Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Why Tories, including the PM, have got to be careful with comments about the elderly – politicalbett

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 20 in General
imageWhy Tories, including the PM, have got to be careful with comments about the elderly – politicalbetting.com

Undoubtedly today’s big political event will be the broadcast by the BBC of the Laura Kuenssberg interview with Dom Cummings. As part of the build-up some choice comments are being circulated. The ones that stands out are these reported in the Sun:

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,790
    test
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,364
    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    Average life expectancy in the UK is 81.5, so even most over 70s will be under 80.

    Though yes Boris needs to be careful how he phrases it, he did of course backdown over the pre vaccination autumn and winter lockdowns and impose them anyway
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 86,002
    edited July 20

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Yes getting under 15% across the age brackets is a real achievement!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    Seems a fair trade off in government policy. The oldies don't pay the extra NI but they get bumped off instead,
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Yes getting under 15% across the age brackets is a real achievement!
    Be fair to the Lib Dems, their best age bracket is as high as Labour's worst age bracket.

    Of course the Tories worst age bracket is 50% higher than the Lib Dems best one.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 10,449
    Are the oldies more offended by those comments than younger people? I am not sure if that is the case or not.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    edited July 20
    HYUFD said:

    ..
    Though yes Boris needs to be careful how he phrases it, he did of course backdown over the pre vaccination autumn and winter lockdowns and impose them anyway

    Yes, too late and therefore more severe and damaging than they needed to be. Complacency, dithering, and denying reality followed by screeching half-baked U-turns is the consistent story of this government.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,364
    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Yes getting under 15% across the age brackets is a real achievement!
    But the consistency of that low level of support is nevertheless striking. If either of the main parties could find a way of getting the age groups they can't reach right now to support them even a bit more similarly their core supporters they would be doing better in the polls. And would probably be an effective and unifying force in government, too. I'm just saying, maybe the Lib Dems have something to teach Labour and the Tories in this regard.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
    He didn't say 'we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young', or anything remotely like it. He said, quite rightly, that Boris ignored advice and brushed aside the increasingly alarming figures back in September, before eventually being forced to impose lockdown when things got so bad that even Boris couldn't continue to ignore them.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    Problem is that the elderly are ungrateful b’stards. More is never enough. They won’t be happy til the young are exterminated and their corpses burned to heat OAP’s homes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
    He didn't say 'we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young', or anything remotely like it. He said, quite rightly, that Boris ignored advice and brushed aside the increasingly alarming figures back in September, before eventually being forced to impose lockdown when things got so bad that even Boris couldn't continue to ignore them.
    Challenging the assumptions and the data and only having a lockdown as an absolutely last resort is of course the completely right thing to do though.

    To undergo a lockdown when its not necessary would be destructive. To not have a lockdown when it was necessary would be destructive. The government rightly waited as long as it could and tried other solutions until it reached the last resort, that is the right thing to do.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,076
    The same government that locked us down and prioritised jabs for the elderly?

  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,960
    DavidL said:

    If it were true that only 80+ were dying then Boris would of course have been right and the correct approach would have been to take steps to shield those vulnerable groups rather than lockdown the rest of us. Unfortunately, it proved a bit more complicated than that and the sledgehammer of lockdown became necessary but I for one don't find it surprising that a PM would want to consider this and determine what the least harmful way of addressing the actual problem was. It would be a gross dereliction of duty not to do so.

    It rather demonstrates the problem with Cummings leaking individual messsages and comments out of context to a media slavering for this kind of nonsense. He knows exactly what he is doing and how to feed the monster but it completely delusional to believe that any kind of truth is being disclosed here, far from it. This is sophisticated spin from a past master of the out of context quote.

    I imagine all future people in Cummings position will be forced to sign something to stop them releasing such information to the press if they fallout with their employer.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440

    DavidL said:

    If it were true that only 80+ were dying then Boris would of course have been right and the correct approach would have been to take steps to shield those vulnerable groups rather than lockdown the rest of us. Unfortunately, it proved a bit more complicated than that and the sledgehammer of lockdown became necessary but I for one don't find it surprising that a PM would want to consider this and determine what the least harmful way of addressing the actual problem was. It would be a gross dereliction of duty not to do so.

    It rather demonstrates the problem with Cummings leaking individual messsages and comments out of context to a media slavering for this kind of nonsense. He knows exactly what he is doing and how to feed the monster but it completely delusional to believe that any kind of truth is being disclosed here, far from it. This is sophisticated spin from a past master of the out of context quote.

    I imagine all future people in Cummings position will be forced to sign something to stop them releasing such information to the press if they fallout with their employer.
    I am pretty bloody sure he did. But the government has presumably decided that making a martyr of him by getting an injunction will simply make things worse. They may come to regret that judgement.
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 20
    The productive economy can't be locked down forever to protect the over-80s.

    What's Cummings's motivation?
    1. Career, e.g. book contract, or looking good to Apple, Google, Peter Thiel, Laszlo Szombatfalvy, or whoever else might fund him.
    2. Revenge and never mind the risks. Kinda "Sicilian". (I really hope he doesn't mention Carrie Symonds in the interview. I've heard enough about her. She's not Carrie Antoinette.)
    3. Hope of riding back to No.10 with Michael Gove (or, if he's lost it completely, Keir Starmer) as his sidekick this time.
    4. Self-defence.
    5. A "weird mix". (Joke!)

    Edit: DC on his blog, 4 March 2019:

    "A hypothesis that should be tested: With a) <£1million to play with, b) the ability to recruit a team from among special forces/intel services/specialist criminals/whoever, and c) no rules (so for example they could deploy honey traps on the head of security), a Red Team would break into the most secure UK bio-research facilities and acquire material that could be released publicly in order to cause deaths on the scale of millions.</i>"
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    darkage said:

    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    For all those interested in GBNews Farage's new show has appeared on my YouTube feed:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFWs8T1Jc74

    Already has 46k views which I believe is rather more than the channel gets.

    What a shock, he’s banging on about ‘migrants’ in the channel. He means refugees fleeing persecution but that’s a different story.
    The channel connects the UK to France/the EU.

    What persecution are refugees facing in France/the EU?

    Should we be bombing them to seek regime change in your eyes?
    Lol. Do you also wear a beret and go ‘ooh betty, the cats done a whoopsie”
    No.

    But speaking of beret wearers, these poor desperate souls fleeing France across the Channel - why are they fleeing France?
    Hostile climate for refugees in France.
    Non-contributory benefits in the UK.
    English language and existing social capital in the UK as second order issues.

    It's not complicated.
    Hostile climate for refugees in France is a terrible issue that pressure should be put on the French to address surely?

    Benefits are not a refugee issue. If people want access to Britain's benefits that's economic migration and they're free to apply for a visa.

    English language etc again is a reason to apply for a visa, not about being a refugee.
    All of that is irrelevant. You asked why they were leaving France. I told you. You might as well go and stand on a beach at Grande-Synthe and advise the assorted tatterdemalions to apply for visas instead of getting in an Aldi RIB.

    What is relevant is the government's completely ineffective and incompetent response. Particularly if it becomes a staple feature of This Time with Nigel Farage.
    Well indeed.

    The correct and humane solution is to immediately deport, without right to appeal, anyone who comes from France - while safely taking legitimate refugees from frontline countries.
    Deport to where? The UK has left the Dublin II Regulation so they can't be deported to the EU or other signatories. Many of the arrivals will have no ID and/or come from countries to which the UK doesn't deport anyway.

    You voted for this situation. Own it.
    Do similar to what the Australians did.

    Essentially write a giant cheque to a safe but poor African nation that any asylum seekers will be sent and processed there. Anyone who comes to the UK gets immediately put on a plane there instead.

    The application can then be processed properly and if its rejected (because eg they came from France and not from a country they're being persecuted from) then they don't need to be deported since they're already not in the country.

    There'll be at least one safe but poor country willing to take our money for such an arrangement, especially since the moment that's put in place and followed through upon people will cease to pay people smugglers to take them to Britain since they know they won't end up in Britain anymore.

    Instead of then having refugees via people smugglers, we can humanely then take our fair share of refugees direct in safe and organised flights from the frontline.

    Problem solved.
    I am not 100% sure we have any nearby client states that we could ask to do this. Where did you have in mind?
    I'm not sure, though Denmark are currently in talks with a few countries to come to such an arrangement themselves and there's been talk that we could join in with Denmark in making such an arrangement.

    Personally I would suggest eg that we agree with the recipient nation that eg they would get a dedicated 25% of our International Aid Budget for the next decade as compensation for agreeing to such an arrangement. In exchange they agree to take the few refugees that continue to bother trying to reach the UK post such an arrangement starting and must remain a safe country with the rule of law.

    As for any appeals etc that other posters have mentioned, if it was up to me I would pass an Act of Parliament explicitly telling the courts that no appeals can be heard, that the migrants must immediately be put on the flight without any recourse to the courts until after they've landed outside the UK. Parliament is supreme.
    25% of our aid budget would be somewhere between 0.1-0.2% of our total GDP
    Indeed which is quite a few billion pounds per year. A significant chunk of money. That money of course should still be within the aid budget, it is going to a poor country to help them develop, but is a nice sugar pill to help them sign on the dotted line to agree to it.

    They agree to take on anyone who illegally crosses the Channel (which won't be many people anymore because they don't want to end up simply being deported to whichever country we've agreed this with), they agree to maintain the rule of law etc and they get billions to help be developed up. We ensure there's the rule of law here and no people smugglers causing people to drown in the Channel. It doesn't cost us anything, since its coming from the Aid budget and is still going on Aid just reserved to a specific nation that needs it.

    We then take our fair share of genuine refugees safely from frontline nations.

    A safe, humane, legal system. Courts stay out of it, as ruled by an Act of Parliament in my system, until any illegal migrants have safely landed in the destination nation.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    edited July 20

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
    He didn't say 'we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young', or anything remotely like it. He said, quite rightly, that Boris ignored advice and brushed aside the increasingly alarming figures back in September, before eventually being forced to impose lockdown when things got so bad that even Boris couldn't continue to ignore them.
    Challenging the assumptions and the data and only having a lockdown as an absolutely last resort is of course the completely right thing to do though.

    To undergo a lockdown when its not necessary would be destructive. To not have a lockdown when it was necessary would be destructive. The government rightly waited as long as it could and tried other solutions until it reached the last resort, that is the right thing to do.
    Don't be silly, of course it's not the right thing to do. You end up having to have a longer, more drastic lockdown, imposed in a panic, because you're starting off with the infections seeded all over the place in much greater numbers. And in the meantime you've killed substantial numbers of people and made a huge number seriously ill - all entirely avoidably. It was spectacular mismanagement, both on economic and health grounds, as many of us, and all the experts, pointed out at the time. It was excusable in March, when this was all novel and the evidence base was patchy, but there was no excuse for the Autumn catastrophe (edit: And even less for the January one].

    What's more he's doing a repeat of the same type of mismanagement based on wishful thinking at this very moment. Fortunately it won't be as bad as last year's in terms of deaths, but it's still an unnecessary hit. He's an unmitigated shambles (not that anyone on this earth can be surprised at that)..
  • It's funny to see people here talking about the lockdowns now.

    I distinctly remember posting in August/September last year about the need for another lockdown and several people above laughed at me
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    This could be useful info:

    If you get a vaccine certificate PDF with a QR code on it from the NHS [England & Wales only, not Scotland or NI yet], you can log this in the German official "Corona-Warn" App on your phone, and it issues you an EU vaccine certificate. It works.

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1417427744468750348
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,684
    DC's comments won't resonate (I hesitatingly predict) for these reasons:

    The public have had sufficient of him. He is in the same position as Jezza was or Katie Hopkins or Meghan Markle or Trump is with most ordinary people: even when they are right they are still wrong, just because.

    He has no credibility, not least because he is breaking a rule of civilised conduct - which is that even when you fall out big time with someone you still don't talk in public about what was understood at the time to be private. In that metaphorical sense he is engaging in small time revenge porn.

    Lots of PBers will talk among certain selected people (and a few in the public domain but that's another matter!) in a code and using language which in public would be an outrage and a destroyer of reputations and careers. It is impossible that Boris is not one of them. It is inconceivable that Cummings is not another.

    The older you get the more you know these things are true. It will affect some younger people, and of course those who are against Tories anyway. But not the average older voter.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
    He didn't say 'we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young', or anything remotely like it. He said, quite rightly, that Boris ignored advice and brushed aside the increasingly alarming figures back in September, before eventually being forced to impose lockdown when things got so bad that even Boris couldn't continue to ignore them.
    Challenging the assumptions and the data and only having a lockdown as an absolutely last resort is of course the completely right thing to do though.

    To undergo a lockdown when its not necessary would be destructive. To not have a lockdown when it was necessary would be destructive. The government rightly waited as long as it could and tried other solutions until it reached the last resort, that is the right thing to do.
    Don't be silly, of course it's not the right thing to do. You end up having to have a longer, more drastic lockdown, imposed in a panic, because you're starting off with the infections seeded all over the place in much greater numbers. And in the meantime you've killed substantial numbers of people and made a huge number seriously ill - all entirely avoidably. It was spectacular mismanagement, both on economic and health grounds, as many of us, and all the experts, pointed out at the time. It was excusable in March, when this was all novel and the evidence base was patchy, but there was no excuse for the Autumn catastrophe.

    What's more he's doing a repeat of the same type of mismanagement based on wishful thinking at this very moment. Fortunately it won't be as bad as last year's in terms of deaths, but it's still an unnecessary hit. He's an unmitigated shambles (not that anyone on this earth can be surprised at that)..
    Except premature "firebreaks" haven't worked in any nation that have tried it anywhere, including in Wales.

    Our government in the UK tried the Rule of 6, Tiers etc in September/October before reaching for the lockdown lever which is absolutely the right thing to do. If that was enough instead of a lockdown then going for a lockdown is damaging.

    As it happens the NHS never collapsed so no there was absolutely no requirement to go sooner. The NHS didn't collapse in the Autumn, there was no Autumn catastrophy.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,538
    Somehow my low opinion of Dominic Cummings isn't improved by him now making the obvious observation that Boris Johnson isn't a fit person to be in government.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    It's funny to see people here talking about the lockdowns now.

    I distinctly remember posting in August/September last year about the need for another lockdown and several people above laughed at me

    There was no need for a lockdown in August/September.

    Its a shame they were necessary later on.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 13,870
    edited July 20

    It's funny to see people here talking about the lockdowns now.

    I distinctly remember posting in August/September last year about the need for another lockdown and several people above laughed at me

    There was no need for a lockdown in August/September.

    Its a shame they were necessary later on.
    What a load of utter nonsense.

    I called for one later on and the same people laughed at me then, including you!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646
    The Tory Party needs to give Cummings a £150k job, working from home venting his spleen at the party HQ rather than in public.

    He does have a lot of good ideas, but also a lot of terrible ones, and he’s now unemployed and trying to raise his profile.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    It's funny to see people here talking about the lockdowns now.

    I distinctly remember posting in August/September last year about the need for another lockdown and several people above laughed at me

    There was no need for a lockdown in August/September.

    Its a shame they were necessary later on.
    What a load of utter nonsense.

    I called for one later on and the same people laughed at me then, including you!
    It wasn't necessary yet then. The government were right not to have a premature one.

    Having a premature lockdown before its needed serves no purpose since as soon as you lift it, it will become needed again. Unless you intend to just have a lockdown forever, in which case you're just doing even more damage than was done by having one when it was actually needed.
  • If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 29,865

    This could be useful info:

    If you get a vaccine certificate PDF with a QR code on it from the NHS [England & Wales only, not Scotland or NI yet], you can log this in the German official "Corona-Warn" App on your phone, and it issues you an EU vaccine certificate. It works.

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1417427744468750348

    Thanks. Kept for future reference/use.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 11,744
    FF43 said:

    Somehow my low opinion of Dominic Cummings isn't improved by him now making the obvious observation that Boris Johnson isn't a fit person to be in government.

    I doubt that people are going to come though DomCum: The Revenge and think he was badly done by. This won't help him one little bit. But people love gossip, and live the idea that The Man is out to do them over.

    What Cummings says is chip paper. What he proves about what the Clown said / did could be very different. I don't give a crap what Cummings says or thinks. I do give a crap about what the PM said / did. Evidence is all, and by the look of it that evidence we were promised is explosive.

    Yes Cummings is a lunatic out for blood. And having scalped Mancock as a distraction from Gove's quest for mancock you could argue he has had some success. If anything brings about the end of the Boris cult it will be Boris. So lets see what Boris said about the pox, the Queen and the old. And judge him by his own words.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366
    edited July 20

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    Bollocks.

    Unless you mean we should have remained locked down from September 2020 until July 2021, in which case you've had an even more damaging lockdown, then the second you lift lockdown in September 2020 after a fortnightly firebreak the cases start rising again and we still have the issue at Christmas.

    And since people have a "last night of freedom" at the start of the fortnight and a "hooray we're free we beat Covid" after it, there's no dip in cases in that fortnight.

    Which is precisely what happened in Labour ran Wales. 🤦‍♂️
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,810

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,699

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    Bollocks.

    Unless you mean we should have remained locked down from September 2020 until July 2021, in which case you've had an even more damaging lockdown, then the second you lift lockdown in September 2021 after a fortnightly firebreak the cases start rising again and we still have the issue at Christmas.

    Which is precisely what happened in Labour ran Wales. 🤦‍♂️
    Also, those people would have been the same to say that we shouldn't have 'opened up' last summer.

    So really, the argument would have been for a 1 year never ending full lockdown..
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646

    This could be useful info:

    If you get a vaccine certificate PDF with a QR code on it from the NHS [England & Wales only, not Scotland or NI yet], you can log this in the German official "Corona-Warn" App on your phone, and it issues you an EU vaccine certificate. It works.

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1417427744468750348

    There’s also the same issue in reverse - Brits who were vaccinated abroad currently have no way to register their vaccinations on the NHS database.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 22,766
    Morning all. Sorry, only just read the @Cyclefree PT header on the stubborn Tory poll lead. It's a very good helicopter piece.

    "If the choice is between the Tories and an empty space, the latter is unlikely to win."

    The above line jumped out at me. You read it and reflexively nod and think "too right". It's one of those.

    But then - if you're me - you dwell on it a while and wonder whether it is such a slam dunk. This government (and particularly this PM) are increasingly being viewed by anybody with eyes to see and ears to listen and noses to smell and mouths to - ok ok you get the picture - as an utter shambles. No principles. No competence. 'No' as in ZERO.

    They've got away with it so far (pollwise) but for how long? Brexit is shedding its potency as iconic wedge issue. Slowly, to be sure, but it is. They can poke the fires of its culture war aspect but is this enough to stay at 40%? I doubt it. Tough times lie ahead with the economy and in Fiscal Corner. Leveling Up, for example, has to move from soundbite to hard policy choices and this will piss some people off. If it doesn't it's not real and remains a soundbite. Which would also start to piss some people off, just a different bunch, those Leavers who voted for this agenda, believing it to be genuine. Because these folk are not total blithering idiots - not in the main and not all the time. Whatever, poll damage is coming either way. Ditto with Social Care. There are no votes in that. Only negative ones if you get serious about it. Ask Andy Burnham or Theresa May. So the same choice there. A solid plan and loss of popularity or a cop out and loss of popularity.

    Now we have this mismanaged exit from the pandemic. Plus (the header here) further damaging reveals from Cummings - who was right there in the middle of it - about the response and attitude throughout. The PM at key moments in thrall to bizarre right-wing 'contrarians' for heaven's sake, most of them no wiser than our PB one. His focus not on preventing Covid running amok in England and killing tens of thousands but on something far more important - impressing the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.

    I could go on. The challenge is to stop. But I can do that too. I'm going out maskless in a minute. Big moment. The point is, surely all of this shit is probably going to lead within a year to the Cons polling no better than mid 30s. And then come the GE, given things can only get worse, if the choice is indeed between more of the same or a nice cool empty space fronted by a non-scary, competent, decent sounding bloke who looks like he could run a whelk stall and could manage to tell the truth every now and again, well for me that's a toss up.
  • TazTaz Posts: 1,090

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.


    Of course he’s after vengeance, it is obvious, and the same people in the media who lambasted him over barnard castle now fall over themselves to fawn over him. People are not stupid. They see through it.
  • DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    Lockdowns evidently saved lives. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Government itself
  • GnudGnud Posts: 298
    edited July 20
    A true Bayesian wouldn't have a "chief" adviser. They would just have advisers.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 58,366

    DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    Lockdowns evidently saved lives. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Government itself
    Lockdowns when they were needed did.

    Premature lockdowns would do squat.
  • If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    It's not hindsight no. Because I saw the cases climbing slowly and then rapidly from the middle of last year and I said we were going to need another lockdown as cases would lead to deaths. And that is exactly what happened.

    BoJo knew this, he just didn't do anything. It wasn't just me saying this either, it was the BoJo fans who refused to acknowledge the truth
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 18,926
    edited July 20

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    Yes, the nature of the beast is that locking down forever (or, until the vaccines had done their work) was probably unsustainable even if it was the optimum strategy. That said, it did annoy me that the success of the vaccine trials didn't result in a change of approach sooner. I guess Christmas was always the big problem. My mum was genuinely angry with Boris for pulling the plug on it, whilst I was massively relieved.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    TOPPING said:

    This could be useful info:

    If you get a vaccine certificate PDF with a QR code on it from the NHS [England & Wales only, not Scotland or NI yet], you can log this in the German official "Corona-Warn" App on your phone, and it issues you an EU vaccine certificate. It works.

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1417427744468750348

    Thanks. Kept for future reference/use.
    However, this guy says the QR code which gets issued doesn't work (in France at least):

    https://twitter.com/Yachtbreezy/status/1417431394972807168

    More investigation needed if you're going to be relying on this.
  • I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,810

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    It's not hindsight no. Because I saw the cases climbing slowly and then rapidly from the middle of last year and I said we were going to need another lockdown as cases would lead to deaths. And that is exactly what happened.

    BoJo knew this, he just didn't do anything. It wasn't just me saying this either, it was the BoJo fans who refused to acknowledge the truth
    Actually, I think it is. You can say 'lockdown' and ignore the consequences of a lockdown. A government has to weigh up both sides, where both are uncertain. 'Lockdown' was also easy for you to say as it was contrary to the actions of a government you don't generally agree with.

    Let's be clear. Deaths are hideous. Lockdowns are also hideous. The question is at what point the hideousness of the deaths outweigh those of lockdown: and that has to be judged a few weeks in advance.

    Locking down - and indeed, the type and length of the lockdown - are not easy decisions. And it certainly is not, as you imply, a 'truth'.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 3,796
    edited July 20
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all. Sorry, only just read the @Cyclefree PT header on the stubborn Tory poll lead. It's a very good helicopter piece.

    "If the choice is between the Tories and an empty space, the latter is unlikely to win."

    The above line jumped out at me. You read it and reflexively nod and think "too right". It's one of those.

    But then - if you're me - you dwell on it a while and wonder whether it is such a slam dunk. This government (and particularly this PM) are increasingly being viewed by anybody with eyes to see and ears to listen and noses to smell and mouths to - ok ok you get the picture - as an utter shambles. No principles. No competence. 'No' as in ZERO.

    They've got away with it so far (pollwise) but for how long? Brexit is shedding its potency as iconic wedge issue. Slowly, to be sure, but it is. They can poke the fires of its culture war aspect but is this enough to stay at 40%? I doubt it. Tough times lie ahead with the economy and in Fiscal Corner. Leveling Up, for example, has to move from soundbite to hard policy choices and this will piss some people off. If it doesn't it's not real and remains a soundbite. Which would also start to piss some people off, just a different bunch, those Leavers who voted for this agenda, believing it to be genuine. Because these folk are not total blithering idiots - not in the main and not all the time. Whatever, poll damage is coming either way. Ditto with Social Care. There are no votes in that. Only negative ones if you get serious about it. Ask Andy Burnham or Theresa May. So the same choice there. A solid plan and loss of popularity or a cop out and loss of popularity.

    Now we have this mismanaged exit from the pandemic. Plus (the header here) further damaging reveals from Cummings - who was right there in the middle of it - about the response and attitude throughout. The PM at key moments in thrall to bizarre right-wing 'contrarians' for heaven's sake, most of them no wiser than our PB one. His focus not on preventing Covid running amok in England and killing tens of thousands but on something far more important - impressing the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.

    I could go on. The challenge is to stop. But I can do that too. I'm going out maskless in a minute. Big moment. The point is, surely all of this shit is probably going to lead within a year to the Cons polling no better than mid 30s. And then come the GE, given things can only get worse, if the choice is indeed between more of the same or a nice cool empty space fronted by a non-scary, competent, decent sounding bloke who looks like he could run a whelk stall and could manage to tell the truth every now and again, well for me that's a toss up.

    I take issue with 'poke the fires of its culture war aspect'. Blaming the right for the culture war is like blaming Poland for World War Two. The right isn't trying to move back to 1953, it just doesn't want to be dragged forward to year zero. All the movement on the culture war is from the left. The right isn't trying to rewrite history. The right is, occasionally, suggesting that perhaps the left might be going a bit too far.
    Now you're astute, and you'll notice I'm saying 'the left' and not 'the Labour Party'. SKS is trying his hardest to avoid the loonier fringes of the culture war, though his party occasionally drag him into it. But to the electorate as a whole, that's not enough. Neil Kinnock was no culture warrior. But the culture warriors of the wider left - the ILEA, for example - lost him votes. How does SKS distance Labour from the likes of Zarah Sultana and Nadia Whittome?

    EDIT - and have you read the Telegraph or the Spectator recently? If the PM has been trying to impress the Telegraph and the Spectator, he's going about it abysmally. What he's trying to do (and succeeding) is to impress the authoritarian lobby which want more laws on other people (like @gealbhan yesterday - although I wasn't sure how serious he was).

    EDIT2: And good luck going maskless. Enjoy exchanging smiles with other demaskers!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 32,646

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    Who knows? Expecting this government to actually do anything it has said it will do, or not do anything it's said it won't do, is a mug's game.
  • I think absolutely that the vaccine passports for clubs are to push young people to get vaccinated - but I think we'll end up having them regardless.

    I really do not like the idea of vaccine passports at all, I have to say.
  • https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1417431627559587859

    Labour moving back to the centre ground in terms of membership, can only be a good thing
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 38,440

    DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    Lockdowns evidently saved lives. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Government itself
    Nope. Do you not remember "flatten the curve"? The scientists have been clear from the start. This thing is bloody infectious and we are all going to get it. A minority will be made ill by it, a small minority of the mainly old will die from it. What the government needed to do was ensure that the timing of this (a) did not add to existing winter pressures on the NHS and (b) did not get to the point it did in northern Italy and Madrid.

    Vaccines changed the game and thus changed the policy.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 7,701
    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    That was my impression. I haven't been to a nightclub since I was in my 30s. I guess the age range tends to be 18-30 in the main, and probably those who are regular nightclub goers within that age range tend to be at the more hedonistic end of their demographic, so less likely to think the jab is something they should observe, because it is a matter for others to worry about. I think this is a good and sensible move on behalf of the government
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 11,744
    Taz said:

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.


    Of course he’s after vengeance, it is obvious, and the same people in the media who lambasted him over barnard castle now fall over themselves to fawn over him. People are not stupid. They see through it.
    Are they interested in what Cummings thinks? Or what Johnson said?

    Hard to dismiss proof that "Johnson said let Covid kill your Granny" just because the source of that proof is Cummings.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 42,262

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    It did not work in Wales when Drakeford did it
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,960

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Absolutely no chance, vaccines work, what would the point be?
  • theakestheakes Posts: 536
    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,960
    theakes said:

    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.

    They would much prefer a leader who was 13% behind in the polls!!!!!
  • glwglw Posts: 7,570
    Gnud said:

    The productive economy can't be locked down forever to protect the over-80s.

    What's Cummings's motivation?
    1. Career, e.g. book contract, or looking good to Apple, Google, Peter Thiel, Laszlo Szombatfalvy, or whoever else might fund him.
    2. Revenge and never mind the risks. Kinda "Sicilian". (I really hope he doesn't mention Carrie Symonds in the interview. I've heard enough about her. She's not Carrie Antoinette.)
    3. Hope of riding back to No.10 with Michael Gove (or, if he's lost it completely, Keir Starmer) as his sidekick this time.
    4. Self-defence.
    5. A "weird mix". (Joke!)

    Edit: DC on his blog, 4 March 2019:

    "A hypothesis that should be tested: With a) <£1million to play with, b) the ability to recruit a team from among special forces/intel services/specialist criminals/whoever, and c) no rules (so for example they could deploy honey traps on the head of security), a Red Team would break into the most secure UK bio-research facilities and acquire material that could be released publicly in order to cause deaths on the scale of millions.</i>"

    In reality the biggest risk isn't people breaking in, it's the people inside taking stuff out. Some of the biggest intelligence breaches are along those lines, like Snowden and Mitrokhin and their are others, and special nuclear material has been removed from facilities by people who work there many times. Amerithrax is still believed to have been an inside job. You don't need honey traps either, plain old bribery works, and all to often the culprits are looking to sell anyway.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    Lockdowns evidently saved lives. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Government itself
    Nope. Do you not remember "flatten the curve"? The scientists have been clear from the start. This thing is bloody infectious and we are all going to get it. A minority will be made ill by it, a small minority of the mainly old will die from it. What the government needed to do was ensure that the timing of this (a) did not add to existing winter pressures on the NHS and (b) did not get to the point it did in northern Italy and Madrid.

    Vaccines changed the game and thus changed the policy.
    By September, we knew, with a very high degree of confidence, that the vaccines were going to work and that supply was coming. Reducing the severity of the Autumn and especially the January surge would unquestionably have saved tens of thousands of lives.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568

    This could be useful info:

    If you get a vaccine certificate PDF with a QR code on it from the NHS [England & Wales only, not Scotland or NI yet], you can log this in the German official "Corona-Warn" App on your phone, and it issues you an EU vaccine certificate. It works.

    https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1417427744468750348

    It looks like interoperability is being tested, hopefully the NHS App or standalone version will be extended to EU citizens as well. It makes sense for the UK/EU/US/Canada to have a system of mutual recognition of vaccine status for ease of travel without testing or quarantine on either side.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 4,012

    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    Who knows? Expecting this government to actually do anything it has said it will do, or not do anything it's said it won't do, is a mug's game.
    Section 30 anyone?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,962

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.
    He didn't say 'we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young', or anything remotely like it. He said, quite rightly, that Boris ignored advice and brushed aside the increasingly alarming figures back in September, before eventually being forced to impose lockdown when things got so bad that even Boris couldn't continue to ignore them.
    Challenging the assumptions and the data and only having a lockdown as an absolutely last resort is of course the completely right thing to do though.

    To undergo a lockdown when its not necessary would be destructive. To not have a lockdown when it was necessary would be destructive. The government rightly waited as long as it could and tried other solutions until it reached the last resort, that is the right thing to do.
    Don't be silly, of course it's not the right thing to do. You end up having to have a longer, more drastic lockdown, imposed in a panic, because you're starting off with the infections seeded all over the place in much greater numbers. And in the meantime you've killed substantial numbers of people and made a huge number seriously ill - all entirely avoidably. It was spectacular mismanagement, both on economic and health grounds, as many of us, and all the experts, pointed out at the time. It was excusable in March, when this was all novel and the evidence base was patchy, but there was no excuse for the Autumn catastrophe.

    What's more he's doing a repeat of the same type of mismanagement based on wishful thinking at this very moment. Fortunately it won't be as bad as last year's in terms of deaths, but it's still an unnecessary hit. He's an unmitigated shambles (not that anyone on this earth can be surprised at that)..
    Except premature "firebreaks" haven't worked in any nation that have tried it anywhere, including in Wales.

    Our government in the UK tried the Rule of 6, Tiers etc in September/October before reaching for the lockdown lever which is absolutely the right thing to do. If that was enough instead of a lockdown then going for a lockdown is damaging.

    As it happens the NHS never collapsed so no there was absolutely no requirement to go sooner. The NHS didn't collapse in the Autumn, there was no Autumn catastrophy.
    C. 70,000 people died in the 2nd wave from a disease we had a vaccine for. Earlier lockdown could have saved them. That's a catastrophe.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 1,839
    I'm constantly perplexed by how many people on here, and elsewhere, see the 'elderly' and the 'young' as distinctively different groups with different interests. Whether it's Covid strategy, or tax, pensions and NI, people seem to think that the interests of different age groups are in conflict.

    But isn't it the case that most of the 'elderly' have children/grandchildren, whose interests they care about very deeply? Even OAPs who are Tory voters whose children don't vote Conservative? I want a government whose priorities are in the interest of all age groups, not just my own. I want my children to have the same, or better, opportunities as I did. And yes, if I have to pay more tax/NI to bring this about, then so be it, I'm comfortable about this. Even though my 'public sector fatcat pension is' actually a very modest amount.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,570
    edited July 20
    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    It won't just be nightclubs. The government is clearly targeting any crowded indoor space. Pub. Theatre. concert. Maybe even workplace.

    If and when that happens, I can wave goodbye both to my freedom and my livelihood. I will be a second class citizen. Ostrasized. Frozen out.

    With every dose of freedom, this government delivers a punch in the stomach.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 7,701
    Taz said:

    DougSeal said:

    Perhaps both parties should look at what the Lib Dems are doing to have their support spread so evenly across all age groups.

    Simply not have much in the way of support? Not so sure that's a winning formula.

    Cummings is full of s**t. We had three lockdowns to protect the elderly. We've interrupted kids education to protect the elderly. We've added hundreds of billions to our debt that the young will be paying with forever to protect the elderly.
    I’m going to dig out some posts from around the Barnard Castle incident, the effort you expended defending him at the time…
    I'm not having a go at him for Barnard Castle am I?

    But the idea that we've just had a year and a bit of letting the elderly die off and protecting the young is completely nonsense. He's been driven stark raving bonkers if that's what he thinks, or more likely he's just out for revenge for being sacked.

    On a purely coldblooded utilitarian basis for the youngest letting the virus spread, allowing education to continue but wiping out the need to pay so much in pension costs could have been the best for the youngest.

    But we've all sacrificed the last 16 months to save the eldest from the virus. To see this span as anything other than that is completely offensive.


    Of course he’s after vengeance, it is obvious, and the same people in the media who lambasted him over barnard castle now fall over themselves to fawn over him. People are not stupid. They see through it.
    They might well see through "it", with "it" meaning Cummings's real motivations, but it doesn't mean it won't resonate. There will be those who are Johnson fans who don't want to believe it, but there will be those that will realise it is the sort of thing Johnson would say. Cummings understands the drip drip of revelation will eventually wear away Johnson's reputation, even with his fan base. The fact that that is the objective of a highly unpleasant individual doesn't matter that much.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,810
    tlg86 said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    Yes, the nature of the beast is that locking down forever (or, until the vaccines had done their work) was probably unsustainable even if it was the optimum strategy. That said, it did annoy me that the success of the vaccine trials didn't result in a change of approach sooner. I guess Christmas was always the big problem. My mum was genuinely angry with Boris for pulling the plug on it, whilst I was massively relieved.
    My parents (well, my mum...) was annoyed when we decided in early December that we were not going to spend Christmas with them. I've only ever missed one Christmas (when I was on my walk), and she's never quite forgiven me for it. ;)

    Then, a few days later, there was a change in tone. Two friends of theirs (husband and wife) were in hospital with Covid. Then one of them died. After that, they were adamant that Christmas was not going ahead.

    It is the randomness of it all: they knew the couple well, and didn't think they had been doing anything different, taking any other risks. It made it all much more immediate. If it could happen to their friends, it could happen to them.

    (As an aside, another elderly friend of theirs has been ill for some time, and midway through last year had to go into hospital for cancer treatment. Whilst there, she got Covid and became seriously ill. She pulled through, and came out of hospital 'clear' of both cancer and Covid. How can a cancer sufferer pull through, but a younger man die? It seems utterly random.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,149
    Mr. Nabavi, ID cards are an absolutely wretched idea, including the masquerade as 'passports'.

    Mr. Contrarian, unable to be vaccinated? My sympathies.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,831
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all. Sorry, only just read the @Cyclefree PT header on the stubborn Tory poll lead. It's a very good helicopter piece.

    "If the choice is between the Tories and an empty space, the latter is unlikely to win."

    The above line jumped out at me. You read it and reflexively nod and think "too right". It's one of those.

    But then - if you're me - you dwell on it a while and wonder whether it is such a slam dunk. This government (and particularly this PM) are increasingly being viewed by anybody with eyes to see and ears to listen and noses to smell and mouths to - ok ok you get the picture - as an utter shambles. No principles. No competence. 'No' as in ZERO.

    They've got away with it so far (pollwise) but for how long? Brexit is shedding its potency as iconic wedge issue. Slowly, to be sure, but it is. They can poke the fires of its culture war aspect but is this enough to stay at 40%? I doubt it. Tough times lie ahead with the economy and in Fiscal Corner. Leveling Up, for example, has to move from soundbite to hard policy choices and this will piss some people off. If it doesn't it's not real and remains a soundbite. Which would also start to piss some people off, just a different bunch, those Leavers who voted for this agenda, believing it to be genuine. Because these folk are not total blithering idiots - not in the main and not all the time. Whatever, poll damage is coming either way. Ditto with Social Care. There are no votes in that. Only negative ones if you get serious about it. Ask Andy Burnham or Theresa May. So the same choice there. A solid plan and loss of popularity or a cop out and loss of popularity.

    Now we have this mismanaged exit from the pandemic. Plus (the header here) further damaging reveals from Cummings - who was right there in the middle of it - about the response and attitude throughout. The PM at key moments in thrall to bizarre right-wing 'contrarians' for heaven's sake, most of them no wiser than our PB one. His focus not on preventing Covid running amok in England and killing tens of thousands but on something far more important - impressing the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.

    I could go on. The challenge is to stop. But I can do that too. I'm going out maskless in a minute. Big moment. The point is, surely all of this shit is probably going to lead within a year to the Cons polling no better than mid 30s. And then come the GE, given things can only get worse, if the choice is indeed between more of the same or a nice cool empty space fronted by a non-scary, competent, decent sounding bloke who looks like he could run a whelk stall and could manage to tell the truth every now and again, well for me that's a toss up.

    I take issue with 'poke the fires of its culture war aspect'. Blaming the right for the culture war is like blaming Poland for World War Two. The right isn't trying to move back to 1953, it just doesn't want to be dragged forward to year zero. All the movement on the culture war is from the left. The right isn't trying to rewrite history. The right is, occasionally, suggesting that perhaps the left might be going a bit too far.
    Now you're astute, and you'll notice I'm saying 'the left' and not 'the Labour Party'. SKS is trying his hardest to avoid the loonier fringes of the culture war, though his party occasionally drag him into it. But to the electorate as a whole, that's not enough. Neil Kinnock was no culture warrior. But the culture warriors of the wider left - the ILEA, for example - lost him votes. How does SKS distance Labour from the likes of Zarah Sultana and Nadia Whittome?
    That is an excellent comment @Cookie. I admire @kinabalu for the way he expresses his views (I don't agree with them) but there is this disingenuous view from many on the left that it is the Right that is amplifying the changes. I suspect this goes back to their (likely) Marxist interpretation of History that such changes are "inevitable" and that anyone who stands in the way of "progress" is an out of date reactionary. What is particularly toxic though about their behaviour compared with previous times is the hounding of opponents. One shudders to think what these types would have been saying in the 1970s when quite a few of their equivalents were promoting the rights of paedophiles.

  • theakestheakes Posts: 536
    Newrys Hughes: I said the Autumn and after all the public mood is already not as strong for him as it was,
    understand it was very poor at Chesham. Watch this space, you heard it first here!!!!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 3,388

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    It's not hindsight no. Because I saw the cases climbing slowly and then rapidly from the middle of last year and I said we were going to need another lockdown as cases would lead to deaths. And that is exactly what happened.

    BoJo knew this, he just didn't do anything. It wasn't just me saying this either, it was the BoJo fans who refused to acknowledge the truth
    My memory of early autumn is people saying that the increase in cases was nothing to worry about because it would be like Freshers' Flu- the young would get immune by infection and then the whole thing would just fizzle out.

    (And the answer as to when to lockdown is what it's always been- do the minimum restrictions needed to keep virus levels roughly constant. That way you don't need a full-blown lockdown. But if you let cases rise, they will keep rising until even idiots can't ignore them. And it doesn't take long.)
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 7,701

    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    It won't just be nightclubs. The government is clearly targeting any crowded indoor space. Pub. Theatre. concert. Maybe even workplace.

    If and when that happens, I can wave goodbye both to my freedom and my livelihood. I will be a second class citizen. Ostrasized. Frozen out.

    With every dose of freedom, this government delivers a punch in the stomach.
    I do actually have some sympathy, and almost admire you if you stick to your principles. It would be better though that you get the jab. It is safe.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,570

    Mr. Nabavi, ID cards are an absolutely wretched idea, including the masquerade as 'passports'.

    Mr. Contrarian, unable to be vaccinated? My sympathies.

    To be fair, I am able to be vaccinated. I just do not f8cking want to be.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 3,796

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    It did not work in Wales when Drakeford did it
    Czechia locked down early and locked down hard. It just left them more exposed the next time around.

    Pandemics are complex. Presenting counterfactuals is speculative at best.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 2,971

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    You may be right on the narrow point about christmas, but lockdown needs something else to complete the job. I think if we knew for certain in august and september that vaccines were coming, and soon, then it would have made a lot of sense to lockdown and suppress as much as possible. The narrative back in the autumn was balancing staying as open as possible, without cases spiraling. Sadly it proved impossible, not least because of the the Kent (now alpha) variant.

  • TazTaz Posts: 1,090

    https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1417431627559587859

    Labour moving back to the centre ground in terms of membership, can only be a good thing

    I’m sure those being made redundant will be rejoicing in your pleasure.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 7,701

    theakes said:

    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.

    They would much prefer a leader who was 13% behind in the polls!!!!!
    Your obsession with polls is really rather silly. The more important thing is whether he can do the job that he was elected to do, which when I last looked is arguably the most powerful and important in the country. If you think he can, fine, make your argument. Being PM is not just a popularity contest.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 56,149
    Mr. Contrarian, while I disagree with your stance on the vaccine, it's simply another way in which these so-called 'passports' are totally unacceptable. You shouldn't have your social or occupational life destroyed because the Government has developed a fetish for ID cards and social control.

    It's abhorrent.

    PBers with long memories may recall I first signed up here in the latter half, I think, of 2007, when Gordon Brown was plotting ID cards and an associated database. It was vile then and it's vile now. And if you think these so-called passports will end once COVID-19 is over then you're an unvarnished baboon of ill-repute.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 49,939
    Burn much, Carole?

    I didn't sign this letter and it may be telling that you didn't even check before publicly 'accusing' me of it. You're a populist and a political ideologue, and should stay out of public health debates. Besides, I find it tiring when someone as vocal as you is oblivious to facts

    https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1417437678031806466?s=20
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,570

    Sandpit said:

    I think we're going to end up having another lockdown or another increase in restrictions. You heard it here first - I hope as before, I am wrong

    Already announced - the vaccine passports for nightclubs from end Sept (too late, as usual). You are probably right that there will be more; reintroducing compulsory masks in various circumstances must be a front-runner.
    Will the nightclub passports actually happen, or are they using the idea of it to nudge the 18-25 group into getting jabbed over the summer?

    My money would be on the latter.
    It won't just be nightclubs. The government is clearly targeting any crowded indoor space. Pub. Theatre. concert. Maybe even workplace.

    If and when that happens, I can wave goodbye both to my freedom and my livelihood. I will be a second class citizen. Ostrasized. Frozen out.

    With every dose of freedom, this government delivers a punch in the stomach.
    I do actually have some sympathy, and almost admire you if you stick to your principles. It would be better though that you get the jab. It is safe.
    No I feel sorry for you, because if you think being double jabbed is the last demand the government will make of you for your freedom, you are seriously wrong.

    YOu will need a booster, a flu jab and goodness knows what else, soon. And that is just the start of it. Luckily for me I am close to retirement and so can drop off the radar if I want.

    Many will not be so lucky.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 3,388

    theakes said:

    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.

    They would much prefer a leader who was 13% behind in the polls!!!!!
    Your obsession with polls is really rather silly. The more important thing is whether he can do the job that he was elected to do, which when I last looked is arguably the most powerful and important in the country. If you think he can, fine, make your argument. Being PM is not just a popularity contest.
    Are you going to tell the Prime Minister? I'm not sure I fancy being the one to break it to him.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,570

    Mr. Contrarian, while I disagree with your stance on the vaccine, it's simply another way in which these so-called 'passports' are totally unacceptable. You shouldn't have your social or occupational life destroyed because the Government has developed a fetish for ID cards and social control.

    It's abhorrent.

    PBers with long memories may recall I first signed up here in the latter half, I think, of 2007, when Gordon Brown was plotting ID cards and an associated database. It was vile then and it's vile now. And if you think these so-called passports will end once COVID-19 is over then you're an unvarnished baboon of ill-repute.

    Mr Dancer, I am lucky in that I am close to retirement and so can afford to lose my job if I really want to make a stand. I can I guess just drop off the radar and hope the government just forgets me.

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 1,879
    edited July 20
    DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    I generally agree, apart from a couple of points:
    1. Lockdown is an inexact science, particularly early on - and given the rate of increase in cases and hospitalisations in the early waves, the margin for error was tiny. We had to lockdown in time to not get close to overwhelming the health service, as pushing it closer would have had a large risk of significant overwhelming (as it is, in some areas it was touch and go - I know from clinician contacts that things got very tight in some hospitals)
    2. In a world in which vaccines never arrive, lockdowns save some lives by averting overwhelmig of health services and enabling time for studies to establish best treatment patterns, useful medications etc. In the world we live in, the lockdowns will have saved many thousands of lives among the many elderly people who had exposure to Covid delayed past the point of full vaccination. With development of vaccines uncertain, it was of course a gamble either way.

    Locking down earlier would have meant smaller waves and fewer deaths before vaccinations came along. It would also have possible additional economic costs. The interesting question is whether there was a level of restrictions - or cycling restrictions short of full lockdown - that would have kept R close to 1 for the original variant with minimal economic costs - if there was, then doing that long term would probably have been the best course, until alpha turned up at least. But there may not have been and I don't think it was feasible really to find that point at the time - the government tried with the tier system.

    But, much of it is hindsight. The government were a bit late in March last year, but I want a government that is sceptical of doing what has been done and resists it if possible. I do think they cocked up in the Autumn and over Christmas and in particular with the dithering over schools going back in January. But every government would have made mistakes. I was broadly supportive in March; I thought they were getting it wrong in Autumn and over Christmas/early January. I support, broadly, the actions now (I'd maybe mandate masks on public transport, but that's about it).
  • glwglw Posts: 7,570

    Lockdowns when they were needed did.

    Premature lockdowns would do squat.

    The Imperial College report which drove the initial response specifically warns about the risk of prematurely using lockdowns. For mitigation you have to start the lockdown based upon when you think the peak will occur, go too early and your mitigation will fail. For supression you use the lockdown early, but you need testing capacity to measure the cases accurately in order to time it, that was impossible in the first wave, and by the second wave the notion that we could supress covid was looking fanciful. We've only ever used mitigation in the UK.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 8,766

    theakes said:

    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.

    They would much prefer a leader who was 13% behind in the polls!!!!!
    I would say not before the Party Conference. That would look like caving in to political pressure.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 6,021
    New Statesman
    @NewStatesman
    ·
    28m
    Labour’s membership has become less Corbynite since Keir Starmer’s election.
    @bnhwalker
    looks at the latest polling: https://newstatesman.com/politics/polling/2021/07/how-labour-s-membership-has-become-less-corbynite-keir-starmer-s-election
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,960

    tlg86 said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    Yes, the nature of the beast is that locking down forever (or, until the vaccines had done their work) was probably unsustainable even if it was the optimum strategy. That said, it did annoy me that the success of the vaccine trials didn't result in a change of approach sooner. I guess Christmas was always the big problem. My mum was genuinely angry with Boris for pulling the plug on it, whilst I was massively relieved.
    My parents (well, my mum...) was annoyed when we decided in early December that we were not going to spend Christmas with them. I've only ever missed one Christmas (when I was on my walk), and she's never quite forgiven me for it. ;)

    Then, a few days later, there was a change in tone. Two friends of theirs (husband and wife) were in hospital with Covid. Then one of them died. After that, they were adamant that Christmas was not going ahead.

    It is the randomness of it all: they knew the couple well, and didn't think they had been doing anything different, taking any other risks. It made it all much more immediate. If it could happen to their friends, it could happen to them.

    (As an aside, another elderly friend of theirs has been ill for some time, and midway through last year had to go into hospital for cancer treatment. Whilst there, she got Covid and became seriously ill. She pulled through, and came out of hospital 'clear' of both cancer and Covid. How can a cancer sufferer pull through, but a younger man die? It seems utterly random.)
    A chap from my local pub who is 80 had been ill for many years and by the end of 2019 his organs were beginning to fail . He was massively underweight and he look finished. He was admitted to hospital just before Christmas 2019 and was still in hospital in March 2020 when he caught Covid. With his wife's agreement the hospital sent him home so his wife could care for him in his last days/weeks with the help of home care visits. Within 2 weeks he started to improve and within 6 weeks he had made a significant recovery. he is still going strong now, all his previous ailments seem to have gone away. He walks to the pub on a Saturday, has 4 pints of guiness and walks home. It really is a miracle as he was all but dead, he caught covid and he got better not just from Covid but from all his other ailments.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 49,939
    Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines:

    SINGAPORE, July 20 (Reuters) - Singapore will halt restaurant dining and ban gatherings of more than two people for one month from Thursday, the health ministry said, as a further rise in coronavirus cases deals a blow to the country's reopening plans.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-tighten-coronavirus-curbs-again-cases-rise-2021-07-20/
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 11,744

    theakes said:

    Conservative MP's must be quietly in despair over Johnson, not sure about the members. Think he may go before the party conference.

    They would much prefer a leader who was 13% behind in the polls!!!!!
    Johnson got them there, but can he keep them there? Even with his cult there are only so many times you can shrug off the latest self-inflicted fuck-up.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 42,262
    Sky breaking

    Olympics in doubt

    Might be cancelled
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,745

    tlg86 said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    There is a problem of hindsight. That can be argued strongly now, but was it really as evident at the time as it is now? In addition, say they had locked down and there had not been a wave: many of the people now complaining about the deaths would be complaining that the lockdown had been unnecessary.

    To argue against the above just shows Boris Johnson's enemies for what they are. ;)
    Yes, the nature of the beast is that locking down forever (or, until the vaccines had done their work) was probably unsustainable even if it was the optimum strategy. That said, it did annoy me that the success of the vaccine trials didn't result in a change of approach sooner. I guess Christmas was always the big problem. My mum was genuinely angry with Boris for pulling the plug on it, whilst I was massively relieved.
    My parents (well, my mum...) was annoyed when we decided in early December that we were not going to spend Christmas with them. I've only ever missed one Christmas (when I was on my walk), and she's never quite forgiven me for it. ;)

    Then, a few days later, there was a change in tone. Two friends of theirs (husband and wife) were in hospital with Covid. Then one of them died. After that, they were adamant that Christmas was not going ahead.

    It is the randomness of it all: they knew the couple well, and didn't think they had been doing anything different, taking any other risks. It made it all much more immediate. If it could happen to their friends, it could happen to them.

    (As an aside, another elderly friend of theirs has been ill for some time, and midway through last year had to go into hospital for cancer treatment. Whilst there, she got Covid and became seriously ill. She pulled through, and came out of hospital 'clear' of both cancer and Covid. How can a cancer sufferer pull through, but a younger man die? It seems utterly random.)
    A chap from my local pub who is 80 had been ill for many years and by the end of 2019 his organs were beginning to fail . He was massively underweight and he look finished. He was admitted to hospital just before Christmas 2019 and was still in hospital in March 2020 when he caught Covid. With his wife's agreement the hospital sent him home so his wife could care for him in his last days/weeks with the help of home care visits. Within 2 weeks he started to improve and within 6 weeks he had made a significant recovery. he is still going strong now, all his previous ailments seem to have gone away. He walks to the pub on a Saturday, has 4 pints of guiness and walks home. It really is a miracle as he was all but dead, he caught covid and he got better not just from Covid but from all his other ailments.
    Amazing! Good for him
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,699

    Sky breaking

    Olympics in doubt

    Might be cancelled

    Not a suprise sadly.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 29,568

    I'm constantly perplexed by how many people on here, and elsewhere, see the 'elderly' and the 'young' as distinctively different groups with different interests. Whether it's Covid strategy, or tax, pensions and NI, people seem to think that the interests of different age groups are in conflict.

    But isn't it the case that most of the 'elderly' have children/grandchildren, whose interests they care about very deeply? Even OAPs who are Tory voters whose children don't vote Conservative? I want a government whose priorities are in the interest of all age groups, not just my own. I want my children to have the same, or better, opportunities as I did. And yes, if I have to pay more tax/NI to bring this about, then so be it, I'm comfortable about this. Even though my 'public sector fatcat pension is' actually a very modest amount.

    The problem with this view is that the baby boomer generation is, unfortunately, generation selfish. They bought up all the property when prices were low, they closed all of the DB pension schemes when they realised keeping them open would mean their own pensions wouldn't be funded, they introduced fees for university when they all finished their grant funded degrees, they don't want to pay for their own care and invariably vote to tax working age people to fund their own sweeties like free bus passes and the triple lock.

    They have none of the self-sacrifice of their parents who fought and lived through the war and are happy to leech off the next generation by sucking them dry with rent and tax.

    The continual pandering to them by the Tories is one of the major reasons I've not been tempted to rejoin the party. They are happy to entrench inter-generational unfairness that means working people just continue to be seen as money-piñatas by anyone aged 60 or over.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 133

    DavidL said:

    If we had locked down in September we would not have had the Christmas catastrophe. It is evident that on every single occasion, locking down earlier would have been a better solution. To argue against even now is just showing the BoJo fans for what they are

    With respect the original purpose of a lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The evidence is that we never got close to that so we locked down too much and too long but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

    The purpose of lockdown changed when vaccines became generally available because infection and death were no longer merely deferred but preventable which is why we have had a lock down through most of this year. But the economic costs of that are horrendous and we still need to end it as soon as possible, even if we do not have full protection yet.

    The delusion in your thinking is that in a world without vaccines lockdowns saved lives. They didn't. They changed the timing so that the NHS could cope. That's all.
    Lockdowns evidently saved lives. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Government itself
    Lockdowns when they were needed did.

    Premature lockdowns would do squat.
    I'm not sure that's strictly true. In pre-vaccination world, the longer we let cases rise, the longer we ended up needing to be in lockdown to ensure cases fell.

    After summer, where case levels were very low, and before vaccinations were available, the optimal strategy was to keep R as close to 1 as possible. Any significant growth rate was going to inevitably lead us back to proper lockdown.

    Cases went from 1,000 per day through August to 7,000 per day at the end of September. It didn't take a genius to have identified where we were heading in mid-September and tighten restrictions.

    Undercooking things led to the first 1-month Autumn lockdown, while the desire for Christmas to be normal despite cases skyrocketing led to the long lockdown we've had early this year.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 5,364
    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all. Sorry, only just read the @Cyclefree PT header on the stubborn Tory poll lead. It's a very good helicopter piece.

    "If the choice is between the Tories and an empty space, the latter is unlikely to win."

    The above line jumped out at me. You read it and reflexively nod and think "too right". It's one of those.

    But then - if you're me - you dwell on it a while and wonder whether it is such a slam dunk. This government (and particularly this PM) are increasingly being viewed by anybody with eyes to see and ears to listen and noses to smell and mouths to - ok ok you get the picture - as an utter shambles. No principles. No competence. 'No' as in ZERO.

    They've got away with it so far (pollwise) but for how long? Brexit is shedding its potency as iconic wedge issue. Slowly, to be sure, but it is. They can poke the fires of its culture war aspect but is this enough to stay at 40%? I doubt it. Tough times lie ahead with the economy and in Fiscal Corner. Leveling Up, for example, has to move from soundbite to hard policy choices and this will piss some people off. If it doesn't it's not real and remains a soundbite. Which would also start to piss some people off, just a different bunch, those Leavers who voted for this agenda, believing it to be genuine. Because these folk are not total blithering idiots - not in the main and not all the time. Whatever, poll damage is coming either way. Ditto with Social Care. There are no votes in that. Only negative ones if you get serious about it. Ask Andy Burnham or Theresa May. So the same choice there. A solid plan and loss of popularity or a cop out and loss of popularity.

    Now we have this mismanaged exit from the pandemic. Plus (the header here) further damaging reveals from Cummings - who was right there in the middle of it - about the response and attitude throughout. The PM at key moments in thrall to bizarre right-wing 'contrarians' for heaven's sake, most of them no wiser than our PB one. His focus not on preventing Covid running amok in England and killing tens of thousands but on something far more important - impressing the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator.

    I could go on. The challenge is to stop. But I can do that too. I'm going out maskless in a minute. Big moment. The point is, surely all of this shit is probably going to lead within a year to the Cons polling no better than mid 30s. And then come the GE, given things can only get worse, if the choice is indeed between more of the same or a nice cool empty space fronted by a non-scary, competent, decent sounding bloke who looks like he could run a whelk stall and could manage to tell the truth every now and again, well for me that's a toss up.

    I take issue with 'poke the fires of its culture war aspect'. Blaming the right for the culture war is like blaming Poland for World War Two. The right isn't trying to move back to 1953, it just doesn't want to be dragged forward to year zero. All the movement on the culture war is from the left. The right isn't trying to rewrite history. The right is, occasionally, suggesting that perhaps the left might be going a bit too far.
    Now you're astute, and you'll notice I'm saying 'the left' and not 'the Labour Party'. SKS is trying his hardest to avoid the loonier fringes of the culture war, though his party occasionally drag him into it. But to the electorate as a whole, that's not enough. Neil Kinnock was no culture warrior. But the culture warriors of the wider left - the ILEA, for example - lost him votes. How does SKS distance Labour from the likes of Zarah Sultana and Nadia Whittome?

    EDIT - and have you read the Telegraph or the Spectator recently? If the PM has been trying to impress the Telegraph and the Spectator, he's going about it abysmally. What he's trying to do (and succeeding) is to impress the authoritarian lobby which want more laws on other people (like @gealbhan yesterday - although I wasn't sure how serious he was).

    EDIT2: And good luck going maskless. Enjoy exchanging smiles with other demaskers!
    But the things the ILEA were criticised for, like anti racism and gay rights, are mainstream now, precisely because some brave politicians were willing to make the case in the face of much hostility from the press, the Tories and indeed the public. Attitudes do change, personally I think that's a good thing. Nobody has a monopoly on common sense or wisdom, but I think over the sweep of postwar history, the progressive side have got more of the big calls on social and cultural issues right than the conservative one.
Sign In or Register to comment.