My point is, I see no real differences in how we handled things compared to the UK - it was error strewn, panicked, acting on little info and trying to get things right and often failing- we had the exact same problem with care homes for example. The big difference is we closed the border early and hard. We got told off by the EU but for once we ignored them. Closing the border however is easy here, we aren't a great global centre - we are a boring little land with pretty but unspectacular scenery and a lot of rain - not many people realised the border was shut so totally different from the UK.
What we have to remember, we are 15+ months into this....the scientists still don't know loads about COVID. How does it really spread? What does it actually do to your body? What's with all these failures of vital organs? etc etc etc.
The thoughts about this have changed every few months e.g. initially it was thought it was a respiratory illness, now not so sure.
And that's before you throw in all the new variants.
And that is why I get annoyed with those who say it doesn't matter that younger people aren't vaccinated as it doesn't really effect them.
We just don't know what the long term consequences of Covid are - will it flare up again in 20 years time like singles or is it a one off disease.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
And, bizarrely, financial analysts - one of the first things they do is check the underlying assumptions in a model
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
I do like these sorts of lines. Allows you to pirouette whichever way you wish.
If Boris did stand up and address it all head on, Waugh would be there going "look! he's taking it very seriously! there is some truth to it"
The best response is to treat it with cool, calm contempt and not to give them the oxygen. The public forget the details, the press move on to their next feeding frenzy.
By next week, they will be desperate for knowledge of whether they can still go on their holibobs from June 21st....
A cynical person might expect the Government to still be a bit "ooh - you'll have to wait and see....!" Even though they know full well 21st June is set in stone.
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
Opposition is a difficult role to play well during a natural disaster.
It’s really easy to critisise blindly with the benefit of hindsight, or to focus on personalities and the usual games - when the public are totally switched off, just want the crisis to be over and don’t understand why the ministers have to waste their time going through this Punch and Judy Show.
I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.
They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.
Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.
Crap investment.
The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)
Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.
Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.
Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
80% of very little is very little.
Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.
Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.
It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.
A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.
Etc.
They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)
Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?
Here's two things to remember:
(1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.
(2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.
Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.
And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.
But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?
Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.
Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.
We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!
The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
Hang on.
In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.
My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.
Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.
Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.
In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.
This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?
In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.
The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
Hence the interest in Elon Musk's product - roof tiles that are solar panels.
Unfortunately Tesla Solar Tiles are around 250-300% as expensive as black-on-black solar panels, and around 40% less efficient in electricity produced per area of tile.
All of tesla's 'building' products are in the Dyson Hoover sort of category, without a technical edge but a very expensive brand.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Big Dom is right about a lot of things. The issue is his approach to solving them is where it all goes wrong.
e.g. he was right when at education department about post A-level results applications to university. But he managed to piss every stakeholder, so it got torpedoed.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
This was my point yesterday. Both to show support and to face down Dom.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
And, bizarrely, financial analysts - one of the first things they do is check the underlying assumptions in a model
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Big Dom is right about a lot of things. The issue is his approach to solving them is where it all goes wrong.
e.g. he was right when at education department about post A-level applications to university. But he managed to piss every stakeholder, so it got torpedoed.
Problems with the EU, resolved by Brexit, being a case in point.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
And, bizarrely, financial analysts - one of the first things they do is check the underlying assumptions in a model
Ahem and then tweak the assumptions to get the right answer. Occasionally, obvs.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Big Dom is right about a lot of things. The issue is his approach to solving them is where it all goes wrong.
e.g. he was right when at education department about post A-level results applications to university. But he managed to piss every stakeholder, so it got torpedoed.
To some extent.
But also, there's a reflexive belief that many barriers to policy outcomes are natural laws that we should not waste our time considering how to overcome.
This phenomena has many names. The blob, one from Dom's past. More modern update below:
BREAK: TV host Dr Christian Jessen will have to pay damages of £125,000 to Arlene Foster @DUPLeader for posting an “outrageous” defamatory tweet which made unfounded claims that the First Minister of Northern Ireland was having an affair
April 1st 53.3 / 6.6 May 1st 57.6 / 23.3 May 25th 69.1 / 40.9
So the 90% figure is a bit misleading as you'd expect ~ 70% of adults (Looking at the above and bearing in mind data lag) to not be double vaxxed in hospital if the vaccinations were 100% placebo.
I think the 90% figure is more helpful than you're suggesting. While only 30%ish of adults would have been double-jabbed taking into account data lags. The adults being hospitalised would *heavily* skew towards the double-jabbed end of the population, so if the jabs weren't working you'd expect it to be far higher.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
And there is still lots of disagreement e.g. a number of scientists are now arguing all these protective screens that have been put up, may well be making everything worse, as they block airflow. And that continued cleaning of surfaces might also be at best have zero effect, but might actually make things worse.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Coupled with the 'law of the instrument', of course - if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if all you have is an influenza pandemic plan, everything looks like the flu.
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
We know its true. Its been known to be true for a year now.
What was an unsubstantiated claim is that Hancock was lying and claiming people were being tested when they weren't.
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
I think you need to wait until the full details of the advice are available and also Hancock’s appearance before the committee in a fortnight should be helpful
Matt Hancock casts serious doubt on Step 4 happening on June 21 for the first time. A big change in the Govt line which has been increasingly optimistic it will until now. "It's too early to say yet whether we can take the fourth step on June 21. We will be guided by the data".
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
I thought we knew about that. Isn't the real issue whether or not a decision was taken by the government on the basis that they thought they were being tested? Wasn't that what Dom was alleging?
It would seem an odd thing for Hancock to go out of his way to lie about to his colleagues. For sure, whoever took the decision may have done so wrongly believing something, but to actually lie about it to others would be strange.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
Matt Hancock casts serious doubt on Step 4 happening on June 21 for the first time. A big change in the Govt line which has been increasingly optimistic it will until now. "It's too early to say yet whether we can take the fourth step on June 21. We will be guided by the data".
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Big Dom is right about a lot of things. The issue is his approach to solving them is where it all goes wrong.
How is he 'Big'? He looks like a runt the best part of which ran down his mum's thigh.
He does look a scion of one of the cadet branches of the Dingle family.
April 1st 53.3 / 6.6 May 1st 57.6 / 23.3 May 25th 69.1 / 40.9
So the 90% figure is a bit misleading as you'd expect ~ 70% of adults (Looking at the above and bearing in mind data lag) to not be double vaxxed in hospital if the vaccinations were 100% placebo.
I think the 90% figure is more helpful than you're suggesting. While only 30%ish of adults would have been double-jabbed taking into account data lags. The adults being hospitalised would *heavily* skew towards the double-jabbed end of the population, so if the jabs weren't working you'd expect it to be far higher.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The Prime Minister literally faced questions yesterday. At 12 noon to be precise.
If you think the Prime Minister hasn't been facing questions maybe it is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that is unfit for office?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The Prime Minister literally faced questions yesterday. At 12 noon to be precise.
If you think the Prime Minister hasn't been facing questions maybe it is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that is unfit for office?
I think the issue for me is he hasn't been answering the questions.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
It is bloody annoying that PHE grouped the admissions data using 18-64... anyway
The cases and admissions are rising in the unvaccinated, younger groups. The vaccinated groups are static or falling.
Hmm... I'm not convinced. We have vaccinated most of the 18 - 64 group at least once, and those younger cohorts within that age group are less likely to be hospitalized... so I think we must be seeing an increase in hospitalization amongst those with only 1 dose?
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
Pretty sad that this pathetically obsequious post gets so many "likes" from the usual fanbois suspects. How deluded do you have to be to be so loyal to a party of government? I was a Tory activist for years but was never this brainwashed.
Let me let you into a secret, Mr Pubman. The job of oppositions is to "play politics". The job of governments is to govern competently, not just be good at winning beauty contest elections.
What Cummings has revealed is what all of us Johnson-sceptics have known all along - he is not up to the job; unfit for office. If Labour did not "play politics" with this they would be even more incompetent than I think they are (btw Rayner is absolutely hopeless!). Their job is to oppose and scrutinise, not to touch the forelock to the government.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Are you pleased that so many of our citizens don't care?
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
It is bloody annoying that PHE grouped the admissions data using 18-64... anyway
The cases and admissions are rising in the unvaccinated, younger groups. The vaccinated groups are static or falling.
Hmm... I'm not convinced. We have vaccinated most of the 18 - 64 group at least once, and those younger cohorts within that age group are less likely to be hospitalized... so I think we must be seeing an increase in hospitalization amongst those with only 1 dose?
Except the sharpest rise is in the 15-44 category which will be largely unvaccinated (especially ~4 weeks ago, 3 weeks for vaccination to take effect then 1 week for hospitalisation).
It is bloody annoying that PHE grouped the admissions data using 18-64... anyway
The cases and admissions are rising in the unvaccinated, younger groups. The vaccinated groups are static or falling.
Hmm... I'm not convinced. We have vaccinated most of the 18 - 64 group at least once, and those younger cohorts within that age group are less likely to be hospitalized... so I think we must be seeing an increase in hospitalization amongst those with only 1 dose?
1) 28+ days for the first vaccination to reach full effectiveness, remember. 2) There are multiple millions in that group who haven't received any vaccination as yet, as well. 3) The 45 and up case numbers haven't increased. We haven't seen an instance in this pandemic when case numbers didn't go up before the hospital numbers.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
Pretty sad that this pathetically obsequious post gets so many "likes" from the usual fanbois suspects. How deluded do you have to be to be so loyal to a party of government? I was a Tory activist for years but was never this brainwashed.
Let me let you into a secret, Mr Pubman. The job of oppositions is to "play politics". The job of governments is to govern competently, not just be good at winning beauty contest elections.
What Cummings has revealed is what all of us Johnson-sceptics have known all along - he is not up to the job; unfit for office. If Labour did not "play politics" with this they would be even more incompetent than I think they are (btw Rayner is absolutely hopeless!). Their job is to oppose and scrutinise, not to touch the forelock to the government.
LAB need to demonstrate that they can form a credible, realistic alternative if they are to get near governing again.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Yes, but as I just put in another post. Being PM is not just about winning elections. It is about governing. Let us allow him the fact that he appears good at winning elections. The reality is he is an incompetent PM. A bullshitter journalist with nothing to bring to the table with respect to executive leadership.
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Yes, but as I just put in another post. Being PM is not just about winning elections. It is about governing. Let us allow him the fact that he appears good at winning elections. The reality is he is an incompetent PM. A bullshitter journalist with nothing to bring to the table with respect to executive leadership.
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
The local elections say people are happy with the way he is governing. The people who are unhappy with the way he is governing very largely overlap with those who were happy how the EU governed us...
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
Very early in my career, I used that. In a big meeting with lots of Big Chiefs round the table.
The silence that produced was startling.
My boss sat me down, later and explained what a stupid boy I was. When I pointed out that it was the truth, he sighed....
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
Yep, which is not necessarily entirely a bad thing if it is cntinuously exposed to critical analysis and common sense. There was a prolonged Twitter spat between two eminent scientists sof my acquaintance around the time mask use was mandated. One saying there was a lack of evidence for efficacy (so don't do it) and the other setting out the causal theory for effectiveness (so do it, despite lack of observational evidence). Both would have yielded to actual evidence, I'm sure, but I know which approach made more sense to me.
Jumping uncritically on a theory/model is bad. Failing to do anything due to a lack of sufficiently robust evidence is bad. Getting the right balance is hard.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
There is all of that. And there's the very simple and very old and very effective science that you isolate those who are infected.
The government spent tens of billions on detecting infected individuals, and next to nothing on ensuring that they isolate. Despite knowing from their own research a year ago that people weren't going to do so without incentives.
What was particularly absurd is the government willingness to pay furloughed people to stay at home for many months, while not doing so for an infected person (or their contacts) for a couple of weeks.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
Yep, which is not necessarily entirely a bad thing if it is cntinuously exposed to critical analysis and common sense. There was a prolonged Twitter spat between two eminent scientists sof my acquaintance around the time mask use was mandated. One saying there was a lack of evidence for efficacy (so don't do it) and the other setting out the causal theory for effectiveness (so do it, despite lack of observational evidence). Both would have yielded to actual evidence, I'm sure, but I know which approach made more sense to me.
Jumping uncritically on a theory/model is bad. Failing to do anything due to a lack of sufficiently robust evidence is bad. Getting the right balance is hard.
Yes, as long as you have step 4, this can work
4) Is all of the above horse manure? if so, GOTO 1
The problem is that The Big Chiefs speak and the 2) becomes The Law. Shifting that afterwards is very hard.
@DavidL makes a reasonable point that maybe many of these deaths might not have been avoided, even with a competent government and/or different decisions, only deferred.
Possibly. But some might. And for those who lost loved ones the feeling that they might have had a chance will be hard to bear. And he underestimates the value to individuals of a deferral of deaths. Extra time spent with loved ones is of very great value. If we were faced with the choice of: "Your Mum is going to die of this disease this year anyway but she can die in March or December" who would not want those extra months with her?
I think of my friend whose father died the same day as his first child was born, who was not able to tell his much loved Dad that his first grandchild had been born. He would have wanted that extra time even if the end was inevitable.
Yes - a disease with no cure or vaccine is going to be hard to avoid. But that doesn't mean that incompetence or insouciance in our governing class will necessarily be easily shrugged off.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Yes, but as I just put in another post. Being PM is not just about winning elections. It is about governing. Let us allow him the fact that he appears good at winning elections. The reality is he is an incompetent PM. A bullshitter journalist with nothing to bring to the table with respect to executive leadership.
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
The local elections say people are happy with the way he is governing. The people who are unhappy with the way he is governing very largely overlap with those who were happy how the EU governed us...
Well that is a predictable response but is clearly rubbish. Are you saying Cummings is now a "remainer" because he recognises Johnson is unfit for office?
I have come to terms with Brexit, I think it was pointless, but we are where we are, and it may turn out to be less damaging than I feared. We are now talking about something much more important: a global pandemic with a PM who won't fire a Sec of State for Health who has probably lied and mismanaged, and may have caused the untimely death of thousands. And here is the crux as to why many of us who believe in more honest politics think Johnson is a liability: he thinks lying is OK! It is his main modus operandi. Those that think lying is OK in politics on both left and right need to reflect on this.
It is bloody annoying that PHE grouped the admissions data using 18-64... anyway
The cases and admissions are rising in the unvaccinated, younger groups. The vaccinated groups are static or falling.
Hmm... I'm not convinced. We have vaccinated most of the 18 - 64 group at least once, and those younger cohorts within that age group are less likely to be hospitalized... so I think we must be seeing an increase in hospitalization amongst those with only 1 dose?
1) 28+ days for the first vaccination to reach full effectiveness, remember. 2) There are multiple millions in that group who haven't received any vaccination as yet, as well. 3) The 45 and up case numbers haven't increased. We haven't seen an instance in this pandemic when case numbers didn't go up before the hospital numbers.
As of the data on the 20th May (should get more data today
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
Very early in my career, I used that. In a big meeting with lots of Big Chiefs round the table.
The silence that produced was startling.
My boss sat me down, later and explained what a stupid boy I was. When I pointed out that it was the truth, he sighed....
It is the difference between a well run company and a badly run one. In a well run company it is a common refrain - indeed it is expected. And as long as you do do that in a timely fashion it is considered far better than simply making stuff up to cover your behind.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
Is this the same Sunetra Gupta who said we could unlock in May 2020 with no ill effect? The same Heneghan who said in late September that there was no evidence of a second wave in September?
Heneghan and Gupta should shut up and link away into the shadows.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
Very early in my career, I used that. In a big meeting with lots of Big Chiefs round the table.
The silence that produced was startling.
My boss sat me down, later and explained what a stupid boy I was. When I pointed out that it was the truth, he sighed....
It is the difference between a well run company and a badly run one. In a well run company it is a common refrain - indeed it is expected. And as long as you do do that in a timely fashion it is considered far better than simply making stuff up to cover your behind.
Yes. Sadly, arse covering is one of the ways that organisations rust up and become non functional.
I recall another SpaceX story. At a meeting Musk asked a question - he got a couple of bullshits and one young lady said she didn't know the answer, but stated the steps she would take to get the answer.
So the story goes, the bullshitters now work in OldSpace, and the young lady in question is quite senior.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
Is this the same Sunetra Gupta who said we could unlock in May 2020 with no ill effect? The same Heneghan who said there was no eviednce of a second wave in September?
Heneghan and Gupta should shut up and link away into the shadows.
So long as you take the same attitude with Devi Sridhar, C Pagel and all the other Zero Covid clowns who've been as wrong as frequently as Heneghan and Gupta.
Yet as far as I recall I've not seen you say the same about her or them in general. So are you prepared to do so?
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
I actually use that quite a lot (and hear it quite a lot). Or the simpler "I don't know". It's one of the things I like about academia that bulshitting is not really encouraged.
(Students rarely say it - I rarely did when I was a student; post-docs often reluctant too - but beyond that it does happen a lot, even in meetings with external stakeholders).
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
Is this the same Sunetra Gupta who said we could unlock in May 2020 with no ill effect? The same Heneghan who said there was no eviednce of a second wave in September?
Heneghan and Gupta should shut up and link away into the shadows.
So long as you take the same attitude with Devi Sridhar, C Pagel and all the other Zero Covid clowns who've been as wrong as frequently as Heneghan and Gupta.
Yet as far as I recall I've not seen you say the same about her or them in general. So are you prepared to do so?
When they pop up saying Dom Cum has mischaracterised their statements then I'll be sure to offer a response.
EDIT: Also Devi Sridhar is anti-lockdowns so I thought she would have been right up your street.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Yes, but as I just put in another post. Being PM is not just about winning elections. It is about governing. Let us allow him the fact that he appears good at winning elections. The reality is he is an incompetent PM. A bullshitter journalist with nothing to bring to the table with respect to executive leadership.
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
The local elections say people are happy with the way he is governing. The people who are unhappy with the way he is governing very largely overlap with those who were happy how the EU governed us...
Well that is a predictable response but is clearly rubbish. Are you saying Cummings is now a "remainer" because he recognises Johnson is unfit for office?
I have come to terms with Brexit, I think it was pointless, but we are where we are, and it may turn out to be less damaging than I feared. We are now talking about something much more important: a global pandemic with a PM who won't fire a Sec of State for Health who has probably lied and mismanaged, and may have caused the untimely death of thousands. And here is the crux as to why many of us who believe in more honest politics think Johnson is a liability: he thinks lying is OK! It is his main modus operandi. Those that think lying is OK in politics on both left and right need to reflect on this.
I must be a Remainer in that case. I have been very vocal about how unhappy I am with Johnson and how unfit he is to govern since long before Cummings gave his evidence.
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
That will be the govt message. And it will come across.
And it will still be bollocks whether it comes directly from the Government or from their apologists.
And there are a few apologists on here. Nay, not just apologists, but blind, uncritical worshippers at the altar of "Boris". People who would give a senior apparatchik in the Chinese Communist Party a run for their money in braindead allegiance to the Party and The Leader.
I mean just how strong do the questions of leadership capability have to be before such people think it might be time to not post remarks that underline how unquestioning and incapable of critical questioning they are? My Party right or wrong. My leader, right or wrong. Where does this lead us?
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh · 2h PM is going to do 'a clip' (short, pooled TV comment) to respond to Cummings. Yet another example of his unwillingness to open up to real scrutiny. If your former chief adviser had accused you of being unfit for office, wouldn't you lead tonight's No.10 press conf, not MHancock?
It's terrible to be accused of being unfit for office. What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings. What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right. What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
The only possible comfort he can take from all that is the near-14 million people who don't give a shiny shit, as they voted for him and his 80 seat majority.
Boo-hoo....
Yes, but as I just put in another post. Being PM is not just about winning elections. It is about governing. Let us allow him the fact that he appears good at winning elections. The reality is he is an incompetent PM. A bullshitter journalist with nothing to bring to the table with respect to executive leadership.
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
The local elections say people are happy with the way he is governing. The people who are unhappy with the way he is governing very largely overlap with those who were happy how the EU governed us...
Well that is a predictable response but is clearly rubbish. Are you saying Cummings is now a "remainer" because he recognises Johnson is unfit for office?
I have come to terms with Brexit, I think it was pointless, but we are where we are, and it may turn out to be less damaging than I feared. We are now talking about something much more important: a global pandemic with a PM who won't fire a Sec of State for Health who has probably lied and mismanaged, and may have caused the untimely death of thousands. And here is the crux as to why many of us who believe in more honest politics think Johnson is a liability: he thinks lying is OK! It is his main modus operandi. Those that think lying is OK in politics on both left and right need to reflect on this.
I must be a Remainer in that case. I have been very vocal about how unhappy I am with Johnson and how unfit he is to govern since long before Cummings gave his evidence.
Indeed Richard, and you have my respect for that, even though we have both disagreed on the B word!
Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.
So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.
We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.
You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
They don't have remotely comparable demographics.
The three major factors affecting spreads and death are: obesity rates, population density and rate of intergenerational households.
What other European countries would you suggest are more similar in size and demographic to the UK than Germany & France?
I think -- if you want to carry out this kind of comparison -- it should not be at the national level, as there are too many changing variables.
But, I think you could compare mortality rate from COVID in regions in France, Germany and the UK with similar population density/demography (eg Greater Birmingham with parts of the Ruhr, etc). I am sure these studies will be done. The results will be interesting.
But, I suspect none of the UK, Italy, Spain, France & Germany have much to brag about. These countries have all done pretty much the same. About 6 months ago, I would have said Germany was doing markedly better, but no longer.
In retrospect, I think the major mistake that the Government made was lateness in the first/second lockdowns. In the case of the first lockdown, it is clear that this mistake arose from modelling errors in SAGE. The modellers originally though the disease would spread more slowly than it actually did, so the first wave would peak later.
The borders I think are more arguable -- it is noticeable on pb.com that it is often the same people shrieking about the borders who can't wait to travel (@Leon). I think it is a lose-lose situation for any Government.
I would have done more to shut the borders, but there would have been the inevitable shrieks and hollers ... especially from the ranting hypocrites in the press.
Fifth in the World for deaths. Top in Europe. Well done guys
Top for fraud , graft and enriching friends and family as well
You've never lived in Italy I take it?
This lot make the Italians look like angels.
What's your evidence that we're more corrupt than Italy?
I was specifically talking about the Tories that are running the country, though you could add the fact we have the most tax havens and we launder all dirty money from Russia et al. Where is your evidence that Italy is more corrupt smarty pants.
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
That will be the govt message. And it will come across.
And it will still be bollocks whether it comes directly from the Government or from their apologists.
And there are a few apologists on here. Nay, not just apologists, but blind, uncritical worshippers at the altar of "Boris". People who would give a senior apparatchik in the Chinese Communist Party a run for their money in braindead allegiance to the Party and The Leader.
I mean just how strong do the questions of leadership capability have to be before such people think it might be time to not post remarks that underline how unquestioning and incapable of critical questioning they are? My Party right or wrong. My leader, right or wrong. Where does this lead us?
If we are not careful then to a lot more dead people. One might almost say - callous as it might seem - that ONLY having lost 125,000 people in spite of the Governments many failings we have been lucky.
Had this disease been rather more virulent - and there is nothing to stop a future strain being just that - then the idiocy that Cummings claims would have killed, and could in the future kill, a lot more people.
And based on what has happened rather than just on Cummings evidence, I have no faith at all that the Government has learnt any lessons.
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
I like the idea of a "Professor of Evidence Based Medicine"
Where can I apply for the post of "Professor of Making It Up By Scratching My Arse Medicine"?
Asking on behalf of Peston.
I believe that's the "Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology" post (Gupta's)
(Not meant in an entirely derogatory way, but it is essentially making stuff up and seeing where it takes you, like theoretical physics - and the Gupta paper with a theoretical framework compatible with mass infection early on was an interesting piece of work; the error was still pushing it when the evidence became incompatible with it)
If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?
“Inflation hits 10%”
As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.
So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
I have never said that!
I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.
What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦♂️
I can't be arsed to find your response but you stated that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to be inflationary. You said the 1980s notion that there was a correlation between an increase in money supply and inflation had been debunked 20 years ago. It is 40 years since I studied economics, so I am taking you at your word.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to result in inflation because there is greater awareness of deflationary pressures now. And I provided the data to back that up.
Like Japan in 1990 the west now is now very heavily indebted which can mean that people's available cash to spend can be contracting due to credit issues etc even when the money supply is officially increasing.
Increasing money supply is still inflationary but inflationary pressures alone are not sufficient to cause inflation if deflationary pressures exist too.
One way to think about it is how uniquitous credit cards are used nowadays compared to 40 years ago. Having £1000 available to spend in your bank account and having nothing in your bank account but a £1000 credit limit are not the same thing, even if they both permit expenditure.
Credit cards terrify me. Especially as I am now on a fixed income. I haven’t had one for a very long time. They are a way of telling future you to go fuck yourself.
Precisely! They're great if you're conscientious to pay them off in full every month so you just get an extra 50 days to pay but its paid in full.
But fail to pay in full, pay interest only, and you're f***ed. And there's far more people in that situation today than there were in the 70s or 80s and it doesn't show properly in money supply which is why the textbooks from the 70s and 80s aren't suitable for today.
When my father died my mum was told that she no longer qualified for the platinum credit card. She went to see her bank manager to complain explaining that they had been loyal and good customers paying off their entire bill every month for more than 40 years. The manager gently tried to explain to her that that meant that the bank hadn't actually made any money off them in all that time. She didn't really get it.
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
We know its true. Its been known to be true for a year now.
What was an unsubstantiated claim is that Hancock was lying and claiming people were being tested when they weren't.
the shredders will have been working overtime , files deleted , etc. These nasty gits will never admit to anything.
If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?
“Inflation hits 10%”
As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.
So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
I have never said that!
I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.
What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦♂️
I can't be arsed to find your response but you stated that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to be inflationary. You said the 1980s notion that there was a correlation between an increase in money supply and inflation had been debunked 20 years ago. It is 40 years since I studied economics, so I am taking you at your word.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to result in inflation because there is greater awareness of deflationary pressures now. And I provided the data to back that up.
Like Japan in 1990 the west now is now very heavily indebted which can mean that people's available cash to spend can be contracting due to credit issues etc even when the money supply is officially increasing.
Increasing money supply is still inflationary but inflationary pressures alone are not sufficient to cause inflation if deflationary pressures exist too.
One way to think about it is how uniquitous credit cards are used nowadays compared to 40 years ago. Having £1000 available to spend in your bank account and having nothing in your bank account but a £1000 credit limit are not the same thing, even if they both permit expenditure.
Credit cards terrify me. Especially as I am now on a fixed income. I haven’t had one for a very long time. They are a way of telling future you to go fuck yourself.
Precisely! They're great if you're conscientious to pay them off in full every month so you just get an extra 50 days to pay but its paid in full.
But fail to pay in full, pay interest only, and you're f***ed. And there's far more people in that situation today than there were in the 70s or 80s and it doesn't show properly in money supply which is why the textbooks from the 70s and 80s aren't suitable for today.
When my father died my mum was told that she no longer qualified for the platinum credit card. She went to see her bank manager to complain explaining that they had been loyal and good customers paying off their entire bill every month for more than 40 years. The manager gently tried to explain to her that that meant that the bank hadn't actually made any money off them in all that time. She didn't really get it.
Like going to a bookies saying I'm a loyal and regular customer that only ever places winning bets.
If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?
“Inflation hits 10%”
As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.
So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
I have never said that!
I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.
What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦♂️
I can't be arsed to find your response but you stated that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to be inflationary. You said the 1980s notion that there was a correlation between an increase in money supply and inflation had been debunked 20 years ago. It is 40 years since I studied economics, so I am taking you at your word.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to result in inflation because there is greater awareness of deflationary pressures now. And I provided the data to back that up.
Like Japan in 1990 the west now is now very heavily indebted which can mean that people's available cash to spend can be contracting due to credit issues etc even when the money supply is officially increasing.
Increasing money supply is still inflationary but inflationary pressures alone are not sufficient to cause inflation if deflationary pressures exist too.
One way to think about it is how uniquitous credit cards are used nowadays compared to 40 years ago. Having £1000 available to spend in your bank account and having nothing in your bank account but a £1000 credit limit are not the same thing, even if they both permit expenditure.
Credit cards terrify me. Especially as I am now on a fixed income. I haven’t had one for a very long time. They are a way of telling future you to go fuck yourself.
Precisely! They're great if you're conscientious to pay them off in full every month so you just get an extra 50 days to pay but its paid in full.
But fail to pay in full, pay interest only, and you're f***ed. And there's far more people in that situation today than there were in the 70s or 80s and it doesn't show properly in money supply which is why the textbooks from the 70s and 80s aren't suitable for today.
When my father died my mum was told that she no longer qualified for the platinum credit card. She went to see her bank manager to complain explaining that they had been loyal and good customers paying off their entire bill every month for more than 40 years. The manager gently tried to explain to her that that meant that the bank hadn't actually made any money off them in all that time. She didn't really get it.
Technically that's not true as they do get part of the credit card transaction fee - but that isn't worth anything like what it used to be thanks to the EU..
talkRADIO @talkRADIO · 1h Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
I like the idea of a "Professor of Evidence Based Medicine"
Where can I apply for the post of "Professor of Making It Up By Scratching My Arse Medicine"?
Asking on behalf of Peston.
I believe that's the "Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology" post (Gupta's)
(Not meant in an entirely derogatory way, but it is essentially making stuff up and seeing where it takes you, like theoretical physics - and the Gupta paper with a theoretical framework compatible with mass infection early on was an interesting piece of work; the error was still pushing it when the evidence became incompatible with it)
... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiments. 😉
If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?
“Inflation hits 10%”
As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.
So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
I have never said that!
I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.
If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.
What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦♂️
I can't be arsed to find your response but you stated that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to be inflationary. You said the 1980s notion that there was a correlation between an increase in money supply and inflation had been debunked 20 years ago. It is 40 years since I studied economics, so I am taking you at your word.
That's not what I said.
What I said is that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to result in inflation because there is greater awareness of deflationary pressures now. And I provided the data to back that up.
Like Japan in 1990 the west now is now very heavily indebted which can mean that people's available cash to spend can be contracting due to credit issues etc even when the money supply is officially increasing.
Increasing money supply is still inflationary but inflationary pressures alone are not sufficient to cause inflation if deflationary pressures exist too.
One way to think about it is how uniquitous credit cards are used nowadays compared to 40 years ago. Having £1000 available to spend in your bank account and having nothing in your bank account but a £1000 credit limit are not the same thing, even if they both permit expenditure.
Credit cards terrify me. Especially as I am now on a fixed income. I haven’t had one for a very long time. They are a way of telling future you to go fuck yourself.
Precisely! They're great if you're conscientious to pay them off in full every month so you just get an extra 50 days to pay but its paid in full.
But fail to pay in full, pay interest only, and you're f***ed. And there's far more people in that situation today than there were in the 70s or 80s and it doesn't show properly in money supply which is why the textbooks from the 70s and 80s aren't suitable for today.
When my father died my mum was told that she no longer qualified for the platinum credit card. She went to see her bank manager to complain explaining that they had been loyal and good customers paying off their entire bill every month for more than 40 years. The manager gently tried to explain to her that that meant that the bank hadn't actually made any money off them in all that time. She didn't really get it.
I remember explaining to my confused gf (now wife, who is very smart - evidence: she has a PhD and married me ) that she would get charged interest on her credit card unless she paid off the full amount. She couldn't understand why the bank would want to charge her money if she was doing as they asked and paying at least the minimum amount each month - she saw interest charges as a punishment/fine only appropriate if she missed a payment.
Boris, Hancock and the rest of the Government doing their best to deal with the pandemic.
LAB just want to play politics.
That will be the govt message. And it will come across.
And it will still be bollocks whether it comes directly from the Government or from their apologists.
And there are a few apologists on here. Nay, not just apologists, but blind, uncritical worshippers at the altar of "Boris". People who would give a senior apparatchik in the Chinese Communist Party a run for their money in braindead allegiance to the Party and The Leader.
I mean just how strong do the questions of leadership capability have to be before such people think it might be time to not post remarks that underline how unquestioning and incapable of critical questioning they are? My Party right or wrong. My leader, right or wrong. Where does this lead us?
If we are not careful then to a lot more dead people. One might almost say - callous as it might seem - that ONLY having lost 125,000 people in spite of the Governments many failings we have been lucky.
Had this disease been rather more virulent - and there is nothing to stop a future strain being just that - then the idiocy that Cummings claims would have killed, and could in the future kill, a lot more people.
And based on what has happened rather than just on Cummings evidence, I have no faith at all that the Government has learnt any lessons.
It has always been my concern for my erstwhile party. In their desperation to have a leader that was popular, they overlooked whether he was up to the job that he would eventually need to do. All the evidence was there that he was not, but they still pushed on. You know my views on Brexit (which is now no longer relevant), but I would rather have Gove or even Raab. Both have demonstrated a reasonable modicum of competence in their departments. Johnson is a fucking walking disaster area.
SAGE - or perhaps more effectively the processes above SAGE - would probably benefit from a group of scientificly literate but non-specialists for an outside view - for example, bring in some physicists, engineers etc to sense check what the epidemiologists etc are saying and how the politicians/civil servants etc are understanding that.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
Yep. The other thing is that "the science" was actually pretty non-existent early on. Models of NPIs, sure. But very little on how the thing was actually spreading, when people were infectious. Lots of tiny studies (as those are what can be done quickly) but - not surprisingly - conflicting with each other. So many of the assumptions in the models were little more than guesses.
Part of the problem was that the scientists used the Scientists Syllogism
1) We need a model and a theory 2) This is a model and a theory 3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
What is a shame is that the good answer that should be used but isn't often enough is "I will look into this and get back to you."
Very early in my career, I used that. In a big meeting with lots of Big Chiefs round the table.
The silence that produced was startling.
My boss sat me down, later and explained what a stupid boy I was. When I pointed out that it was the truth, he sighed....
Problem is too many people regard an inability to immediately answer to their satisfaction - which may not even be possible depending on what is being asked and how complicated it is - as the same as wanting to avoid answering at all.
That people seeking to avoid to answer will use the same reasoning makes the cynicism understandable to a degree.
The sun is shining and I have just been asked, by the Flint Knappers Gazette, to do a mid-June foodie road trip along the coast of East Anglia, from the oysters of Mersea to the eels of Orford to the lobsters of Brancaster Staithe
I am pretty bummed out by the rise in Scottish cases.
I fear it is the price we pay for being a bit slow in getting the vaccines out. We seem to be doing a bit better recently so hopefully things will calm down again soon. Allowing youngsters to make their own appointments online (as England has been able to do from the start) was a step in the right direction.
Hancock still refusing to answer the question on social care and testing . So we can take from that the allegations are true and patients were shipped into care homes without being tested .
We know its true. Its been known to be true for a year now.
What was an unsubstantiated claim is that Hancock was lying and claiming people were being tested when they weren't.
the shredders will have been working overtime , files deleted , etc. These nasty gits will never admit to anything.
So says the person that is a blind follower of the person described as a bully and sex pest. The ultimate in nasty gits!
Comments
We just don't know what the long term consequences of Covid are - will it flare up again in 20 years time like singles or is it a one off disease.
yes. sorta like getting Feynman in to look at the Challenger, right?
Using a different vernacular, red team the crap out of the plans. Maybe harder to justify in the middle of a pandemic, but that's what 'following the science' would actually look like.
This is where Dom was absolutely nailed on correct - the structure and the normal working processes of government were not fit for purpose before Feb 2020. Its easy to laff at his 'freaks and wierdoes' advert, but that's basically what's been suggested above.
"Matt Hancock says 90% of people in hospital with Covid haven’t had both vaccines" now the Metro headline
Of course Sturgeon has her own questions to answer
A cynical person might expect the Government to still be a bit "ooh - you'll have to wait and see....!" Even though they know full well 21st June is set in stone.
It’s really easy to critisise blindly with the benefit of hindsight, or to focus on personalities and the usual games - when the public are totally switched off, just want the crisis to be over and don’t understand why the ministers have to waste their time going through this Punch and Judy Show.
All of tesla's 'building' products are in the Dyson Hoover sort of category, without a technical edge but a very expensive brand.
Big Dom is right about a lot of things. The issue is his approach to solving them is where it all goes wrong.
e.g. he was right when at education department about post A-level results applications to university. But he managed to piss every stakeholder, so it got torpedoed.
But no. Tosser.
They're often scientists by training, tho'.
But also, there's a reflexive belief that many barriers to policy outcomes are natural laws that we should not waste our time considering how to overcome.
This phenomena has many names. The blob, one from Dom's past. More modern update below:
Cases up 18%
Hospital admissions up 11%
Deaths flat
Unlocking too soon?
https://twitter.com/DarrenGBNews/status/1397857357011505154?s=20
What was an unsubstantiated claim is that Hancock was lying and claiming people were being tested when they weren't.
It would seem an odd thing for Hancock to go out of his way to lie about to his colleagues. For sure, whoever took the decision may have done so wrongly believing something, but to actually lie about it to others would be strange.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9624773/Video-Police-stop-Skoda-Octavia-carrying-NINE-people.html
and
It is bloody annoying that PHE grouped the admissions data using 18-64... anyway
The cases and admissions are rising in the unvaccinated, younger groups. The vaccinated groups are static or falling.
What makes it worse is being so accused by someone as unfit for office as D Cummings.
What makes it even worse is knowing, deep down, that he's right.
What's worst of all is demonstrating your unfitness for office by avoiding questions about your unfitness for office.
He does look a scion of one of the cadet branches of the Dingle family.
If you think the Prime Minister hasn't been facing questions maybe it is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that is unfit for office?
https://davidallengreen.com/2021/05/how-to-treat-the-parliamentary-evidence-today-from-dominic-cummings/
Boo-hoo....
Let me let you into a secret, Mr Pubman. The job of oppositions is to "play politics". The job of governments is to govern competently, not just be good at winning beauty contest elections.
What Cummings has revealed is what all of us Johnson-sceptics have known all along - he is not up to the job; unfit for office. If Labour did not "play politics" with this they would be even more incompetent than I think they are (btw Rayner is absolutely hopeless!). Their job is to oppose and scrutinise, not to touch the forelock to the government.
1) We need a model and a theory
2) This is a model and a theory
3) Therefore this is the model and theory we need.
This comes from a variant of the "face" issue - standing up and saying "I don't know" is a career ending in politics. And some other fields. It takes great self confidence and eminence to get away with that.
2) There are multiple millions in that group who haven't received any vaccination as yet, as well.
3) The 45 and up case numbers haven't increased. We haven't seen an instance in this pandemic when case numbers didn't go up before the hospital numbers.
At the moment they are nowhere near!
However I agree with you re Rayner
I genuinely despair at where this country has got to politically. I just watched Angela Rayner on TV this morning. This hopeless lightweight is the second most powerful person in the Labour Party. She makes Prescot look like an articulate statesman!
@talkRADIO
·
1h
Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, Carl Heneghan: "Dominic Cummings was fundamentally incorrect when claiming that myself and Sunetra Gupta suggested enough herd immunity had been built up to avoid a further Lockdown."
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1397841847477747716
Heneghan says Cummings was entirely wrong in what he said about their meetings in front of select committee.
'It wasn't the sort of hanging session that one might have expected and he dealt with the questions fairly well'
The silence that produced was startling.
My boss sat me down, later and explained what a stupid boy I was. When I pointed out that it was the truth, he sighed....
Jumping uncritically on a theory/model is bad. Failing to do anything due to a lack of sufficiently robust evidence is bad. Getting the right balance is hard.
Where can I apply for the post of "Professor of Making It Up By Scratching My Arse Medicine"?
Asking on behalf of Peston.
And there's the very simple and very old and very effective science that you isolate those who are infected.
The government spent tens of billions on detecting infected individuals, and next to nothing on ensuring that they isolate. Despite knowing from their own research a year ago that people weren't going to do so without incentives.
What was particularly absurd is the government willingness to pay furloughed people to stay at home for many months, while not doing so for an infected person (or their contacts) for a couple of weeks.
4) Is all of the above horse manure? if so, GOTO 1
The problem is that The Big Chiefs speak and the 2) becomes The Law. Shifting that afterwards is very hard.
Possibly. But some might. And for those who lost loved ones the feeling that they might have had a chance will be hard to bear. And he underestimates the value to individuals of a deferral of deaths. Extra time spent with loved ones is of very great value. If we were faced with the choice of: "Your Mum is going to die of this disease this year anyway but she can die in March or December" who would not want those extra months with her?
I think of my friend whose father died the same day as his first child was born, who was not able to tell his much loved Dad that his first grandchild had been born. He would have wanted that extra time even if the end was inevitable.
Yes - a disease with no cure or vaccine is going to be hard to avoid. But that doesn't mean that incompetence or insouciance in our governing class will necessarily be easily shrugged off.
I have come to terms with Brexit, I think it was pointless, but we are where we are, and it may turn out to be less damaging than I feared. We are now talking about something much more important: a global pandemic with a PM who won't fire a Sec of State for Health who has probably lied and mismanaged, and may have caused the untimely death of thousands. And here is the crux as to why many of us who believe in more honest politics think Johnson is a liability: he thinks lying is OK! It is his main modus operandi. Those that think lying is OK in politics on both left and right need to reflect on this.
Numbers unvaccinated :
0-44 16,908,941
45-64 4,537,066
65-74 418,129
75-84 101,661
85+ 142,568
Heneghan and Gupta should shut up and link away into the shadows.
I recall another SpaceX story. At a meeting Musk asked a question - he got a couple of bullshits and one young lady said she didn't know the answer, but stated the steps she would take to get the answer.
So the story goes, the bullshitters now work in OldSpace, and the young lady in question is quite senior.
Yet as far as I recall I've not seen you say the same about her or them in general. So are you prepared to do so?
(Students rarely say it - I rarely did when I was a student; post-docs often reluctant too - but beyond that it does happen a lot, even in meetings with external stakeholders).
EDIT: Also Devi Sridhar is anti-lockdowns so I thought she would have been right up your street.
I mean just how strong do the questions of leadership capability have to be before such people think it might be time to not post remarks that underline how unquestioning and incapable of critical questioning they are? My Party right or wrong. My leader, right or wrong. Where does this lead us?
Where is your evidence that Italy is more corrupt smarty pants.
Had this disease been rather more virulent - and there is nothing to stop a future strain being just that - then the idiocy that Cummings claims would have killed, and could in the future kill, a lot more people.
And based on what has happened rather than just on Cummings evidence, I have no faith at all that the Government has learnt any lessons.
(Not meant in an entirely derogatory way, but it is essentially making stuff up and seeing where it takes you, like theoretical physics - and the Gupta paper with a theoretical framework compatible with mass infection early on was an interesting piece of work; the error was still pushing it when the evidence became incompatible with it)
450 million AZ vaccines doses given worldwide.
Public enquiry to cover devolved administrations.
That people seeking to avoid to answer will use the same reasoning makes the cynicism understandable to a degree.
Or do you think that Nicola would have joined in the EU scheme?
Is this actually..... over? Is winter done?
*looks at dashboard nervously*