Perhaps it's time we stepped back and asked what is wrong with our system that it produces such bad governance? What are the problems with the current incentives and penalties in our system that elevates sub-optimal people into positions of power? Daniel Hannan to the Lords, as Alistair pointed out, being a prime example. Many years ago as an engineering grad I read Peter Senge "The fifth discipline" and I think it has a lot of insights that we could use in politics today.
It is simple and not a thing reserved either to politics or even this country you see it in business and the civil service too.
Above a certain level
1) People are put in charge of things they don't understand 2) People get to move on before the ordure hits the fan 3) The reward for failure is a promotion
A good post, but how do you improve it. Here are a few suggestions (and I know we can all point out situations elsewhere where this has worked equally badly):
a) Change our system from confrontational to consensus politics b) One way of achieving a) is to dump the 2 party system c) Separate the Government more from the law making and scrutiny role (currently it is a conflict of interest and appointments are made from a pool of just over 325 with limited qualifications for dozens of roles d) Beef up the scrutiny to actually be effective
Our MPs are far too partisan and very few have any expertise in running a Govt or any knowledge on the Depts they run (and as you say they get shuffled along anyway if they do). How many for instance actually have knowledge of health care, the military, science, foreign affairs, etc. if you are going to appoint from outside (eg senior diplomat as For Sec) then the scrutiny has to be top notch and not what we have now.
I am not sure there is a democracy in the world without a broad 40/40 left right split, a cynical electorate and partisan supporters. It's the nature of the beast.
I'm sure you are right Felix, but my suggestion wasn't just limited to that split and anyway the change would break up the groupings into a more disparate group eg Independents, Marxists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Free market, socially liberal Conservatives, Socially conservative Conservatives, etc.
Such a change (together with the others I mentioned) would mean people in these groups would work together where they agree more freely and that would be a lot.
One thing I find interesting about PB is I agree more often with people I have different political views to than I disagree.
For instance I have a lot in common with Sandpit , yourself, SeanF, David Herdson, etc. Equally on the other side I really enjoy kinabalu and others. Philip is the best example. I strongly disagree with him say 20% of the time and strongly agree with him 80% of the time.
I have of course left out those I agree with most of the time (eg Nigelb, IanB2, etc).
I take your point but in practice, usually when there is more PR the alliances occur post-election making the groupings in government not so different from what we have in the UK. It is the case here in Spain where every election I've witnessed ended up that way except one. The actual voting breakdowns have barely changed. As for the working together - sometimes yes and sometimes no. My move abroad 10 years ago has been a wonderful experience on a personal level for me - wrt politics I see many more similarities than differences. Overall I think that is probably a good thing.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
As usual, an eloquent piece by Mr Meeks. However, it makes the usual mistakes of blaming Boris/The Tories without actually answering (or even asking) why so many deaths?
I've seen lots of opinion:
We should have locked down sooner/longer (yes, but arguing for that, one must consider the economic and mental health wellbeing. This is very well encapsulated with Cyclefree's family experience)
We should have closed the airports (yes, but aren't there statistics showing only a small percentage of cases attributable to open airports)
How can Australia and New Zealand deal with it effectively but we can't (yes, but what are the differences in population density, BAME communities, obesity levels etc.)
OK, what about Germany, they did well last year, we should have done what they did (yes, but what exactly was that. As far as I can see it is summarised as 'Did lots of testing'. OK, so why didn't we? Did we not have the kit or infrastructure? Was our testing regime too centralised and if so, why is that?)
We should have introduced a circuit breaker in September (yes, but where is the evidence that a two week circuit breaker works)
We should never have relaxed the rules at Christmas (yes but government advice was to 'only meet your Christmas bubble in private homes or in your garden, places of worship, or public outdoor spaces. only see your bubble on Christmas Day'. From what I have seen on PB, I don't think that I saw any comments that suggested anyone was going to ignore that advice and many were cancelling Christmas - I admit I may have missed any comments to the contrary. If the population in general followed government advice, why did we see such a post Christmas spike in cases).
I could go on, but hopefully, you get my drift. Lazily invoking Royal Wootton Bassett and war deaths makes for articulate commentary in a novel (have we seen SeanT and Mr Meeks at the same time in the same room?), but does it actually add to what we should be doing and, more importantly why are our numbers so high and what could we have done to prevent or mitigate this tragedy. If all we can say is "The government has benefited from this human failing." (and the observant will notice the full stop) then we can see what the real reason behind this piece is. Blame is easy if you never have to take responsibility, just look at the TikTok video of the young gentleman having a go at Chris Whitty. Did anyone think that it was remotely helpful? As the vaccines help to drag us out of this awful mess, let's have a real look at what we could do better, and learn from our mistakes. Put in place procedures, structures and organisations that will make us better prepared. I suspect this is not the last Covid or similar disaster. Whatever stripe of party is in power will thank us if we take a proper look at what we can do better rather than engage in a tribal blame game.
I think you are making the mistake of treating these as independent variables. It is, in fact, the cumulative and interactive effect of all of these poor decisions (and others) that is the trouble.
To take but one example - the impact on Cyclefree's family would have been far less had there been more and better work done on business support, with better planning, notice, and criteria for entering and leaving lockdown. (For context, I am also in the "small hospitality business" in a small way, and we got keys to new premises *during* lockdown I, so I appreciate the issues; clearly the same applies to e.g. home schooling, identifying keyworkers.)
All of this was somewhat forgivable during Lockdown I (notwithstanding the disbanding/failure of pandemic planning pre-Covid) but to repeat the same errors the second time can surely be attributed to "now is not the time to learn". Now is *exactly* the time to learn, given we clearly haven't learned yet.
What we need are more international comparisons. Not less.
What I would like to see, is some in-depth measurement of what measures actually worked, around the world.
- It turns out that track and trace apps seem to have been a bust in much (maybe all of) Europe. Why? Take up? people ignoring them? - What measures for isolating cases/getting people to isolate have actually worked? Australian hotel policy etc. - What extent the epidemic was driven by community transmission vs re-infection from abroad. Would shutting the airports actually do the job? Or would we have to shut Dover as well?
What seems to have been the case, in much of Europe, is that restrictions slow the spread.
Lock downs *reduce* cases.
The main problem from the government is being slow, I think. Slow to lock down in the first instance. Slow to lock down again.
Because of the exponential increase thing, once you are on the upward slope, days matter. Maybe even hours.
Agree with the need to react rapidly. We didn't.
Track and trace works well when there are relatively few cases, testing results are processed rapidly, contact tracing is either local or has the benefit of government panopticon capabilities, and there is strong support for isolation of contacts.
If any of those things are missing, it's probably going to fail. In the UK's case, none of those conditions were satisfied.
When it doesn't work, the only effective method is mass rapid antigen testing, which as far as I can see, no country has yet implemented effectively (with the possible partial exceptions of China and the Czech Republic).
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
Perhaps it's time we stepped back and asked what is wrong with our system that it produces such bad governance? What are the problems with the current incentives and penalties in our system that elevates sub-optimal people into positions of power? Daniel Hannan to the Lords, as Alistair pointed out, being a prime example. Many years ago as an engineering grad I read Peter Senge "The fifth discipline" and I think it has a lot of insights that we could use in politics today.
It is simple and not a thing reserved either to politics or even this country you see it in business and the civil service too.
Above a certain level
1) People are put in charge of things they don't understand 2) People get to move on before the ordure hits the fan 3) The reward for failure is a promotion
A good post, but how do you improve it. Here are a few suggestions (and I know we can all point out situations elsewhere where this has worked equally badly):
a) Change our system from confrontational to consensus politics b) One way of achieving a) is to dump the 2 party system c) Separate the Government more from the law making and scrutiny role (currently it is a conflict of interest and appointments are made from a pool of just over 325 with limited qualifications for dozens of roles d) Beef up the scrutiny to actually be effective
Our MPs are far too partisan and very few have any expertise in running a Govt or any knowledge on the Depts they run (and as you say they get shuffled along anyway if they do). How many for instance actually have knowledge of health care, the military, science, foreign affairs, etc. if you are going to appoint from outside (eg senior diplomat as For Sec) then the scrutiny has to be top notch and not what we have now.
I am not sure there is a democracy in the world without a broad 40/40 left right split, a cynical electorate and partisan supporters. It's the nature of the beast.
I'm sure you are right Felix, but my suggestion wasn't just limited to that split and anyway the change would break up the groupings into a more disparate group eg Independents, Marxists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Free market, socially liberal Conservatives, Socially conservative Conservatives, etc.
Such a change (together with the others I mentioned) would mean people in these groups would work together where they agree more freely and that would be a lot.
One thing I find interesting about PB is I agree more often with people I have different political views to than I disagree.
For instance I have a lot in common with Sandpit , yourself, SeanF, David Herdson, etc. Equally on the other side I really enjoy kinabalu and others. Philip is the best example. I strongly disagree with him say 20% of the time and strongly agree with him 80% of the time.
I have of course left out those I agree with most of the time (eg Nigelb, IanB2, etc).
@Pagan2 - Thank you for that message. I know it is long but you should post it here; it was well thought out.
I don't agree with it all, but that doesn't matter because it is a start and a much more detailed one than I came up with. No doubt it will get torn apart by others on here, after all that is what we do and I have done it to you recently, but I thought it an excellent document for discussion.
In particular your point 3 (I know nobody else knows what we are talking about) is something I have thought about a lot and have a different solution to, but which I agree with completely. We have a situation in this country where we avoid passing laws because they are not perfect (loopholes, or catch out people who haven't done anything wrong but fail the jobs worth test) or pass laws that then get applied where they shouldn't be (eg the jobs worth who tells you 'but that is the law').
Go on post it Pagan.
I am not convinced this forum or the participants want a long discussion on political reform to be fair, yes possibly a subset do. Perhaps I will find another way to do it so only those interested get it inflicted
Header?
I would be very interested to read a header from @Pagan2 on this subject.
I will think about writing it up properly then up to Mike, though be warned I am not much of a writer and MysticRose will complain its too long and not about betting
If we're talking about those radical thoughts on electoral reform you sent me a while ago I'd say you should do it if you have the time.
Still hard to take in that the Krankies were big swingers. Imagine Janette picking your car keys. Shagging a woman who pretends to be a small boy - what would that do to your kinky weirdometer?
Anecdata of sorts, but the Zoe app has shown infections in my area (Waverley) resurging this week (up from 729 to 779 active cases). I'm not sure that Zoe is the best guide, or that it's not a blip or very local, but there is a general reminder there that we shouldn't get into "Now we can relax a bit" mode just yet.
I wouldn't dream of reopening schools, pubs and restaurants for some time yet, but would support temporary extra taxation to fund assistance for them. I'd close the borders for personal travel, but continue to allow goods transport with the best available precautions, including moving drivers up the queue to urgent for vaccinations.
The local information on the Government site is excellent Nick, I suggest you just go by that. On the map when zooming in you get cases in the last 7 days down to sub-local authority level and movement in the 7 day average. For Waverley as a whole it currently has 232 cases over the last 7 days, down 21% on the previous week's average. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map
That data is good, but with a lag. Whereas ZOE is picking up people in Nick's area who, yesterday, are reporting a pack of symptoms indicative of possible infection. Obviously at very local level there is a reasonable probability of random error, but in the round, these have generally provided warning flags for areas about to experience an uptick in case rates.
We don't seem to have followed up with the sewage testing that once was mentioned as giving a good early indicator of infections in comparatively small areas. Or did we, and it's just gone underground, so to speak?
I hope it's not another bright (and in hindsight obvious) idea that hasn't been allowed to go down the drain. That (seriously) would be criminal. But I believe they may be using it in the current panic over the SA form in Lndon/Kent/Surrey.
Ah, I wondered about that when they issued warnings to people in postcode areas.
Still hard to take in that the Krankies were big swingers. Imagine Janette picking your car keys. Shagging a woman who pretends to be a small boy - what would that do to your kinky weirdometer?
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
I have a thousand words or so in a thread header, in which I usually try to make one point. My one point this time was that Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable, and must not be swept under the carpet. This point has proven too controversial for your fellow travellers, for reasons apparently connected to Brexit but which have not been fully articulated.
You are complaining that I have not written a different article. There are many points I would make about the why. Some are the responsibility of government, some are not. But others are at least as well placed as me to write it, and often better placed.
"Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable"
How would you have avoided all the deaths? One year lockdown?
Over focussing on the success of the vaccination program at the expense of the number of dead reminds me of 2000 era New Labour politicians talking up the amount of money spent on public services as if that was the sole metric of how good schools and hospitals were.
Outcomes are more important than process and in the end the 2 outcomes that will go down in the history books will be number of deaths and economic hit.
For me it's difficult to pin the blame of all the first 35-40k dead at the government's feet. It was a difficult situation and we'd never really had this sort of emergency before, APAC nations were far, far better prepared for it with pre-existing SARS and bird flu containment procedures tested regularly given their proximity to China.
That's where I depart from the "can't blame Boris" train. The whole second wave and our shocking response is all down to Boris. There are 65-70k people who have died in the second wave. Their lives have been thrown away by Boris. There are millions of people working in hospitality who don't know when the next time they'll have a job is. Their livelihoods have been thrown away by Boris.
Our failure to close the border and bring in hotel quarantine in June is the single most destructive decision tis the government has taken and it deserves to pay the price for it. Unfortunately Labour are useless and Boris will probably win an even bigger majority in 2024. We've thrown away people's lives and livelihoods to keep the border open and no one in the government can give us a good reason why and no one in the media or opposition is asking the right questions.
There's some sort of collective silence on this issue and an inquiry is necessary to get to the bottom of it. When COVID 22 arrives next year we need to have a set of measures in place that includes immediate closure of the border and for insurance policies to cover the expense of quarantine hotels on return even if that means an extra pound on travel insurance.
This criticism is completely separate from vaccines and the absolutely great decisions made there. Full credit to the government on that for bringing industry, scientists and the NHS together to have a truly world beating scheme. It's not going to bring back the dead though, and our success there gives us a great template for the future already.
As for international comparisons, I would suggest to those creaming themselves over the UK or England being top of a list to calm down. Firstly it's unedifying that you seem so glad that so many have died, secondly this pandemic isn't over yet, and thirdly comparing numbers from a highly transparent nation such as the UK to anywhere else isn't smart. Every time we've had a leak from other countries their non-COVID respiratory deaths always seem 3x higher than normal. Even in some US states.
I think you're letting them off too likely for the decisions made that contributed to the scale of the first wave in the UK. There really were an awful lot of calls that they got badly wrong.
Nonetheless, I would look to spread the blame for the early wave in so far as a lot of the mistakes go back long before Johnson took over. Jeremy Hunt pushed the creation of Public Health England with responsibilities transferred to local authorities in order to get its budgets outside the NHS spending envelope and subject to the huge scale of punative cuts applied to local authorities in general. We turned public health into a Cinderrella and it wasn't in a position to cope initially. Then there was the failure to act on the findings of the large scale wargaming exercise which gave a few years warning of how badly exposed the country was. Then there's the issue of why the NHS felt it had so little option but to push patients into care homes and why care homes were so badly equipped to cope, harking back to the long term failure to sort of the NHS/care home relationship. So by early 2020 the context was that any UK government would have struggled, although (vaccines aside) ours did particularly badly.
The comments regarding public health are fair - though note that capabilities had been steadily degraded for a couple of decades before Hunt arrived on the scene (and also Hunt should get some credit for recognising his mistakes).
There were a lot of bad calls early on, but I think Max's point, fairly made, is that any government would likely have made a number of them, and that in the early stages of the pandemic governments' responses worldwide were essentially driven by whatever systems were or weren't already in place.
The discharge into care homes of infected or untested patients from hospitals was probably the most indefensible mistake - and the offence was compounded by government never really owning up to it.
One lesson we really do need to take from this pandemic is to build co-operative flexibility into the care home & hospitals systems, so that large scale isolation of individuals can be started if it ever becomes necessary again. That might be easier if social care was integrated into the NHS system, perhaps.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
Out of curiosity Alastair, do you have any views on the performance of the devolved administrations? I think Starmer missed a big trick in not taking a more hands-on approach to Wales to show what could be done.
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
The public also must take a lot of blame, By October everyone knew the risks with Covid, yet the people I know who got it behaved in daft way to get it, mainly through house parties.
And how many of those wore masks at the house parties ... ?
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
I have a thousand words or so in a thread header, in which I usually try to make one point. My one point this time was that Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable, and must not be swept under the carpet. This point has proven too controversial for your fellow travellers, for reasons apparently connected to Brexit but which have not been fully articulated.
You are complaining that I have not written a different article. There are many points I would make about the why. Some are the responsibility of government, some are not. But others are at least as well placed as me to write it, and often better placed.
"Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable"
How would you have avoided all the deaths? One year lockdown?
I dont agree with all of the article but this is absurd. Considerable and all mean completely different things. What is the point of language if one cannot use a word like considerable without it being conflated with all?
Lol - update from UPS. My Frozen Pizza samples are on hold at East Midlands Airport due to "Brexit related disruption". My client has done a ream of paperwork to get these sent over (vs no paperwork before Christmas) and they've still got stuck.
Still hard to take in that the Krankies were big swingers. Imagine Janette picking your car keys. Shagging a woman who pretends to be a small boy - what would that do to your kinky weirdometer?
Not kinky at all in the 1960s, surely. Or at least not for the females who found it very trendy to be skinny, have boyish haircuts, etc.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
Out of curiosity Alastair, do you have any views on the performance of the devolved administrations? I think Starmer missed a big trick in not taking a more hands-on approach to Wales to show what could be done.
I’m getting confused here. On the one hand there are a host of posters outraged I wrote the thread header. On the other hand, another host of posters want to explore my views in minute detail. Could group a talk with group b?
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
Anecdata of sorts, but the Zoe app has shown infections in my area (Waverley) resurging this week (up from 729 to 779 active cases). I'm not sure that Zoe is the best guide, or that it's not a blip or very local, but there is a general reminder there that we shouldn't get into "Now we can relax a bit" mode just yet.
I wouldn't dream of reopening schools, pubs and restaurants for some time yet, but would support temporary extra taxation to fund assistance for them. I'd close the borders for personal travel, but continue to allow goods transport with the best available precautions, including moving drivers up the queue to urgent for vaccinations.
The local information on the Government site is excellent Nick, I suggest you just go by that. On the map when zooming in you get cases in the last 7 days down to sub-local authority level and movement in the 7 day average. For Waverley as a whole it currently has 232 cases over the last 7 days, down 21% on the previous week's average. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map
That data is good, but with a lag. Whereas ZOE is picking up people in Nick's area who, yesterday, are reporting a pack of symptoms indicative of possible infection. Obviously at very local level there is a reasonable probability of random error, but in the round, these have generally provided warning flags for areas about to experience an uptick in case rates.
We don't seem to have followed up with the sewage testing that once was mentioned as giving a good early indicator of infections in comparatively small areas. Or did we, and it's just gone underground, so to speak?
I hope it's not another bright (and in hindsight obvious) idea that hasn't been allowed to go down the drain. That (seriously) would be criminal. But I believe they may be using it in the current panic over the SA form in Lndon/Kent/Surrey.
Ah, I wondered about that when they issued warnings to people in postcode areas.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
@Pagan2 - Thank you for that message. I know it is long but you should post it here; it was well thought out.
I don't agree with it all, but that doesn't matter because it is a start and a much more detailed one than I came up with. No doubt it will get torn apart by others on here, after all that is what we do and I have done it to you recently, but I thought it an excellent document for discussion.
In particular your point 3 (I know nobody else knows what we are talking about) is something I have thought about a lot and have a different solution to, but which I agree with completely. We have a situation in this country where we avoid passing laws because they are not perfect (loopholes, or catch out people who haven't done anything wrong but fail the jobs worth test) or pass laws that then get applied where they shouldn't be (eg the jobs worth who tells you 'but that is the law').
Go on post it Pagan.
I am not convinced this forum or the participants want a long discussion on political reform to be fair, yes possibly a subset do. Perhaps I will find another way to do it so only those interested get it inflicted
Header?
I would be very interested to read a header from @Pagan2 on this subject.
I will think about writing it up properly then up to Mike, though be warned I am not much of a writer and MysticRose will complain its too long and not about betting
If we're talking about those radical thoughts on electoral reform you sent me a while ago I'd say you should do it if you have the time.
Yes it was those ones. Will work on it though not convinced here is the forum.
Anecdata of sorts, but the Zoe app has shown infections in my area (Waverley) resurging this week (up from 729 to 779 active cases). I'm not sure that Zoe is the best guide, or that it's not a blip or very local, but there is a general reminder there that we shouldn't get into "Now we can relax a bit" mode just yet.
I wouldn't dream of reopening schools, pubs and restaurants for some time yet, but would support temporary extra taxation to fund assistance for them. I'd close the borders for personal travel, but continue to allow goods transport with the best available precautions, including moving drivers up the queue to urgent for vaccinations.
The local information on the Government site is excellent Nick, I suggest you just go by that. On the map when zooming in you get cases in the last 7 days down to sub-local authority level and movement in the 7 day average. For Waverley as a whole it currently has 232 cases over the last 7 days, down 21% on the previous week's average. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map
That data is good, but with a lag. Whereas ZOE is picking up people in Nick's area who, yesterday, are reporting a pack of symptoms indicative of possible infection. Obviously at very local level there is a reasonable probability of random error, but in the round, these have generally provided warning flags for areas about to experience an uptick in case rates.
Good point re the map. However, on the case data as opposed to the map they do have the most recent local authority data by specimen date currently up to 2nd Feb which would be enough to flag up anything ominious even if the data is incomplete due to reporting lags (as will be any other source using it.)
Yes, but symptoms appear gradually, people take time to go get a test, then wait for the result, then it gets added to the local authority database. Whereas if people are doing ZOE properly, they should log symptoms as soon as they appear, even if it turns out to be nothing. If I just record a bit of tiredness or headache, nothing happens, but they must have some algorithm that predicts the likelihood of infection, since on the two occasions I recorded a batch of symptoms (well short of the fever-cough-loss of smell we're all watching for) the invitation for a test came by email shortly after.
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
The public also must take a lot of blame, By October everyone knew the risks with Covid, yet the people I know who got it behaved in daft way to get it, mainly through house parties.
Don't forget it was"your patriotic duty to go to the pub" during the summer.
Over the top lads, if we don't drink 12 pints of Löwenbräu each, we could end up speaking German.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
It does appear that photos of the UK PM standing in front of an EU flag are at some EU summit or other - even Blair. Whereas, it does seem more normal for other EU nation PMs to have an EU flag alongside their own in everyday settings.
Still hard to take in that the Krankies were big swingers. Imagine Janette picking your car keys. Shagging a woman who pretends to be a small boy - what would that do to your kinky weirdometer?
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
Christ, it took a while, but a funny iteration of the Brittas meme at last.
@Pagan2 - Thank you for that message. I know it is long but you should post it here; it was well thought out.
I don't agree with it all, but that doesn't matter because it is a start and a much more detailed one than I came up with. No doubt it will get torn apart by others on here, after all that is what we do and I have done it to you recently, but I thought it an excellent document for discussion.
In particular your point 3 (I know nobody else knows what we are talking about) is something I have thought about a lot and have a different solution to, but which I agree with completely. We have a situation in this country where we avoid passing laws because they are not perfect (loopholes, or catch out people who haven't done anything wrong but fail the jobs worth test) or pass laws that then get applied where they shouldn't be (eg the jobs worth who tells you 'but that is the law').
Go on post it Pagan.
I am not convinced this forum or the participants want a long discussion on political reform to be fair, yes possibly a subset do. Perhaps I will find another way to do it so only those interested get it inflicted
Header?
I would be very interested to read a header from @Pagan2 on this subject.
I will think about writing it up properly then up to Mike, though be warned I am not much of a writer and MysticRose will complain its too long and not about betting
If we're talking about those radical thoughts on electoral reform you sent me a while ago I'd say you should do it if you have the time.
Yes it was those ones. Will work on it though not convinced here is the forum.
Right. Well it would work fine imo. But don't feel pressurized.
Perhaps the craziest policy since........................Iraq....Brexit....the poll tax.....
Happened in similar ways in many countries at the same time - particularly so here in Spain where tourism was recklessly encouraged. It was very popular. I'm not sure how much evidence there is that restaurant dining was a particular vector for the waves which followed - less so I suspect than the gatherings of families in summer breaks or the reopenings of bars and clubs. Certainly the comparisons you make are inappropriate - I don't recall ooo,s on the streets demanding the policy be scrapped at the time.
How much dining can be done outside in Spain though?
The answer is zero in North East England.
Really? In my times in Newcastle I've seen lots of people dining outside. Usually about 2am though. Kebabs, burgers, pizzas, chips......
Regarding death toll, I think it's a fair supposition that excess deaths in subsequent years will be significantly lower - as Covid has carried off a lot of the vulnerable? Obviously life is precious, so it's not 'oh that's OK then' but it is likely to be a feature.
PB Tories whataboutery re vaccines does not absolve this Government from its disgraceful performance.
I'm not a tory and 'disgraceful performance' are words best reserved for the EU on vaccines. You can't absolve the British public from blame, although lefties are trying. I STILL see loads of people in shops, on public transport and indoor spaces without face masks. In some parts face mask wearing seems under 50%. Parties and meet-ups are still taking place and people are still socialising and travelling for pleasure. That is NOT Boris' fault.
You don’t think Boris’s refusal to sack his sidekick when he was caught flouting the rules has contributed to the problem?
I think the fuss made about someone breaking the rules contributed to the problem. Other politicians did similar without quite the same fuss it was tantamount to shouting at the public "don't bother following the rules, this Dominic bloke you have never heard of has broken them so you don't have to either".
I don’t think it was so much that he broke the rules. What really infuriated people was the cover up. If you break quarantine, drive the length of England to lock down in a house with a garden, take a nice day out for your wife’s birthday, get caught, Force the Attorney general to rewrite the law to protect you, cause the whole government machine into overdrive in support, and then tell repeated stupid lies that are an insult to everyone’s intelligence about what happened, to keep a job you were never actually showing the least sign of competence in, then people will get angry.
If he’d said (as Richard Tyndall of this parish pointed out at the time) ‘I put my family first and to do that I broke the rules. I realise that wasn’t good enough and I resign,’ it would have been over in hours. And he’d probably be back in government by now instead of having been spectacularly sacked for a second crass failure of judgement.
An interesting argument but I suspect it was more complicated than that. There was a simmering discontent from Brexit. Rees Mogg was photographed doing his Beulah impression in parliament. Old Etonian Boris Johnson had become Prime Minister not thanks to his own efforts but because the opposition had abdicated.
The country had moved into the hands of a reviled class. Those born to rule. The class system in this country takes a lot of unpicking. Why vote for those who you revile? Cameron got away with it because he avoided the excesses that Boris couldn't resist.
Add into the mix the appointment of his very own oik (an image Cummings himself projected) and the mix became toxic. It was difficult to get at Johnson because he could rightly claim he'd won an 80 seat majority. But at least half the country loathed him. The lockdown brought the seething feeling of impotence to the surface. Johnson and his entourage couldn't be got at so they went after his poodle instead. My feeling is that Covid saved Johnson in the short term
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
I have a thousand words or so in a thread header, in which I usually try to make one point. My one point this time was that Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable, and must not be swept under the carpet. This point has proven too controversial for your fellow travellers, for reasons apparently connected to Brexit but which have not been fully articulated.
You are complaining that I have not written a different article. There are many points I would make about the why. Some are the responsibility of government, some are not. But others are at least as well placed as me to write it, and often better placed.
"Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable"
How would you have avoided all the deaths? One year lockdown?
We couldn't have "avoided all the deaths"
But we'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we tested patients before returning them to their care home.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we been quick in restricting air travel back in February/March.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we recognised that a lot of people were going to meet up at Xmas regardless and timed the unlocking and lockdown around the holiday period rather than the three weeks prior.#
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Very perceptive and sobering article Alastair, thanks.
Those knocking it need to ask themselves why the death toll in the UK has been so very much worse than Germany's and worse even than France, US, Spain, Italy, Brazil... etc, etc.
That is the question none of the government's defenders can answer.
To those who ask what could have been done differently, I say: - following the scientific advice on lockdowns, - protecting care homes by better PPE and not sending them potentially infected hospital patients, - setting a good example (re Cummings), - having an effective track and trace system, - not encouraging eating out and foriegn holidays during the summer, - not pissing about with lockdown in the run-up to Christmas, - not sending kids back to school for one day after Christmas, - implementing a timely and rigorous control and quarantine of inbound travellers.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
The most salient feature of the Covid pandemic is the age gradient of severity of impact on those whom it infects. I feel sure that this feature has not escaped serious study, but I have not seen an explanation.
Is it to do with fraying DNA telemeres as people age? How is it that children and youth can be infected but barely affected? How do they shake it off so easily? And are they a serious vector of transmission in its spread or not? Is the immune system with its antibodies, D cells and so on materially different in young people?
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
Europhilia was at its height then. My school flew the EU flag regularly, and made us sing the EU anthem as the school anthem - in German.
I'm afraid to say, I wasn't successfully converted.
Normally I love to say I told you so (not least because the opportunity comes around so rarely) but this was just so blindingly obvious from last February that it would be embarrassing to say so. Presumably some airline sponsored the research trying to claim otherwise.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
Out of curiosity Alastair, do you have any views on the performance of the devolved administrations? I think Starmer missed a big trick in not taking a more hands-on approach to Wales to show what could be done.
I’m getting confused here. On the one hand there are a host of posters outraged I wrote the thread header. On the other hand, another host of posters want to explore my views in minute detail. Could group a talk with group b?
I was only asking!
Clearly the devolved admins are to some extent limited by the decisions taken in England (not sure they have the power to close down airports, but even if they did, not much point if they're still open in England). But I think they had plenty of scope to significantly out-perform England.
Whilst I don't think it serves the Tories well to point at the performance in Wales, it does feel to me to be a missed opportunity for Starmer. I suspect a lot of people might not think much of the government's performance on COVID, but they might not think that Starmer and Labour would have done much better.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
Because the world moves forward. In 1968, COVID would have been a horrible disaster of people coughing to death at home. Wear masks and that would have been about it. Hospitalisation wouldn't have saved a fraction of the lives.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
Because the world moves forward. In 1968, COVID would have been a horrible disaster of people coughing to death at home. Wear masks and that would have been about it. Hospitalisation wouldn't have saved a fraction of the lives.
2020 is half a century later.
Actually, if what's being said about India is true, then COVID in 1968 might not have been all that noticeable.
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Hang on, Nederland would come before Netherland.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
Edit: Doh! I understand now: les Pays-Bas. Quel idiot!
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
Europhilia was at its height then. My school flew the EU flag regularly, and made us sing the EU anthem as the school anthem - in German.
I'm afraid to say, I wasn't successfully converted.
The government and its supporters loves to make international comparisons right up until the moment that they are unfavourable. At that point they somehow become inappropriate and impossible to make.
The opposition and its supporters loves to make international comparisons right up until the moment that they are favourable. At that point they somehow become inappropriate and impossible to make.
Geese and ganders
But on here we can be mature and sensible and use international comparisons without fear or favour.
I know there are some of us who manage to do it with a reasonable attempt at evenhandedness. Others noticeably less so.
The most salient feature of the Covid pandemic is the age gradient of severity of impact on those whom it infects. I feel sure that this feature has not escaped serious study, but I have not seen an explanation.
Is it to do with fraying DNA telemeres as people age? How is it that children and youth can be infected but barely affected? How do they shake it off so easily? And are they a serious vector of transmission in its spread or not? Is the immune system with its antibodies, D cells and so on materially different in young people?
It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.
How salient is the age gradient? It is a good match for flu, cancer, pneumonia and cardiovascular disease.
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Hang on, Nederland would come before Netherland.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Hang on, Nederland would come before Netherland.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
The most salient feature of the Covid pandemic is the age gradient of severity of impact on those whom it infects. I feel sure that this feature has not escaped serious study, but I have not seen an explanation.
Is it to do with fraying DNA telemeres as people age? How is it that children and youth can be infected but barely affected? How do they shake it off so easily? And are they a serious vector of transmission in its spread or not? Is the immune system with its antibodies, D cells and so on materially different in young people?
It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.
How salient is the age gradient? It is a good match for flu, cancer, pneumonia and cardiovascular disease.
The immune system both weakens and tends to overreact with age, AIUI.
Normally I love to say I told you so (not least because the opportunity comes around so rarely) but this was just so blindingly obvious from last February that it would be embarrassing to say so. Presumably some airline sponsored the research trying to claim otherwise.
Or airport?
BTW I owe you thanks for putting me onto the Krugg Syndrome - rather fun and actually an evocative reminder of Glasgow about, I'd guess, 1967? My family encountered - and suffered very badly from - a solicitor's practice very like that, albeit in a small burgh over in the SE.
An interesting series of comments this morning. Yet again I got a short way through and scrolled to the bottom to confirm my suspicion on the author.
No point flouncing off - AM is entitled to his views, and is representative of a small number of posters here who could never admit the Government had done a good job, countered by the small number who don't want to hear anything but good about the government. I have been reading the site since the late 2000s and it was always the same.
Interestingly there are a large number of independent voices who are experienced in specific areas and can enlighten the debate.
I've always said that I don't significantly blame the Government for the death toll, but I also don't give them any significant credit for the vaccine rollout.
It will be years until proper analysis can be made, but our leaders are only human. Someone upthread said that decisions made hours apart could have significant consequences for death rates. Unfortunately it is not necessarily the case that this will be known when the decision is made or what the right decision is.
In the end whilst government decisions may have caused a number of seats . Generally the profile of those who have died is the old and infirm
I believe the way we look after our old people in this country through social care could be a significant contribution and successive governments have struggled to even get this on the agenda, and it arguably cost Theresa May her majority
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Hang on, Nederland would come before Netherland.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
They didn't fuck with 'Pays-Bas'.
Yes, (and @RobD) I got that just as I pressed Post! :-( My bad.
Tbf who can blame the Dutch for that.
On a related point, we've just finished watching The Serpent which has an interpid Dutch embassy officer in it. Really great series, well recommended.
Flags at NATO establishments are flown alphabétiquement according to their French names. Except for the Netherlands who insisted on their English exonym being used. #flagwankers
Hang on, Nederland would come before Netherland.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
They didn't fuck with 'Pays-Bas'.
I'm lost. It goes Netherlands, Poland, so what's the difference?
Regarding death toll, I think it's a fair supposition that excess deaths in subsequent years will be significantly lower - as Covid has carried off a lot of the vulnerable? Obviously life is precious, so it's not 'oh that's OK then' but it is likely to be a feature.
Depends what the long-term effects of Covid damage to heart and lungs for survivors is. Could see increased mortality as a result of that.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
Out of curiosity Alastair, do you have any views on the performance of the devolved administrations? I think Starmer missed a big trick in not taking a more hands-on approach to Wales to show what could be done.
I’m getting confused here. On the one hand there are a host of posters outraged I wrote the thread header. On the other hand, another host of posters want to explore my views in minute detail. Could group a talk with group b?
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
Europhilia was at its height then. My school flew the EU flag regularly, and made us sing the EU anthem as the school anthem - in German.
I'm afraid to say, I wasn't successfully converted.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
What was SAGE or its equivalent recommending to Wilson at the time and did he ignore their advice?
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
One thing January hasn't changed...you still can't stop the local fishing folk from going on about Brexit.
*a public health crisis morphed, slowly but surely, into a political issue.
*people have fatigue on bad news, let alone lockdowns. By the time we had a glorious summer, some of the privations of the early spring had clearly been forgotten. A related point is that the first wave was not nationwide but heavily localised - I think a lot of people got to the Summer with very little experience of the disease.
*HOWEVER, the slow and steady slide into the winter is a Government failure, and Christmas more so - find a level of measures that controls, without being onerous, that can stay in place. Find a message. Hammer it home. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Things like the 10 o'clock curfew, all the talk of circuit breakers - NONSENSE. I think we're close now, but they absolutely need to look at the powers the police have been granted and how they're being enforced.
*"its so confewsin that I can waterski backwards with two mates but not hug my mum" - NONSENSE. Utterly unhelpful.
*I wouldn't be surprised if the final excess deaths, reviewed a few years down the line, end up all in about the same place (within a factor 2) for similar countries and, in the USA, for similar states. Interconnectivity of population hubs, population density/lived population density, populace health, climate will be the most important factors.
Was the lifting of lockdown in December only bad in retrospect as we didn't understand the new strain. Surely different decisions would be made on models that included for a R rate of 1.7 compared to one
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
The point is, unlike Wilson, this Government has taken steps. Those steps have saved lives as a result. Maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. That needs to be put on the other side of the ledger.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
No flag? Traitors, one and all! Boris must be the only patriot on your list.
We all know who did have a europhile past and is now trying to pass himself of as an authentic British flag wanker. The evidence...
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
Europhilia was at its height then. My school flew the EU flag regularly, and made us sing the EU anthem as the school anthem - in German.
I'm afraid to say, I wasn't successfully converted.
It was? I think I barely knew the EU existed at the time. Certainly not something the school cared about.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
The point is, unlike Wilson, this Government has taken steps. Those steps have saved lives as a result. Maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. That needs to be put on the other side of the ledger.
I have to agree with those who say this is a fairly lousy article. Alastair Meeks and those of his fellow travellers never really outline what alternative policy they would have followed. Locking down a few days earlier doesn't really cut it.
I have a thousand words or so in a thread header, in which I usually try to make one point. My one point this time was that Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable, and must not be swept under the carpet. This point has proven too controversial for your fellow travellers, for reasons apparently connected to Brexit but which have not been fully articulated.
You are complaining that I have not written a different article. There are many points I would make about the why. Some are the responsibility of government, some are not. But others are at least as well placed as me to write it, and often better placed.
"Britain’s death toll is awful and was to a considerable extent avoidable"
How would you have avoided all the deaths? One year lockdown?
We couldn't have "avoided all the deaths"
But we'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we tested patients before returning them to their care home.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we been quick in restricting air travel back in February/March.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we recognised that a lot of people were going to meet up at Xmas regardless and timed the unlocking and lockdown around the holiday period rather than the three weeks prior.#
Etc.
As of last month the hospital wanted to send my covid positive father back to his care home to die - (he caught covid in hospital not in the home)
I don't know if this is government policy or the NHS - but struck me as madness
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
The point is, unlike Wilson, this Government has taken steps. Those steps have saved lives as a result. Maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. That needs to be put on the other side of the ledger.
It hasn't been here.
Why are UK deaths so much higher than Germany's?
Do we know that all countries are counting deaths in exactly same way? if not we probably need to look at excess deaths
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
One thing January hasn't changed...you still can't stop the local fishing folk from going on about Brexit.
Haven't they worked out what a great deal they got for fishing yet?
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
The severity of the pandemic was greatest in the second winter (1969/70), so the lack of public health measures (and Merck did develop a vaccine fairly early in 1969) certainly contributed to the death toll - and some significant economic disruption.
The original outbreak in Hong Kong showed mainly mild symptoms, and the first wave in the UK in the winter of 68/69 was relatively mild as well, so the lack of government response given the understanding of pandemics at the time is understandable.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
The point is, unlike Wilson, this Government has taken steps. Those steps have saved lives as a result. Maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. That needs to be put on the other side of the ledger.
It hasn't been here.
Why are UK deaths so much higher than Germany's?
Do we know that all countries are counting deaths in exactly same way? if not we probably need to look at excess deaths
Are those counted the same way/identifiable?
Comparisons wont be perfect no matter what, though the general position of most nations will probably be clear.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
The severity of the pandemic was greatest in the second winter (1969/70), so the lack of public health measures (and Merck did develop a vaccine fairly early in 1969) certainly contributed to the death toll - and some significant economic disruption.
The original outbreak in Hong Kong showed mainly mild symptoms, and the first wave in the UK in the winter of 68/69 was relatively mild as well, so the lack of government response given the understanding of pandemics at the time is understandable.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
The Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968-9 led to 30-40,000 excess deaths when the UK population was 20% smaller. So equivalent to 36-48,000 today. What is your corresponding take on Harold Wilson?
If I might interject a comment - AFAIK that was sans any precautions or changes to procedures at all, no?
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
So Wilson did nothing - and had tens of thousands of excess deaths. Where's the outrage?
If Mr J had done nothing we would have had hundreds (plural) of [edit] thousands of excess deaths.
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
The point is, unlike Wilson, this Government has taken steps. Those steps have saved lives as a result. Maybe hundreds of thousands of lives. That needs to be put on the other side of the ledger.
It hasn't been here.
What could Wilson have done? Different world, in interesting ways. Vaccines did exist, but flu is very variable and I don't know enough to assess that. However this makes interesting reading. Vaccines were pretty useless. ICUs didn't exist. And try WFH in 1968 - far more heavby industry, clerical work, etc. Even then, there WAS outrage.
If we had still been in the EU, those German numbers give a suggestion of what our numbers would be. The vaccine we have acquired outside the EU would probably have been snapped up by the US.
On topic, the deaths are a tragedy - let there be no doubt about that, whatsoever - and with swifter decisions by the Government the death toll now might "only" be in the 65-75,000 range rather than at the 108,000 mark. But, it'd never have been zero; this going to be a global catastrophe as soon as the virus got loose.
However, let there be no mistake: that's not what this thread header is really about; it's about the author wanting the Prime Minister gone because of his role in Brexit and as cheerleader for Brexit - nothing more, nothing less. Covid is merely a useful stick to beat him with. If there was any doubt about that the mentioning of Dan Hannan gives it away.
I will mourn with close friends of mine who've experienced personal tragedy, advocate policies that help us rebuild and mitigate the long-term effects on our children and young people, and I will do what I can to influence the policy debate to see that such a calamity never visits us again.
But, I don't have much time for emotional blackmail and cheap politics - and I say that as someone who didn't want Boris for PM in the first place, and still don't think he's up to the job.
By your own estimate is an avoidable death toll of 30,000 to 40,000. Now, what do you think should be done about a government responsible for such an appalling death toll?
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
This crisis isn't over yet. I think the numbers will tell a more complex story than you think when it is.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
The EU didn't get into its mess like that, though, did it? If anything it was prioritising equity that led to their problems, and the EU itself didn't muscle into the matter. Germany was relatively quick off the mark and had its heads of agreement in place with AZN last spring, for 400 million doses with delivery starting late 2020, as part of a consortium with Italy, France and Holland.
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
Politicalbetting is an excellent site and I have enjoyed coming here (and very occasionally posting) over the past 15 years. The insight on the future being the main reason.
But this post is the last straw. I am no fan of Boris but this has nothing to do with political betting and is just pure political vitriol that I can go and read on the Canary if I want to.
Good to luck to OGH and all of you but I vote with my feet.
I feel the same.
I like this site for mostly good debate on threads that, certainly in Mike's case, are invariably betting related.
This has bugger all to do with betting. It's just bile from an embittered man who lost on Brexit.
Sort it out OGH or your regulars will depart this site.
The response to comments like this is, “see yer”.
And you run the risk of losing many varied and good contributors by comments like that
You will lose a lot more if you and Mysticrose succeed in banning any articles that criticise the sainted Boris
Given the latest poll a hatchet job on Boris is hardly representative either
The most salient feature of the Covid pandemic is the age gradient of severity of impact on those whom it infects. I feel sure that this feature has not escaped serious study, but I have not seen an explanation.
Is it to do with fraying DNA telemeres as people age? How is it that children and youth can be infected but barely affected? How do they shake it off so easily? And are they a serious vector of transmission in its spread or not? Is the immune system with its antibodies, D cells and so on materially different in young people?
It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.
How salient is the age gradient? It is a good match for flu, cancer, pneumonia and cardiovascular disease.
Not a good match for the previous pandemic, "Spanish" flu according to OurWorldinData, and I think it is sensible to focus on respiratory tract infections - cancer and cardiovascular not so relevant. Here are snippets of their comparison with "Spanish flu"
With respect to the impact of the Spanish flu it is striking that the visualization shows that the pandemic had very little impact on older people. While the life expectancy at birth and at young ages declined by more than ten years, the life expectancy of 60- and 70-year olds saw no change. This is at odds with what we would expect: older populations tend to be most vulnerable to influenza outbreaks and respiratory infections. . . . Why were older people so resilient to the 1918 pandemic? The research literature suggests that this was the case because older people had lived through an earlier flu outbreak – the already discussed ‘Russian flu pandemic’ of 1889–90 – which gave those who lived through it some immunity for the later outbreak of the Spanish flu.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
Was the lifting of lockdown in December only bad in retrospect as we didn't understand the new strain. Surely different decisions would be made on models that included for a R rate of 1.7 compared to one
I think we can clearly see the uptick in September when Universities go back, and by November we clearly knew that the R rate was high; the "why" is not as relevant as the fact that it was. To that point, though, we also had strong indicators that this was because of new mutations, though we hadn't characterized by exactly how much they were contributing.
There were many voices calling for this from late September onwards, and they were right. The "hindsight" narrative is a straw man put up by the Government to cover its backside that sadly seems to have got some traction.
Mr F makes a good point. There's a question in my mind about definition, too. When we compare deaths from Covid among the four nations (If N Ireland is a nation) then we are comparing like with like. Everyone defines them as 'deaths which have occurred within 28 days of a positive test'. Whether or not, incidentally Covid WAS the cause of death. Is that a WHO standard definition? Is it even (whisper it) an EU definition.? Or a Russian or Brazilian one?
There was a report in Spain in the autumn in El Pais which estimated Spain was then under counting to the scale of around 30k deaths. Wheter true or not it shows the weakness of league tables compiled from the data indivudual countries supply to the varies bodies which publish the data.
There was also a fascinating More or Less programme on radio 4 -explaining why our GDP had fallen so much (we try to record health and education output) against other countries who did not (they measure these as staff salaries). Spoiler alert we are pretty much the same as our western neighbours
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether steps which the government did or did not take led to an increased number of deaths, especially now when the government is considering when and how to lift lockdown.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask what the PM meant when he said he took "full responsibility". What does this actually mean?
Mr Meeks also fully praises the government for its vaccination success. As I do. This does not give them a free pass from criticism in relation to other things that they got and are still getting wrong. Only this morning the CEO of Best Western Hotels was asking pertinent questions about the government hotel quarantine policy.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out that each of the 108,000 people was more than a statistic - a life, a person loved and missed by others. The human cost is very real. It is worth remembering that in all the talk about numbers, graphs and statistics. We have lost a nephew; one of my best friends lost his father; many of us have been touched by illness. This was not simply the result of an Act of God.
Mr Meeks makes the simple point that government actions and inactions contributed to these losses and that we should seek to learn the lessons from that and apportion responsibility for both things done well and badly. That this simple point should inspire such virulent hostility is odd.
On a related point, I am a bit tired of people contributing headers being constantly criticised by those who never do. Not criticism of the "I don't agree and this is why" variety but the carping "oh he hates Brexit therefore is not entitled to say anything" variety we've seen today or the "I'm a famous author, no-one can write as well as me, I read such a lot but cannot be bothered to read anything more than 3 paragraphs long" variety. It is not easy writing headers. Some have been doing so regularly. I for one am immensely grateful to OGH for the opportunity. I am also in awe of his ability to produce 3 interesting threads a day day in and day out which stimulates so much interesting and intelligent discussion. I dare say that he would not publish others' headers if he did not think them worthwhile. Those who think they can do better or would like more variety should offer up their own contributions.
Was the lifting of lockdown in December only bad in retrospect as we didn't understand the new strain. Surely different decisions would be made on models that included for a R rate of 1.7 compared to one
Even if we didn't know the details of the new strain, it was clear that something was going badly wrong, and that relaxing restrictions had lots of risks on the downside. (Part of the failure of tiers was that the process was too much like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.)
But the really inexplicable point was the inaction in the week or so after Christmas. Capped by the attempt to reopen schools. What was the government thinking, or were they still high on the last of the liqueur chocolates?
And I don't see the value in an enquiry in any case. If broadcasters have been crap and dont know or don't care by now they're not learning anything from an enquiry.
A challenge for the Brains Trust. Anyone know of any photos? I would have though Thatcher, and perhaps Major, Blair etc would have done this at some stage.
Those look like EU summits. I think the twitter thread was about PMs appearing in front of it routinely, like at press conferences.
I do think it is interesting that it is not a simple matter to find pictures of UK prime ministers in front of the EU flag; substantial image management work has probably gone into that.
Perhaps it's time we stepped back and asked what is wrong with our system that it produces such bad governance? What are the problems with the current incentives and penalties in our system that elevates sub-optimal people into positions of power? Daniel Hannan to the Lords, as Alistair pointed out, being a prime example. Many years ago as an engineering grad I read Peter Senge "The fifth discipline" and I think it has a lot of insights that we could use in politics today.
It is simple and not a thing reserved either to politics or even this country you see it in business and the civil service too.
Above a certain level
1) People are put in charge of things they don't understand 2) People get to move on before the ordure hits the fan 3) The reward for failure is a promotion
A good post, but how do you improve it. Here are a few suggestions (and I know we can all point out situations elsewhere where this has worked equally badly):
a) Change our system from confrontational to consensus politics b) One way of achieving a) is to dump the 2 party system c) Separate the Government more from the law making and scrutiny role (currently it is a conflict of interest and appointments are made from a pool of just over 325 with limited qualifications for dozens of roles d) Beef up the scrutiny to actually be effective
Our MPs are far too partisan and very few have any expertise in running a Govt or any knowledge on the Depts they run (and as you say they get shuffled along anyway if they do). How many for instance actually have knowledge of health care, the military, science, foreign affairs, etc. if you are going to appoint from outside (eg senior diplomat as For Sec) then the scrutiny has to be top notch and not what we have now.
I am not sure there is a democracy in the world without a broad 40/40 left right split, a cynical electorate and partisan supporters. It's the nature of the beast.
I'm sure you are right Felix, but my suggestion wasn't just limited to that split and anyway the change would break up the groupings into a more disparate group eg Independents, Marxists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Liberals, Free market, socially liberal Conservatives, Socially conservative Conservatives, etc.
Such a change (together with the others I mentioned) would mean people in these groups would work together where they agree more freely and that would be a lot.
One thing I find interesting about PB is I agree more often with people I have different political views to than I disagree.
For instance I have a lot in common with Sandpit , yourself, SeanF, David Herdson, etc. Equally on the other side I really enjoy kinabalu and others. Philip is the best example. I strongly disagree with him say 20% of the time and strongly agree with him 80% of the time.
I have of course left out those I agree with most of the time (eg Nigelb, IanB2, etc).
I take your point but in practice, usually when there is more PR the alliances occur post-election making the groupings in government not so different from what we have in the UK. It is the case here in Spain where every election I've witnessed ended up that way except one. The actual voting breakdowns have barely changed. As for the working together - sometimes yes and sometimes no. My move abroad 10 years ago has been a wonderful experience on a personal level for me - wrt politics I see many more similarities than differences. Overall I think that is probably a good thing.
Yeah you are right. You can attempt Utopia, but you will never get it.
Was the lifting of lockdown in December only bad in retrospect as we didn't understand the new strain. Surely different decisions would be made on models that included for a R rate of 1.7 compared to one
Even if we didn't know the details of the new strain, it was clear that something was going badly wrong, and that relaxing restrictions had lots of risks on the downside. (Part of the failure of tiers was that the process was too much like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted.)
But the really inexplicable point was the inaction in the week or so after Christmas. Capped by the attempt to reopen schools. What was the government thinking, or were they still high on the last of the liqueur chocolates?
Read PB from late November and it is very clear that extended the lockdown through to mid December was not only suggested, but expected. Suddenly releasing everyone to go shopping was the surprise, and the mistake.
Comments
https://efemeridesdoefemello.com/2017/07/29/acordo-para-construcao-do-eurotunel-e-ratificado/
Track and trace works well when there are relatively few cases, testing results are processed rapidly, contact tracing is either local or has the benefit of government panopticon capabilities, and there is strong support for isolation of contacts.
If any of those things are missing, it's probably going to fail.
In the UK's case, none of those conditions were satisfied.
When it doesn't work, the only effective method is mass rapid antigen testing, which as far as I can see, no country has yet implemented effectively (with the possible partial exceptions of China and the Czech Republic).
Answers not including the word Brexit would be much appreciated.
https://www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/news/county-swings-into-action-to-contain-mutant-coronavirus-9155043/
This has thrown up sometthing I had missed - this longer-term Scottish study
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/6605303/scots-experts-sewage-covid-january/
How would you have avoided all the deaths? One year lockdown?
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/british-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-during-a-press-news-photo/106646982?adppopup=true
I checked on Wikipedia and this episode first aired in 1993. Can you imagine such a thing in 2021? Chavs would burn the building to the ground roared on by Gammons (if they could find the jump leads to get their 1st gen Zafiras started).
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-prime-minister-thatcher-and-president-mitterrand-ratify-the-channel-22524908.html
Covid is 100K ++ already - and that is with great changes and significant precautions.
Still haven't had my jab.
The country had moved into the hands of a reviled class. Those born to rule. The class system in this country takes a lot of unpicking. Why vote for those who you revile? Cameron got away with it because he avoided the excesses that Boris couldn't resist.
Add into the mix the appointment of his very own oik (an image Cummings himself projected) and the mix became toxic. It was difficult to get at Johnson because he could rightly claim he'd won an 80 seat majority. But at least half the country loathed him. The lockdown brought the seething feeling of impotence to the surface. Johnson and his entourage couldn't be got at so they went after his poodle instead. My feeling is that Covid saved Johnson in the short term
But we'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we tested patients before returning them to their care home.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we been quick in restricting air travel back in February/March.
We'd have avoided a batch of deaths had we recognised that a lot of people were going to meet up at Xmas regardless and timed the unlocking and lockdown around the holiday period rather than the three weeks prior.#
Etc.
Those knocking it need to ask themselves why the death toll in the UK has been so very much worse than Germany's and worse even than France, US, Spain, Italy, Brazil... etc, etc.
That is the question none of the government's defenders can answer.
To those who ask what could have been done differently, I say:
- following the scientific advice on lockdowns,
- protecting care homes by better PPE and not sending them potentially infected hospital patients,
- setting a good example (re Cummings),
- having an effective track and trace system,
- not encouraging eating out and foriegn holidays during the summer,
- not pissing about with lockdown in the run-up to Christmas,
- not sending kids back to school for one day after Christmas,
- implementing a timely and rigorous control and quarantine of inbound travellers.
Other than that, not much room for improvement.
I think the Government should (must) commission a full independent review into the lessons learned from the pandemic, particularly on transmission vectors, containment, the role of international travel, track & trace, the effectiveness of lockdowns, the tragedy of care homes, and the resilience of the NHS. It should do this in tandem with the economic, social and political factors in play too, and be supported by reasoned analysis that allows the factors to be balanced together. It should also look at lazy pre-Covid assumptions made by ministers and Whitehall that, despite this being top of the national risk register, it would be just like a flu pandemic - confirmation bias did all the work to convince them that nothing special was needed on top.
If that commission identifies gross negligence or incompetence by this PM in the story of Covid then, yes, this PM should honourably take full responsibility for that and resign; it won't bother me, I was never impressed by Boris in the first place.
However, if the criteria is solely unnecessary extra deaths then so should the EU Commission resign, and many continental politicians, who prioritised saving money over early vaccine procurement, thus guaranteeing many more tragedies in the months to come.
Funnily enough, I don't hear you mention much about them.
Is it to do with fraying DNA telemeres as people age? How is it that children and youth can be infected but barely affected? How do they shake it off so easily? And are they a serious vector of transmission in its spread or not? Is the immune system with its antibodies, D cells and so on materially different in young people?
It's the dog that didn't bark in the night.
I'm afraid to say, I wasn't successfully converted.
Clearly the devolved admins are to some extent limited by the decisions taken in England (not sure they have the power to close down airports, but even if they did, not much point if they're still open in England). But I think they had plenty of scope to significantly out-perform England.
Whilst I don't think it serves the Tories well to point at the performance in Wales, it does feel to me to be a missed opportunity for Starmer. I suspect a lot of people might not think much of the government's performance on COVID, but they might not think that Starmer and Labour would have done much better.
2020 is half a century later.
You surely can't mean Holland - wouldn't that be akin to referring to Britain as England, which only the Americans do these days?
Edit: Doh! I understand now: les Pays-Bas. Quel idiot!
The differencve is partly in the degree of saturation of the medical system, of course.
I know there are some of us who manage to do it with a reasonable attempt at evenhandedness. Others noticeably less so.
BTW I owe you thanks for putting me onto the Krugg Syndrome - rather fun and actually an evocative reminder of Glasgow about, I'd guess, 1967? My family encountered - and suffered very badly from - a solicitor's practice very like that, albeit in a small burgh over in the SE.
No point flouncing off - AM is entitled to his views, and is representative of a small number of posters here who could never admit the Government had done a good job, countered by the small number who don't want to hear anything but good about the government. I have been reading the site since the late 2000s and it was always the same.
Interestingly there are a large number of independent voices who are experienced in specific areas and can enlighten the debate.
I've always said that I don't significantly blame the Government for the death toll, but I also don't give them any significant credit for the vaccine rollout.
It will be years until proper analysis can be made, but our leaders are only human. Someone upthread said that decisions made hours apart could have significant consequences for death rates. Unfortunately it is not necessarily the case that this will be known when the decision is made or what the right decision is.
In the end whilst government decisions may have caused a number of seats . Generally the profile of those who have died is the old and infirm
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-the-impact-vaccinating-everyone-over-70-will-have-and-what-happens-when-over-50s-get-the-jab-too-12207863
I believe the way we look after our old people in this country through social care could be a significant contribution and successive governments have struggled to even get this on the agenda, and it arguably cost Theresa May her majority
Tbf who can blame the Dutch for that.
On a related point, we've just finished watching The Serpent which has an interpid Dutch embassy officer in it. Really great series, well recommended.
Then a question as to which effect is stronger.
*a public health crisis morphed, slowly but surely, into a political issue.
*people have fatigue on bad news, let alone lockdowns. By the time we had a glorious summer, some of the privations of the early spring had clearly been forgotten. A related point is that the first wave was not nationwide but heavily localised - I think a lot of people got to the Summer with very little experience of the disease.
*HOWEVER, the slow and steady slide into the winter is a Government failure, and Christmas more so - find a level of measures that controls, without being onerous, that can stay in place. Find a message. Hammer it home. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Things like the 10 o'clock curfew, all the talk of circuit breakers - NONSENSE. I think we're close now, but they absolutely need to look at the powers the police have been granted and how they're being enforced.
*"its so confewsin that I can waterski backwards with two mates but not hug my mum" - NONSENSE. Utterly unhelpful.
*I wouldn't be surprised if the final excess deaths, reviewed a few years down the line, end up all in about the same place (within a factor 2) for similar countries and, in the USA, for similar states. Interconnectivity of population hubs, population density/lived population density, populace health, climate will be the most important factors.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
It hasn't been here.
I don't know if this is government policy or the NHS - but struck me as madness
The original outbreak in Hong Kong showed mainly mild symptoms, and the first wave in the UK in the winter of 68/69 was relatively mild as well, so the lack of government response given the understanding of pandemics at the time is understandable.
Note that Wilson lost the election in 1970.
John Major and Tony Blair certainly did. I can't find a Gordon Brown example, which doesn't entirely surprise me.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2285156/images/o-JOHN-MAJOR-facebook.jpg
https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/euobs-media/4dfd7ab865703d954167385ce1ba6fba.jpg
Comparisons wont be perfect no matter what, though the general position of most nations will probably be clear.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130832/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(2031201-0/fulltext
It was only when other countries, led by Belgium, complained that every European country going it alone could leave some of the smaller ones out in the cold that Germany, as an attempt to be helpful, suggested that the procurement process be handed over to the EU. Who therefore re-started relatively late. Big mistake by the Germans - and the EU performance subsequently has been risible - but it wasn't desperation to save money nor lack of initial speed that created the problem.
With respect to the impact of the Spanish flu it is striking that the visualization shows that the pandemic had very little impact on older people. While the life expectancy at birth and at young ages declined by more than ten years, the life expectancy of 60- and 70-year olds saw no change. This is at odds with what we would expect: older populations tend to be most vulnerable to influenza outbreaks and respiratory infections.
. . .
Why were older people so resilient to the 1918 pandemic? The research literature suggests that this was the case because older people had lived through an earlier flu outbreak – the already discussed ‘Russian flu pandemic’ of 1889–90 – which gave those who lived through it some immunity for the later outbreak of the Spanish flu.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-by-age
https://ourworldindata.org/spanish-flu-largest-influenza-pandemic-in-history
There were many voices calling for this from late September onwards, and they were right. The "hindsight" narrative is a straw man put up by the Government to cover its backside that sadly seems to have got some traction.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1357230571366346754?s=20
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/1357282740471812099?s=20
It is perfectly reasonable to ask what the PM meant when he said he took "full responsibility". What does this actually mean?
Mr Meeks also fully praises the government for its vaccination success. As I do. This does not give them a free pass from criticism in relation to other things that they got and are still getting wrong. Only this morning the CEO of Best Western Hotels was asking pertinent questions about the government hotel quarantine policy.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out that each of the 108,000 people was more than a statistic - a life, a person loved and missed by others. The human cost is very real. It is worth remembering that in all the talk about numbers, graphs and statistics. We have lost a nephew; one of my best friends lost his father; many of us have been touched by illness. This was not simply the result of an Act of God.
Mr Meeks makes the simple point that government actions and inactions contributed to these losses and that we should seek to learn the lessons from that and apportion responsibility for both things done well and badly. That this simple point should inspire such virulent hostility is odd.
On a related point, I am a bit tired of people contributing headers being constantly criticised by those who never do. Not criticism of the "I don't agree and this is why" variety but the carping "oh he hates Brexit therefore is not entitled to say anything" variety we've seen today or the "I'm a famous author, no-one can write as well as me, I read such a lot but cannot be bothered to read anything more than 3 paragraphs long" variety. It is not easy writing headers. Some have been doing so regularly. I for one am immensely grateful to OGH for the opportunity. I am also in awe of his ability to produce 3 interesting threads a day day in and day out which stimulates so much interesting and intelligent discussion. I dare say that he would not publish others' headers if he did not think them worthwhile. Those who think they can do better or would like more variety should offer up their own contributions.
But the really inexplicable point was the inaction in the week or so after Christmas. Capped by the attempt to reopen schools. What was the government thinking, or were they still high on the last of the liqueur chocolates?
And I don't see the value in an enquiry in any case. If broadcasters have been crap and dont know or don't care by now they're not learning anything from an enquiry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-niHkUCuQ
https://twitter.com/briansolis/status/1356503190661812224?s=20
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357243179184123904?s=20
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1357287235771596800?s=20