Sweden situation is their latest cause celebre. We've had that there aren't really that many deaths (which has fallen by the wayside), that those who died would somehow have died anyway (likewise fallen by the wayside), that countries that lockdown don't gain any control (still pushed by some diehards, but dropping off), and the "hey, look at Sweden - they're free from any restrictions and we could do that too" crowd.
The latter carefully ignoring the differences between countries (Sweden's social culture makes for a lower R0 level to start with, the population distribution further reduces R0 in large areas of the country) and have previously been ignoring that they do, in fact, have quite a lot of restrictions - albeit less than us.
They've gone out of their way to misrepresent data (such as that graph made up by someone to pretend that the death rates in Sweden and the UK had followed an identical trajectory, which was easily shown as false based on looking up the real data), to loudly trumpet weekend days of low reporting as PROOF it has turned the corner, and to ignore reporting delays in all countries to try to compare the most recent incomplete data to PROVE they've peaked.
I don't have joy in Swedish deaths. I'm sorry for them. I'd love it to be possible to get back in the air, for example (First World problems: I'm a microlight pilot, this last winter was horrible for flying, and since the lockdown started, it's been ideal weather).
But all their rationale has been shown as flawed and can be compared to real life outcomes, the death toll in Stockholm is horrifying and still climbing, and the "Stop the lockdown - Sweden proves it's possible" crowd will, if listened to, cause widespread (lonely and lingering) deaths. Which is why they frustrate me.
If Rt is down at 0.68 here, then we can look at slightly lifting some restrictions when the death rate has fallen further. We just need to work out what we can lift, and those trying to "prove" whatever they can by misrepresenting facts are getting in the way and muddying the waters on what we can do.
Too many for those obsessed with this 'story'.
Meanwhile the government is vulnerable on testing, care home, unrestricted air travel and dependence on PPE imports but escapes questioning.
The death stats have never really worried me, more the potential long term effects of it. Everyone is fixated on the deaths but what if the lung scar tissue causes something akin to mesothelioma in the long term ?!
To be fair though, i was extremely heartened by Prof Farzan talk. A man who worked on AIDs for 20 years, listed a whole range of weaknesses with CV that could be utilized to attack this thing.
On regional government I voted no to the NE Regional talking shop - didn't see the point in what had been proposed. What I'm proposing now is more along the lines of the former Scottish regions, so they would be big on the kind of scale of Northumbria or Wessex. England is not remotely a united country - economics, culture, identity. Give people a bit of space to develop their own way seems like a reasonable approach, I'm replacing idiocy like the "Tees Valley Combined Authority" with Northumbria etc.
On Brexit we're both exiting with No Deal and not exiting with No Deal. Its not physically possible to create the hard border that no agreement with the EU requires in the time available - on either side of the border, so we'll agree a drop hands deal where we don't diverge. A train with two locos where instead of one driver controlling both, the jumper cables are unplugged and they are uncoupled, but both independently going the same way along the same track at the same speed buffered up against each other...
Every political decision means weighing costs and benefits but rarely are the choices as grim as those the PM faces now"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/johnsons-tragedy-is-that-he-has-no-safe-option-3qgq9kgfn
What is right for one country may not be right for another.
I have posted loads of graphs on Sweden, I am quite fascinated by what is going on and people's attempts to make sense of it, and some of them are the ones you have identified as misleading. But I don't see the people making those graphs as wilfuly trying to mislead, actually - they are probably having a go at trying to figure stuff out that is puzzling the world, and if they make amateurish mistake sometimes... so what? The corrections educate us all. Better than just swallowing one line and not querying it. I thought scientific experiment, of which I am a bit of a dunce, was about testing things out in an attempt to find the truth rather than ego and agenda?