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.
The counterpoint is that any not-Boris leader of the Conservatives would have had Boris undermining them for denying him his birthright. At some point, this became inevitable.
Yes, an interesting point. What did make this incompetent think it was his birth right? Some might say his school, but there are many well balanced individuals who come from Eton. The extraordinary skill that he does have is the ability to convince others to support him in spite of the evidence of his limited ability. Demagogues the world over will definitely want to study him. He has no genuine gravitas, but does have plenty of charisma. Quite fascinating really in a disturbing way.
The 3 most charismatic UK party leaders and effective votewinners of my lifetime are Thatcher, Blair and Boris, nobody else comes close
The important difference being that the first two were competent executives as well as being charismatic.
Imagine you had a surgeon who was incompetent and amputated the wrong testicle. Would you say: "Oh well, doc never mind", and afterwards you would say to your friends: "You know what, that Mr Johnson, he is a pretty shit surgeon, but my goodness, he is charismatic!"
My observation is that people regularly get appointed to jobs because they tell a good story, in the absence of actual evidence that they can do a good job. Hopefully however not in surgery.
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?
Devi has fully transitioned to an anti-lockdown position TBF.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
You are Matt Hancock and I claim my £5. ( I thought previously you were Boris Johnson's Mum - apologies for the mistake)
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
You can have a holiday without going abroad.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Latest: Russia has again refused to allow today’s Air France flight (Paris-Moscow) to enter its airspace because the flight would have avoided Belarus’ airspace, in line with EU directives. #Belarus
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?
Devi has fully transitioned to an anti-lockdown position TBF.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
Yes, it was an unnecessary promise to make and proved to be a distraction.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
Yes that was his point. Poorly defined/drafted targets can produce unintended consequences. Seen in the business world all the time
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?
Devi has fully transitioned to an anti-lockdown position TBF.
In hindsight.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I know that your unshakeable position is that no-one could have seen any of this coming but Heneghan said there was no evidence of a second wave _as the second wave was happening_ with the full data available to him that quite clearly showed a second wave.
You didn't need hindsight to spot it. You needed sight.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
Yes, it was an unnecessary promise to make and proved to be a distraction.
Or it was the thing that got PHE off its arse and got them going with testing.
Considering the UK built that capacity following the target and most other nations did not it seems like Hancock kicking PHE up the arse was the right thing to do.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
It was also a complete fabrication in terms of meaningful tests and was ripped apart on 'More or less'. I was quite impressed with Hancock up to that point, but lost confidence as soon as he started misleading. It was interesting seeing that confirmed by Cummings, although he could just be using it to create the lying story.
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?
Devi has fully transitioned to an anti-lockdown position TBF.
In hindsight.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I know that your unshakeable position is that no-one could have seen any of this coming but Heneghan said there was no evidence of a second wave _as the second wave was happening_ with the full data available to him that quite clearly showed a second wave.
You didn't need hindsight to spot it. You needed sight.
I wonder whether the cavalry of the Light Brigade thought as they rushed into battle "Who was that idiot who ordered us to charge", or whether they thought "hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?"
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
You can have a holiday without going abroad.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Though I would advise booking NOW if you want anything in the summer. They are all rammed
I just spoke to a posh hotel in north Norfolk. No availability until...... November! Totally chocka
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
That is what he was saying but is he right? Is there evidence to support his contention that the focus on the short term target delayed the long term objective? Maybe there is, I don't know (phrase of the moment).
What I remember is that there was a lot of incredulity that we could make a target of 100k tests a day and quite a lot of people not unconnected with the Health establishment that said it couldn't be done. As Dom pointed out it was only a staging post to 1m a day but was it politically useful for the government to make it clear that they would move heaven and earth to achieve their objectives and any bureaucratic objections in the way were going to be flattened? I suspect it was but see the previous answer for details.
I wonder how much further Cummings would have got in life if he had a winning smile and a cheeky glint in his eye - rather than a face like a smacked arse.
He is clearly smart, well read, promotes ideas. But his mien leaves you running for the door.
The winning traits of both Boris and Cummings would be a ferocious political beast.
I find him smart, engaging and likeable. He thinks well outside the box, so he is always interesting to hear. It's a failure of our system that a brain like his can't be profitably employed by the government.
That said, Chief Aide to the PM was probably not the ideal role. He should be in charge of a new Department for Mad Ideas, where he can pump out brilliant schemes but a more sober character can weed out the feasible from the lunatic
I think that's right. He could run a really interesting think tank but probably not a department.
The PM isn’t the first person to make the mistake of thinking that someone having the skills to diagnose what is wrong necessarily equips them also with the skills to be able to put things right.
It's a problem he shares with the electorate, perhaps.
Always easier for us to see a problem not the solution.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
This is one take on it, but I am sure there will be others. We 'hit' the target, but by fudging tests sent out, but I think at the time people were generally impressed at the rapid rate of increase. I simply don't believe Cummings on this, its not backed up by the daily test stats, and nor did we do one day of 100,000 and then back to 20,000 or something like. I believe it was an example of concentrating minds on one task, and broadly getting it done. Our testing in the early stages was poor, but remember this disease was unknown in Nov 2019. To be testing hundreds of thousands of people daily, from a standing start, is decent.
Frankly Cummings was an unreliable witness in May 2020, and he still is in May 2021.
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
"Men over 40 only read military history"
I am the same.
I'm reading The Splendid and the Vile, a history of Churchill, London, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, 1940-41
I thought I knew it all, but I really do not. It's a magnificent book, it reads like a gripping novel, with tremendous details. Actually hard to put down. 9/10 so far
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
Thank you for reminding me to buy a copy. One of the great pieces of bravery in WW2. Starting at the defence of Malta to its relief. Amazing such a small island played such a pivotal role.
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
You can have a holiday without going abroad.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Though I would advise booking NOW if you want anything in the summer. They are all rammed
I just spoke to a posh hotel in north Norfolk. No availability until...... November! Totally chocka
Got something booked in August in Cumbria.
We booked it the week before Boris announced the unlocking timetable. We got it for 30% off what it would be normally - two weeks later we checked and to book it then would have cost twice as much!
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
Surely someone is permitted to argue that holidays are unimportant, even if millions disagree?
I'd oppose holibobs just as ghastly sounding word.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
It was also a complete fabrication in terms of meaningful tests and was ripped apart on 'More or less'. I was quite impressed with Hancock up to that point, but lost confidence as soon as he started misleading. It was interesting seeing that confirmed by Cummings, although he could just be using it to create the lying story.
Yes, and this was a mistake. It would have been better to have failed, by doing say 80,000 actual tests with results, than the fudge they used about tests sent out. I still think it was a very good effort and has helped in the long run.
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
You can have a holiday without going abroad.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Though I would advise booking NOW if you want anything in the summer. They are all rammed
I just spoke to a posh hotel in north Norfolk. No availability until...... November! Totally chocka
Got something booked in August in Cumbria.
We booked it the week before Boris announced the unlocking timetable. We got it for 30% off what it would be normally - two weeks later we checked and to book it then would have cost twice as much!
As a customer, it's a little annoying. But I can't help feeling pleased for the hospitality industry, after the year they've had.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
The Conservative lead of mid- teens is not outrageous given the vaccine success and Hartlepool boost/Starmer crash coinciding with pubs opening, holidays being booked, houses and cars being bought, and free self-employment grant payments arriving in bank accounts.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Which bit do you not believe?
That the testing capacity didn't exist at the time is a matter of fact. That Hancock did the 100k stretch goal to get the country from 5k tests to tests being available en-mass is true too. That the best scientific advice at the time said to discharge from hospitals is true - which is why Scotland, Wales, NI and other nations all did the same thing at the the same time.
In a parallel universe where people didn't get discharged and we had Italian style collapse of hospitals then people in hindsight would be saying why people who didn't need hospital treatment were kept in hospitals against the scientific advice at the time rather than being discharged - and that those who needed the beds and needed treatment were being turned away from hospitals.
Hindsight is 2020.
I may have misunderstood this, but I think Cummings was arguing that the 100k stretch was a massive mistake because it made the whole system focus on that short term target at the detriment of proper planning and capacity building for a medium term target that was more important.
It was also a complete fabrication in terms of meaningful tests and was ripped apart on 'More or less'. I was quite impressed with Hancock up to that point, but lost confidence as soon as he started misleading. It was interesting seeing that confirmed by Cummings, although he could just be using it to create the lying story.
Yes, and this was a mistake. It would have been better to have failed, by doing say 80,000 actual tests with results, than the fudge they used about tests sent out. I still think it was a very good effort and has helped in the long run.
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
"Men over 40 only read military history"
I am the same.
I'm reading The Splendid and the Vile, a history of Churchill, London, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, 1940-41
I thought I knew it all, but I really do not. It's a magnificent book, it reads like a gripping novel, with tremendous details. Actually hard to put down. 9/10 so far
I read an interesting book on local government. I think that puts me at about age 100 if military history is stereotype of over 40.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
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.
Can we stop with the holibobs thing: is there a more annoying word on PB? It implies holidays are unimportant. Yet they are very important to millions of people.
You can have a holiday without going abroad.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Though I would advise booking NOW if you want anything in the summer. They are all rammed
I just spoke to a posh hotel in north Norfolk. No availability until...... November! Totally chocka
Got something booked in August in Cumbria.
We booked it the week before Boris announced the unlocking timetable. We got it for 30% off what it would be normally - two weeks later we checked and to book it then would have cost twice as much!
As a customer, it's a little annoying. But I can't help feeling pleased for the hospitality industry, after the year they've had.
They've all got serious staffing issues. A lot of EU staff went home for Covid and haven't come back, a lot of British staff have realised they like NOT working in hospitality.
Wages will have to go up. Which means prices for the customer will go up. Same happened after the Black Death, of course, though hotels after the Black Death probably had better availability going forward, with 40% of Europe lying dead. There's always a silver lining
Whenever I despair of this government, I remind myself of the nightmare that having Jeremy Corbyn in charge of all this would have been*. Or even worse, Jeremy Corbyn with Nicola Sturgeon holding a gun to his head. Or even worse, ditto, but with the rag tag and bobtails throwing in their two penn'orth too.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
I have no need for such patronising nonsense
But then you are an expert on nonsense
The news just gets worse....if Matt Hancock has been guilty of terminological inexactitudes (which seems beyond doubt) he will almost certainly have to resign according to Lord Kerslake. I worry for Boris. I know what it's like when people form an attachment to public figures. It can feel like a lover
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
"Men over 40 only read military history"
I am the same.
I'm reading The Splendid and the Vile, a history of Churchill, London, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, 1940-41
I thought I knew it all, but I really do not. It's a magnificent book, it reads like a gripping novel, with tremendous details. Actually hard to put down. 9/10 so far
I read an interesting book on local government. I think that puts me at about age 100 if military history is stereotype of over 40.
May I ask what it is? As mentioned before, I'm meandering my way through Caro's Years of Lyndon Johnson. Just started Master of the Senate, widely regarded as the best of the (current) four. Amazing books so far, but then I am under 40
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
I have no need for such patronising nonsense
But then you are an expert on nonsense
The news just gets worse....if Matt Hancock has been guilty of terminological inexactitudes (which seems beyond doubt) he will almost certainly have to resign according to Lord Kerslake. I worry for Boris. I know what it's like when people form an attachment to public figures. It can feel like a lover
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
Sean,I.meant to mention that there is also a book called A Midshipman Tale that has come out. Its by a chap who was 17 and on HMS Rodney that was one of the battleships.
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
Sean,I.meant to mention that there is also a book called A Midshipman Tale that has come out. Its by a chap who was 17 and on HMS Rodney that was one of the battleships.
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.
Well you are kind of screwed in that case aren't you.
Because your choices are:
Hancock, based on no evidence at all and contrary to what is said in the PHE documentation and guidance, thought everyone was being tested before going back into the homes. In which case he is criminally incompetent
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and at the same time lied about it to his cabinet colleagues and the PM
or
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and infect the care homes anyway and told his cabinet colleagues and the PM in which case they are equally guilty and moreover lied about it themselves.
Your choice. But none of them are good.
Hancock knew that people were not being tested but let them go ahead and be returned to care homes because that was the best scientific advice at the time (and the testing capacity didn't exist at the time, but Hancock was driving that forwards with his 100k stretch goal he made).
LOL. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
I have no need for such patronising nonsense
But then you are an expert on nonsense
The news just gets worse....if Matt Hancock has been guilty of terminological inexactitudes (which seems beyond doubt) he will almost certainly have to resign according to Lord Kerslake. I worry for Boris. I know what it's like when people form an attachment to public figures. It can feel like a lover
That would be the Labour supporting supposedly independent "Comrade Bob" Kerslake who worked for Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Keir Starmer?
If Boris has lost his support, then what happens next !?
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
"Men over 40 only read military history"
I am the same.
I'm reading The Splendid and the Vile, a history of Churchill, London, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, 1940-41
I thought I knew it all, but I really do not. It's a magnificent book, it reads like a gripping novel, with tremendous details. Actually hard to put down. 9/10 so far
I read an interesting book on local government. I think that puts me at about age 100 if military history is stereotype of over 40.
May I ask what it is? As mentioned before, I'm meandering my way through Caro's Years of Lyndon Johnson. Just started Master of the Senate, widely regarded as the best of the (current) four. Amazing books so far, but then I am under 40
It was 'Parish Government 1894-1994' by KP Poole
I think I'd find something with four (so far) giant volumes too daunting.
That sounds much more reasonable than Labour in the 20s and 18% lead.
Swing of 1.5% from Tories to Labour since 2019, still a clear Tory majority but Starmer doing slightly better than Corbyn did then on this poll
Post yesterday polls will be interesting but this is exactly where I suggested the polls are at the time YouGov produced their 18 point lead
As long as no one is listening to the fact checking on 'The world at One' they might get away with just an average battering. If they are listening I'd suggest you get someone to sit with you for the next few days.
I have no need for such patronising nonsense
But then you are an expert on nonsense
It is however noticeable that the defence to most of the allegations is that they are “unsubstantiated” rather than untrue, and that Hancock really doesn’t want to talk about what he said on care homes, at all.
All we have really seen today is that Tory MPs hate Cummings and don’t really care whether anything he said was true or not.
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).
I my professional world, consulting, I often say, "Good question, I don't know. Not my field, but I know an expert in that field and will get you an answer." It goes down very well with clients, some of whom say that they don't hear words to that effect very often.
But, in fact, saying "I don't know" should be absolutely fundamental to any learning organization - and in a rapidly changing world, pretty much every organization should be constantly learning and adapting.
For a young lawyer the ability to say I don't know and keep the confidence of the client is an absolutely key stage in development. Some never make it.
I've always found 'I'm not an expert in that field but we have X who is listed in Legal 500' did the trick.
Latest: Russia has again refused to allow today’s Air France flight (Paris-Moscow) to enter its airspace because the flight would have avoided Belarus’ airspace, in line with EU directives. #Belarus
O/T, but I’m hugely enjoying Max Hastings’ account of Operation Pedestal, the relief of Malta in August 1942. It’s full of insane acts of bravery.
Sean,I.meant to mention that there is also a book called A Midshipman Tale that has come out. Its by a chap who was 17 and on HMS Rodney that was one of the battleships.
Comments
Devi has fully transitioned to an anti-lockdown position TBF.
Plenty of places in England, Wales and Scotland that are fantastic places to have a holiday.
Full list at https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency-and-freedom-of-information-releases?organisations[]=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies&parent=scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
https://twitter.com/EnglishHeritage/status/1381877260517523456
You didn't need hindsight to spot it. You needed sight.
Considering the UK built that capacity following the target and most other nations did not it seems like Hancock kicking PHE up the arse was the right thing to do.
I just spoke to a posh hotel in north Norfolk. No availability until...... November! Totally chocka
What I remember is that there was a lot of incredulity that we could make a target of 100k tests a day and quite a lot of people not unconnected with the Health establishment that said it couldn't be done. As Dom pointed out it was only a staging post to 1m a day but was it politically useful for the government to make it clear that they would move heaven and earth to achieve their objectives and any bureaucratic objections in the way were going to be flattened? I suspect it was but see the previous answer for details.
https://twitter.com/richard_kaputt/status/1397846732755673090
Always easier for us to see a problem not the solution.
Frankly Cummings was an unreliable witness in May 2020, and he still is in May 2021.
I am the same.
I'm reading The Splendid and the Vile, a history of Churchill, London, the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, 1940-41
I thought I knew it all, but I really do not. It's a magnificent book, it reads like a gripping novel, with tremendous details. Actually hard to put down. 9/10 so far
a) distracting
b) to the detriment of a long term system
c) necessary impetus
d) assisted accountability
or all of the above is a good question for an inquiry. I don't know why we are all expected to form a view now.
We booked it the week before Boris announced the unlocking timetable. We got it for 30% off what it would be normally - two weeks later we checked and to book it then would have cost twice as much!
I'd oppose holibobs just as ghastly sounding word.
Plenty of attempts at hindsight are pretty bad.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1397885058241994753?s=19
But then you are an expert on nonsense
Wages will have to go up. Which means prices for the customer will go up. Same happened after the Black Death, of course, though hotels after the Black Death probably had better availability going forward, with 40% of Europe lying dead. There's always a silver lining
As mentioned before, I'm meandering my way through Caro's Years of Lyndon Johnson. Just started Master of the Senate, widely regarded as the best of the (current) four. Amazing books so far, but then I am under 40
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Midshipmans-Tale-Operation-Pedestal-Convoy/dp/0993594743&ved=2ahUKEwifzL7I8OnwAhWHB2MBHZypB0QQFjACegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw0JzC7HQi7_WxK-WLUJ-ppy
If Boris has lost his support, then what happens next !?
I think I'd find something with four (so far) giant volumes too daunting.
All we have really seen today is that Tory MPs hate Cummings and don’t really care whether anything he said was true or not.
New Thread.
This is going to get very messy, very quickly.