Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A party fit for purpose

123578

Comments

  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    A new high quality poll just came out showing Biden six points ahead in Florida. This is before COVID is about to wreak disaster there. It is impossible for Trump to win without the state.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    That is because you are a reasonable, compassionate human being.

    I have personally witnessed the bullshit above and watched as it damaged peoples lives.

    Case in point - as part of Religious Education, visits to places of worship. Certain groups do not visit other groups places of worship. You could make a grid. As is also usual, a stern letter was sent out mandating attendance at the Mosque visit. As was usual, the Hindus and Sikhs didn't attend. One parent was summoned to the school, threatened with sanction etc. This was because she had married into a Hindu family, and converted, but was guilty of being melanin challenged. The school tried the "you can't convert to Hinduism" angle. Which made me laugh... finally they decided for the purposes of this rule (breaking??) she was an honorary Hindu...

    Thank you. I'm sure we almost all are. Your example is of bigoted practices in a faith school? OK, so that's bad. I don't believe in faith schools of any stripe. I'd ban them, state or private. You can't be a progressive and be sanguine about religious segregation in schools.

    Back to what I'm saying the correct progressive position is -

    Treat people with equal respect but be sensitive to difference and support efforts to reduce barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups.

    Equal respect. You do not factor in identity when dealing with people day to day. You base it on who they are not what they are.

    Difference. But you DO respect difference. For example, you do not serve up pork pies to a vegan who's come for lunch.

    Reduce barriers. You support things like preferential university access for bright kids from state comps in tough areas.

    The above template is all we need. Each issue judged on its own merits with this as a reference. This is progressive politics. There's nothing to be scared of here. Don't be scared.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 17,529

    ydoethur said:

    Full Shadow Cabinet

    Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition
    Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party
    Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary
    Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary
    Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    David Lammy, Shadow Justice Secretary
    John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary
    Ed Miliband, Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary
    Emily Thornberry, Shadow International Trade Secretary
    Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
    Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary
    Jo Stevens, Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
    Bridget Philipson, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
    Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary
    Steve Reed, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary
    Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Housing Secretary
    Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary
    Preet Kaur Gill, Shadow International Development Secretary
    Louise Haigh, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (interim)
    Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary
    Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
    Marsha de Cordova, Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary
    Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary
    Rosena Allin-Khan, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
    Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement
    Lord Falconer, Shadow Attorney General
    Valerie Vaz, Shadow Leader of the House
    Nick Brown, Opposition Chief Whip
    Baroness Smith, Shadow Leader of the Lords
    Lord McAvoy, Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip

    That’s a very large shadow cabinet,

    Am I right in thinking though that the only shadow minister who served under Blair or Brown (as Shadow Attorney General and Chief Whip are not ministerial) is Ed Miliband, who is a most interesting comeback?
    I am pleased with the way Starmer has axed so many Corbynistas

    Not sure about RLB at education or Lammy at justice.

    But the slaying of Corbynism seems like a breath of fresh air and well done to Starmer

    Please can others enlighten me, but is this a very pro EU shadow cabinet and if so who will stand up for brexit as desired by so many in the red wall seats
    Brexit has already happened, you need to get over it.
    Not really. A trade deal has to be agreed and no deal is still on the table

    And can you respond to a fair question, is this a remain shadow cabinet
    What has that got to do with the shadow cabinet being “pro EU” or “remain”? Brexit has already happened. It can no longer be frustrated.
    Yes it can.

    Extended transistion moving towards BINO is likely the aim of Starmer and if so we may as well stay in, though how anyone explains the eurozone debt liabilities to the voters together with billions of payments into the EU is another matter
    OK... What has that got to do with the “Brexit as desired by so many in the red wall”? Starmer will need to win an election before they can do anything, so I’m not sure what your issue is.

    Brexit is a complete irrelevance now anyway.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,817
    Andy_JS said:

    eadric said:
    Their numbers are still pretty low for a country with 10 million people. Compare with Belgium which has had 4 times as many deaths for a similar population.
    In all honesty the countries are not really similar in terms of size or population density.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,104
    This is brilliant. A poem in Doric, "To a virus".

    https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1103476056656618
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 18,144

    Brexit is a complete irrelevance now anyway.

    Unless BoZo really did prioritize Brexit over breathing
  • TOPPING said:

    ydoethur said:

    Full Shadow Cabinet

    Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition
    Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party
    Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary
    Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary
    Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    David Lammy, Shadow Justice Secretary
    John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary
    Ed Miliband, Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary
    Emily Thornberry, Shadow International Trade Secretary
    Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
    Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary
    Jo Stevens, Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
    Bridget Philipson, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
    Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary
    Steve Reed, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary
    Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Housing Secretary
    Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary
    Preet Kaur Gill, Shadow International Development Secretary
    Louise Haigh, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (interim)
    Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary
    Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
    Marsha de Cordova, Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary
    Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary
    Rosena Allin-Khan, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
    Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement
    Lord Falconer, Shadow Attorney General
    Valerie Vaz, Shadow Leader of the House
    Nick Brown, Opposition Chief Whip
    Baroness Smith, Shadow Leader of the Lords
    Lord McAvoy, Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip

    That’s a very large shadow cabinet,

    Am I right in thinking though that the only shadow minister who served under Blair or Brown (as Shadow Attorney General and Chief Whip are not ministerial) is Ed Miliband, who is a most interesting comeback?
    I am pleased with the way Starmer has axed so many Corbynistas

    Not sure about RLB at education or Lammy at justice.

    But the slaying of Corbynism seems like a breath of fresh air and well done to Starmer

    Please can others enlighten me, but is this a very pro EU shadow cabinet and if so who will stand up for brexit as desired by so many in the red wall seats
    Brexit has already happened, you need to get over it.
    Not really. A trade deal has to be agreed and no deal is still on the table

    And can you respond to a fair question, is this a remain shadow cabinet
    Would you be tempted to vote Labour if it was, Big G? Where are you now on the whole Leave/Remain thing?
    I would support an extension and a trade deal but it must keep us away from any costs involved in the eurozone debt crisis that is looming

    As far as voting labour, the dial has moved due to the slaying of Corbynism and I am able to judge now which post covid offerings offer the fairest way to recognise the unskilled in higher pay and help those less fortunate, at the same time as really turning the screw on footballers, celebrities, fat cats and others

    I do have hopes that Rishi will move this way to a kinder more compassionate society and in so doing may make it harder for labour to stand in that space
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,217
    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    For example, I am currently very confident that next year will end in a 1.

    Just like 1931!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015
    Gabs3 said:

    A new high quality poll just came out showing Biden six points ahead in Florida. This is before COVID is about to wreak disaster there. It is impossible for Trump to win without the state.

    A million or more newly unemployed are/will be trying to sign on via the new system the Republicans just deployed. It was designed deliberately to make it more difficult to register.

    The Florida party is in a state approaching civil war, as a consequence.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    ydoethur said:

    Full Shadow Cabinet

    Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition
    Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party
    Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary
    Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary
    Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    David Lammy, Shadow Justice Secretary
    John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary
    Ed Miliband, Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary
    Emily Thornberry, Shadow International Trade Secretary
    Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
    Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary
    Jo Stevens, Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
    Bridget Philipson, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
    Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary
    Steve Reed, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary
    Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Housing Secretary
    Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary
    Preet Kaur Gill, Shadow International Development Secretary
    Louise Haigh, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (interim)
    Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary
    Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
    Marsha de Cordova, Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary
    Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary
    Rosena Allin-Khan, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
    Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement
    Lord Falconer, Shadow Attorney General
    Valerie Vaz, Shadow Leader of the House
    Nick Brown, Opposition Chief Whip
    Baroness Smith, Shadow Leader of the Lords
    Lord McAvoy, Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip

    That’s a very large shadow cabinet,

    Am I right in thinking though that the only shadow minister who served under Blair or Brown (as Shadow Attorney General and Chief Whip are not ministerial) is Ed Miliband, who is a most interesting comeback?
    I am pleased with the way Starmer has axed so many Corbynistas

    Not sure about RLB at education or Lammy at justice.

    But the slaying of Corbynism seems like a breath of fresh air and well done to Starmer

    Please can others enlighten me, but is this a very pro EU shadow cabinet and if so who will stand up for brexit as desired by so many in the red wall seats
    Brexit has already happened, you need to get over it.
    Not really. A trade deal has to be agreed and no deal is still on the table

    And can you respond to a fair question, is this a remain shadow cabinet
    What has that got to do with the shadow cabinet being “pro EU” or “remain”? Brexit has already happened. It can no longer be frustrated.
    Yes it can.

    Extended transistion moving towards BINO is likely the aim of Starmer and if so we may as well stay in, though how anyone explains the eurozone debt liabilities to the voters together with billions of payments into the EU is another matter
    The idea EEA is like being in the EU is absolute nonsense.

    There is no such thing as Brexit in name only, we have left. We are out of the EU.
    Exactly. Plus the closer we remained aligned to the EU, the easier it is for us to Rejoin, which should be the goal of the Labour Party. Plus ongoing freedom of movement will shift demographics in favour of Rejoin. We should be fighting tooth and nail for this.
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649
    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    We can only hope that the second half is not like the second half.....
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Good to see the wilful misinterpretation of 'herd immunity' by a hold-out few is still not unchecked by such things as facts or basic human decency.

    I don't even know what that means, but there's no doubt that in the early stages the UK government's policy was to manage the infection of around 60% of the population with this virus, with most of the infections happening over roughly a two-month period in May and June.

    That was an insane policy, and it prevented early measures being taken that could have saved many lives. I really hope that the responsibility for that policy, and for the unnecessary deaths, will be laid at the right doors. But I am not optimistic.
    And if this inquiry suggests that the Govt’s main mistake was not to sufficiently challenge and overrule the scientific models and opinion? Whilst having no expert justication for doing so?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Gabs3 said:

    A new high quality poll just came out showing Biden six points ahead in Florida. This is before COVID is about to wreak disaster there. It is impossible for Trump to win without the state.

    When you say "there", do you mean Florida, or Biden?
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 686
    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    Even Brezhnev managed better than that.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,917

    ydoethur said:

    Full Shadow Cabinet

    Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition
    Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party
    Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary
    Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary
    Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    David Lammy, Shadow Justice Secretary
    John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary
    Ed Miliband, Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary
    Emily Thornberry, Shadow International Trade Secretary
    Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
    Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary
    Jo Stevens, Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
    Bridget Philipson, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
    Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary
    Steve Reed, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary
    Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Housing Secretary
    Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary
    Preet Kaur Gill, Shadow International Development Secretary
    Louise Haigh, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (interim)
    Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary
    Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
    Marsha de Cordova, Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary
    Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary
    Rosena Allin-Khan, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
    Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement
    Lord Falconer, Shadow Attorney General
    Valerie Vaz, Shadow Leader of the House
    Nick Brown, Opposition Chief Whip
    Baroness Smith, Shadow Leader of the Lords
    Lord McAvoy, Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip

    That’s a very large shadow cabinet,

    Am I right in thinking though that the only shadow minister who served under Blair or Brown (as Shadow Attorney General and Chief Whip are not ministerial) is Ed Miliband, who is a most interesting comeback?
    I am pleased with the way Starmer has axed so many Corbynistas

    Not sure about RLB at education or Lammy at justice.

    But the slaying of Corbynism seems like a breath of fresh air and well done to Starmer

    Please can others enlighten me, but is this a very pro EU shadow cabinet and if so who will stand up for brexit as desired by so many in the red wall seats
    Brexit has already happened, you need to get over it.
    Not really. A trade deal has to be agreed and no deal is still on the table

    And can you respond to a fair question, is this a remain shadow cabinet
    What has that got to do with the shadow cabinet being “pro EU” or “remain”? Brexit has already happened. It can no longer be frustrated.
    Yes it can.

    Extended transistion moving towards BINO is likely the aim of Starmer and if so we may as well stay in, though how anyone explains the eurozone debt liabilities to the voters together with billions of payments into the EU is another matter
    OK... What has that got to do with the “Brexit as desired by so many in the red wall”? Starmer will need to win an election before they can do anything, so I’m not sure what your issue is.

    Brexit is a complete irrelevance now anyway.
    Indeed. Besides, the idea that the red wall crumbled because of Brexit is a myth, espoused by Brexit headbangers, Jeremy Corbyn and his apologists. The red wall collapse was due to Jeremy Corbyn and very little else.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    Keir Starmer's shadow cab appointments look pretty sensible. It is a team which should reasonably quickly become a credible government-in-waiting (assuming Anneliese Dodds is up to her important role, I don't know enough about her to comment).

    On the negative side, David Lammy is a mistake: he's far too flaky, sometimes saying very sensible things but sometimes saying completely bonkers things. I suppose Starmer had to give RLB a role, but she's over-promoted even in this demotion.

    The Ed Miliband appointment is interesting, and I think makes sense. After being out of government for a decade, and hollowed out by Corbyn, the party is severely lacking in top-level experience, let alone full cabinet experience, and Ed M has matured in somewhat the same way William Hague did. His advice and perspective will be useful and he's not one to undermine his successor's leadership.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015
    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    Apparently so.
    The idea that ministers would be lying about that is absurd.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387
    eadric said:
    That's the equivalent of 3,000 deaths in the UK.

    Or put it another way: if 500 people died of the Coronavirus every day for a year in Sweden, then that would be 2% of the population that expired from it.

    I don't think anywhere holds their nerve. When you can't sleep for the sirens, the death rate is spiking from lack of ventilator capacity and everybody knows someone who died, then governments have no choice but to change course.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    Pro-EU cabinet is meaningless waffle.

    I suspect they're pro EEA, which most of the country could get behind.

    Leave/Remain is over. We have left.

    Nonsense. We should Rejoin. Any progressive should support unification across rich countries and poor countries. How else can you claim to be a progressive?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,148
    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,018

    Good to see the wilful misinterpretation of 'herd immunity' by a hold-out few is still not unchecked by such things as facts or basic human decency.

    How should we interpret 'herd immunity'?
    I'd also like to know how we get to whatever level of herd immunity you think would protect the rest by letting people catch the virus when there is a two week delay before showing symptoms and and the infection grows exponentially.
    How can you control that?
    Genuine questions.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    eadric said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    It's really not "very unlikely" that the PM will die. If you go into hospital after 10 days of coronavirus, as with BJ, the prognosis is deeply worrying. A lot of people, especially men over 50, do not come out.

    The odds are still in his favour, but not overwhelmingly so.
    Do you have actual numbers or odds to cite?
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 686
    Are Labour really going to argue for free movement, after a pandemic, and ask the electorate to support it? That ship sailed already, and it's not coming back now we're in lockdown!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,297
    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    Steady on. This is all completely unprecedented. We've never had a situation where peacetime, functioning economies decided to put themselves on hold for a month or so to counter a virus. It's perfectly possibly we get a bounce back and it it's all relatively benign.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020
    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    No one is talking about January and February.

    We're talking about the UK's policy of herd immunity in early March. It was crazy. Is anyone really claiming that it wasn't crazy? If you're saying you couldn't see it was crazy, fair enough.

    But I think anyone with a brain could see it was crazy. How could the NHS have continued to function if two thirds of the population had been infected with this virus?

    I think most of us could see it was crazy. Trying to suggest it wasn't obviously crazy says more about you than anything else.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,475
    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    They'll put him on an ECMO machine if it gets that bad. We only have 15 of them in the UK, but he's the PM...
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    edited April 2020

    Gabs3 said:

    A new high quality poll just came out showing Biden six points ahead in Florida. This is before COVID is about to wreak disaster there. It is impossible for Trump to win without the state.

    When you say "there", do you mean Florida, or Biden?
    Florida. They only just went on lockdown on Friday, and they have an Italy style age profile. They have the terrible combination of Trump as President and a Trumpian as Governor. No one can protect them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    glw said:

    felix said:

    I think all of these journalists really ought to be seconded to the NHS - their medical skills even when operating entirely remotely are so good - they can give fully informed advice without even seeing a patient... or having a single medical qualification. Extraordinary.

    The sheer ignorance of much of the political pundit class when it comes to a subject that is well off the beaten path for them has been quite instructive for us to see.
    I'm not sure many on PB (me included) should cast the first stone when it comes to pronouncing on subjects on which the pronouncer is not obviously qualified to do so.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    For what it's worth No 10 have denied it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    No one is talking about January and February.

    We're talking about the UK's policy of herd immunity in early March. It was crazy. Is anyone really claiming that it wasn't crazy? If you're saying you couldn't see it was crazy, fair enough.

    But I think anyone with a brain could see it was crazy. How could the NHS have continued to function if two thirds of the population had been infected with this virus?

    I think most of us could see it was crazy. Trying to suggest it wasn't obviously crazy says more about you than anything else.
    Actually, seeing how the NHS might survive if two thirds of the population HAD been infected by the virus was the easy bit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    TOPPING said:

    On another note, and of no interest whatsoever, the most recent passing out parade at Sandhurst, I see from a bulletin, was conducted in combats, the first time it has not been in ceremonial dress since the second world war.

    This is message sending rather than for any practical reason I assume?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    For what it's worth No 10 have denied it.
    That’s not very helpful. Remember the first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied.
  • Gabs3 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Full Shadow Cabinet

    Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition
    Angela Rayner, Deputy Leader and Chair of the Labour Party
    Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
    Lisa Nandy, Shadow Foreign Secretary
    Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow Home Secretary
    Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
    David Lammy, Shadow Justice Secretary
    John Healey, Shadow Defence Secretary
    Ed Miliband, Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Secretary
    Emily Thornberry, Shadow International Trade Secretary
    Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
    Jonathan Ashworth, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Shadow Education Secretary
    Jo Stevens, Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
    Bridget Philipson, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
    Luke Pollard, Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary
    Steve Reed, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary
    Thangam Debbonaire, Shadow Housing Secretary
    Jim McMahon, Shadow Transport Secretary
    Preet Kaur Gill, Shadow International Development Secretary
    Louise Haigh, Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary (interim)
    Ian Murray, Shadow Scotland Secretary
    Nia Griffith, Shadow Wales Secretary
    Marsha de Cordova, Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary
    Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary
    Rosena Allin-Khan, Shadow Minister for Mental Health
    Cat Smith, Shadow Minister for Young People and Voter Engagement
    Lord Falconer, Shadow Attorney General
    Valerie Vaz, Shadow Leader of the House
    Nick Brown, Opposition Chief Whip
    Baroness Smith, Shadow Leader of the Lords
    Lord McAvoy, Lords’ Opposition Chief Whip

    That’s a very large shadow cabinet,

    Am I right in thinking though that the only shadow minister who served under Blair or Brown (as Shadow Attorney General and Chief Whip are not ministerial) is Ed Miliband, who is a most interesting comeback?
    I am pleased with the way Starmer has axed so many Corbynistas

    Not sure about RLB at education or Lammy at justice.

    But the slaying of Corbynism seems like a breath of fresh air and well done to Starmer

    Please can others enlighten me, but is this a very pro EU shadow cabinet and if so who will stand up for brexit as desired by so many in the red wall seats
    Brexit has already happened, you need to get over it.
    Not really. A trade deal has to be agreed and no deal is still on the table

    And can you respond to a fair question, is this a remain shadow cabinet
    What has that got to do with the shadow cabinet being “pro EU” or “remain”? Brexit has already happened. It can no longer be frustrated.
    Yes it can.

    Extended transistion moving towards BINO is likely the aim of Starmer and if so we may as well stay in, though how anyone explains the eurozone debt liabilities to the voters together with billions of payments into the EU is another matter
    The idea EEA is like being in the EU is absolute nonsense.

    There is no such thing as Brexit in name only, we have left. We are out of the EU.
    Exactly. Plus the closer we remained aligned to the EU, the easier it is for us to Rejoin, which should be the goal of the Labour Party. Plus ongoing freedom of movement will shift demographics in favour of Rejoin. We should be fighting tooth and nail for this.
    I think you make my point that you are looking for Starmer to pave the way to rejoin
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    Excellent. I'm a big fan of art deco.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,917
    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    I think the Russian media quite like Johnson because of his pro-Putin Brexit policy, so unlikely.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,132
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    I think virtually all western countries are on the herd immunity path. If a vaccine comes early to give us herd immunity painlessly then that will be wonderful. We are trying to reduce casualties by keeping the number of acute cases lower than the health service capacity to treat. Also buying time should mean better treatments are developed. The elderly and vulnerable will remain in greater isolation for longer as the lock down unwinds. Only herd immunity, possibly via vaccine will see the end to the threat. Given the widespread presence of the virus isolating and eliminating small outbreaks is not viable now.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    kinabalu said:

    That is because you are a reasonable, compassionate human being.

    I have personally witnessed the bullshit above and watched as it damaged peoples lives.

    Case in point - as part of Religious Education, visits to places of worship. Certain groups do not visit other groups places of worship. You could make a grid. As is also usual, a stern letter was sent out mandating attendance at the Mosque visit. As was usual, the Hindus and Sikhs didn't attend. One parent was summoned to the school, threatened with sanction etc. This was because she had married into a Hindu family, and converted, but was guilty of being melanin challenged. The school tried the "you can't convert to Hinduism" angle. Which made me laugh... finally they decided for the purposes of this rule (breaking??) she was an honorary Hindu...

    Thank you. I'm sure we almost all are. Your example is of bigoted practices in a faith school? OK, so that's bad. I don't believe in faith schools of any stripe. I'd ban them, state or private. You can't be a progressive and be sanguine about religious segregation in schools.

    Back to what I'm saying the correct progressive position is -

    Treat people with equal respect but be sensitive to difference and support efforts to reduce barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups.

    Equal respect. You do not factor in identity when dealing with people day to day. You base it on who they are not what they are.

    Difference. But you DO respect difference. For example, you do not serve up pork pies to a vegan who's come for lunch.

    Reduce barriers. You support things like preferential university access for bright kids from state comps in tough areas.

    The above template is all we need. Each issue judged on its own merits with this as a reference. This is progressive politics. There's nothing to be scared of here. Don't be scared.
    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
  • alednamalednam Posts: 154
    "Whatever one’s personal party preferences, we all need a viable opposition." Indeed. But is this known to journalists who write for The Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun? Until supporters of the Conservatives can stop vilifying Labour, Labour's transformation under Starmer won't beat appreciated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,084
    Gabs3 said:

    eadric said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    It's really not "very unlikely" that the PM will die. If you go into hospital after 10 days of coronavirus, as with BJ, the prognosis is deeply worrying. A lot of people, especially men over 50, do not come out.

    The odds are still in his favour, but not overwhelmingly so.
    Do you have actual numbers or odds to cite?
    From the stats at the Brooklyn main hospital, it looks like the death rate for those admitted is running at about 25% and for those who go onto a ventilator at least 50%. The 25% figure is in this morning’s media - either CNN or NYT
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    Mr Green more impressed by Mr Lammy than I am. At least Baroness Whitewash is out on here ear:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1247167781918904320?s=20
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,932
    Charles said:

    I am still interested as to what the standard hospital treatment is for someone struggling with coronavirus.

    We know that they are monitored, and we know that their breathing is supported with oxygen and ventilation to a greater or lesser degree.

    Is there anything else? Vitamins and minerals on a drip? Any of the existing drugs that have been mentioned? It would be fascinating to hear how the treatment of this is developing in real time.

    At Bournemouth Hospital they are trialing the HIV and Malaria combination
    In Basingstoke it’s neubulised interferon and HCQ (malaria) under investigation
    Thanks both - interesting.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    We know no spectacle so ridiculous as PB Tories in one of their periodical fits of morality.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Oh for heaven's sake, the Open is off. I had tickets. Really getting a bit miffed now.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015
    edited April 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    eadric said:
    That's the equivalent of 3,000 deaths in the UK.

    Or put it another way: if 500 people died of the Coronavirus every day for a year in Sweden, then that would be 2% of the population that expired from it.

    I don't think anywhere holds their nerve. When you can't sleep for the sirens, the death rate is spiking from lack of ventilator capacity and everybody knows someone who died, then governments have no choice but to change course.
    The "fear" level in Sweden has spiked in recent days:
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2020/03/17/YouGov-international-COVID-19-tracker
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,858
    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    Excellent. I'm a big fan of art deco.
    Ugh - houses that look like cruise ships. Somehow I don't think that particular aesthetic is going to be making a big comeback right now.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    I think virtually all western countries are on the herd immunity path. If a vaccine comes early to give us herd immunity painlessly then that will be wonderful. We are trying to reduce casualties by keeping the number of acute cases lower than the health service capacity to treat. Also buying time should mean better treatments are developed. The elderly and vulnerable will remain in greater isolation for longer as the lock down unwinds. Only herd immunity, possibly via vaccine will see the end to the threat. Given the widespread presence of the virus isolating and eliminating small outbreaks is not viable now.
    For the umpteenth time. The crazy herd immunity policy I am talking about was for around 60% of the population to be infected over a two month period - May to June this year.

    Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy. But that wasn't the idea. The idea was to do it all in one go. I remember the Deputy Medical Officer saying that if measures were applied too soon there might be another wave in the Autumn. No - the idea was to get it all over and done with in a couple of months. Insanity, that no other country on Earth is now subscribing to.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    Excellent. I'm a big fan of art deco.
    https://youtu.be/eih67rlGNhU
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,175
    kinabalu said:

    Oh for heaven's sake, the Open is off. I had tickets. Really getting a bit miffed now.

    Rolling over to 2021 - or a refund if you want (I've not had the email yet).
  • Pep Guardiola's mother has died of covid
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    kinabalu said:

    Oh for heaven's sake, the Open is off. I had tickets. Really getting a bit miffed now.

    They could play it without spectators. But then it would have to be called The Closed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    kinabalu said:

    Oh for heaven's sake, the Open is off. I had tickets. Really getting a bit miffed now.

    The cons outweighed the pros.

    So the open is closed.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 21,175

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Agreed. For some people the scale of both the health impacts and economic catastrophe still isn`t fully appreciated I feel - the penny yet to drop.
    The first half of the 2020s will be like the first half of the 1930s.
    Excellent. I'm a big fan of art deco.
    Sadly I don't see this being repeated:

    League Champions:

    1930-31: Arsenal
    1931-32: Everton
    1932-33: Arsenal
    1933-34: Arsenal
    1934-35: Arsenal
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    I think virtually all western countries are on the herd immunity path. If a vaccine comes early to give us herd immunity painlessly then that will be wonderful. We are trying to reduce casualties by keeping the number of acute cases lower than the health service capacity to treat. Also buying time should mean better treatments are developed. The elderly and vulnerable will remain in greater isolation for longer as the lock down unwinds. Only herd immunity, possibly via vaccine will see the end to the threat. Given the widespread presence of the virus isolating and eliminating small outbreaks is not viable now.
    For the umpteenth time. The crazy herd immunity policy I am talking about was for around 60% of the population to be infected over a two month period - May to June this year.

    Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy. But that wasn't the idea. The idea was to do it all in one go. I remember the Deputy Medical Officer saying that if measures were applied too soon there might be another wave in the Autumn. No - the idea was to get it all over and done with in a couple of months. Insanity, that no other country on Earth is now subscribing to.
    If you have to be saying for 'the umpteenth time' maybe your message is not getting across
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    alex_ said:

    Chris said:

    Good to see the wilful misinterpretation of 'herd immunity' by a hold-out few is still not unchecked by such things as facts or basic human decency.

    I don't even know what that means, but there's no doubt that in the early stages the UK government's policy was to manage the infection of around 60% of the population with this virus, with most of the infections happening over roughly a two-month period in May and June.

    That was an insane policy, and it prevented early measures being taken that could have saved many lives. I really hope that the responsibility for that policy, and for the unnecessary deaths, will be laid at the right doors. But I am not optimistic.
    And if this inquiry suggests that the Govt’s main mistake was not to sufficiently challenge and overrule the scientific models and opinion? Whilst having no expert justication for doing so?
    How could they have challenged or overruled it any more than they did? They totally ignored the World Health Organisation, who are the experts in pandemics.

    The discourse over this really is following the trajectory of the Iraq War. First it was "So you want to ignore the experts?!" (where "experts" means the specific government-appointed people you want to listen to, not the people with the most actual expertise). Then "How dare you question the government or make any attempt to hold them to account in a moment like this!?" And now we've already moved on to "Hindsight is 20/20, nobody at the time could possibly have known any better (excluding the people I was arguing with the whole time, but forget about them...)"
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,217

    kinabalu said:

    That is because you are a reasonable, compassionate human being.

    I have personally witnessed the bullshit above and watched as it damaged peoples lives.

    Case in point - as part of Religious Education, visits to places of worship. Certain groups do not visit other groups places of worship. You could make a grid. As is also usual, a stern letter was sent out mandating attendance at the Mosque visit. As was usual, the Hindus and Sikhs didn't attend. One parent was summoned to the school, threatened with sanction etc. This was because she had married into a Hindu family, and converted, but was guilty of being melanin challenged. The school tried the "you can't convert to Hinduism" angle. Which made me laugh... finally they decided for the purposes of this rule (breaking??) she was an honorary Hindu...

    Thank you. I'm sure we almost all are. Your example is of bigoted practices in a faith school? OK, so that's bad. I don't believe in faith schools of any stripe. I'd ban them, state or private. You can't be a progressive and be sanguine about religious segregation in schools.

    Back to what I'm saying the correct progressive position is -

    Treat people with equal respect but be sensitive to difference and support efforts to reduce barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups.

    Equal respect. You do not factor in identity when dealing with people day to day. You base it on who they are not what they are.

    Difference. But you DO respect difference. For example, you do not serve up pork pies to a vegan who's come for lunch.

    Reduce barriers. You support things like preferential university access for bright kids from state comps in tough areas.

    The above template is all we need. Each issue judged on its own merits with this as a reference. This is progressive politics. There's nothing to be scared of here. Don't be scared.
    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...
    Why the hell did you report it up the chain, if you didn't want HR to overreact to it?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,639
    edited April 2020
    Boris used to be 16 and a half stones until fairly recently according to this, quite heavy for 5 feet 9 or 10 inches (depending on the source).

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/28/boris-johnson-put-weight-relentless-leadership-campaign/
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 686
    Quite cool that of all the Leader and Deputy Leader candidates, Burgon is the only one without a job.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408
    Stocky said:

    Agree with most of that, but note that the thing that irritates both conservatives and liberals is the collectivist urge to categorise people into groups/communities rather than seeing people as individuals.

    For example, liberals take pride in "not seeing colour". They think this is to their credit. But some on the left think this is absolutely wrong - insisting that early doors you have to treat people as being victims of the group that they themselves regard that person as being part of. Which is usually just in their minds. The one that irritates me the most is "the LGBT community".

    Starmer has got to distance the party from this way of thinking to have any chance of winning back support in sufficient numbers.

    Less focus on gender issues - for example - is fine by me. But I don't want Labour to morph into a party which thinks all of that stuff does not matter. And I'd say the same even if to do so gained votes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    For what it's worth No 10 have denied it.
    That’s not very helpful. Remember the first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied.
    It seems highly unlikely in this case, though.
    Someone intubated is effectively completely incapacitated for an extended period, and it could not be hidden for long. They would have nothing to gain by denying it, and much to lose once discovered.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,800
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
    And that graph showing how we would avoid a second peak unlike those foolish countries imposing a lockdown.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    You are arguing concerning 2 sets of evidence

    1) The published documents of various meetings, naming the positions and idea of various people involved. Who were actually making and implementing policy.
    2) A journalist recounting of something that someone told him that someone had said to a third party.

    Obviously (2) is the truth.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    For what it's worth No 10 have denied it.
    That’s not very helpful. Remember the first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied.
    Not every quote from Yes Minister is perfectly apt.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    Andy_JS said:

    Boris used to be 16 and a half stones until fairly recently according to this.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/28/boris-johnson-put-weight-relentless-leadership-campaign/

    I suspect he's going to be losing a lot at the moment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790

    TOPPING said:

    On another note, and of no interest whatsoever, the most recent passing out parade at Sandhurst, I see from a bulletin, was conducted in combats, the first time it has not been in ceremonial dress since the second world war.

    This is message sending rather than for any practical reason I assume?
    They were also allowed to wear the headdress of the units they were going to, the thinking being they would be deployed straight to those units to help with "the effort".

    But yes, mostly message sending.

    Sandhurst is very good at theatrical gestures.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
    Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    RobD said:

    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    Stocky said:

    tlg86 said:
    Jesus - that wasn`t until mid-July. Our summer holiday for first week in July is starting to look rocky.
    I don't believe there will be any significant foreign travel until the Autumn. Maybe not for a year.

    So many countries will have ongoing restrictions. Travel insurance will be a nightmare.

    The economic costs of this awful virus are now visible, over the peak. They will be tremendous. None of us will have seen the like.
    Yep.
    The French Finance Minister has just said it will be France's worst economic shock since World War 2. And of course we might yet get a 2nd wave... and we're not out of the 1st...

    Grim grim grim. I am very pessimistic today - economically, not medically.

    Tho I do fear for Boris. There are hints he is on a ventilator. The stats with regard to survival and recovery, once you reach that stage, are not good.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/03/coronavirus-survivors-recovery/
    Didn't those hints come from the Russian media?
    They did, but have they been explicitly disproved?

    It's horrible to speculate, but if Boris was just being "routinely checked" they could scotch this "fake news" with a simple reassuring photo from his hospital bed. Boris doing a thumbs up, etc. That hasn't happened.

    I fear the worst and pray for the best. Come on Boris.
    For what it's worth No 10 have denied it.
    That’s not very helpful. Remember the first rule of politics: Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied.
    Not every quote from Yes Minister is perfectly apt.
    Only most of them.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
  • Monkeys said:

    Quite cool that of all the Leader and Deputy Leader candidates, Burgon is the only one without a job.

    Dawn Butler?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,148
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Boris used to be 16 and a half stones until fairly recently according to this.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/28/boris-johnson-put-weight-relentless-leadership-campaign/

    I suspect he's going to be losing a lot at the moment.
    I thought hospital food had improved in recent years.
  • RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Boris used to be 16 and a half stones until fairly recently according to this.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/28/boris-johnson-put-weight-relentless-leadership-campaign/

    I suspect he's going to be losing a lot at the moment.
    The Covid19 diet. More effective than weight watchers.

    As for our Dear Leader I, irrespective of politics, really hope he pulls through.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    Tens of thousands?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    edited April 2020
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    That is because you are a reasonable, compassionate human being.

    I have personally witnessed the bullshit above and watched as it damaged peoples lives.

    Case in point - as part of Religious Education, visits to places of worship. Certain groups do not visit other groups places of worship. You could make a grid. As is also usual, a stern letter was sent out mandating attendance at the Mosque visit. As was usual, the Hindus and Sikhs didn't attend. One parent was summoned to the school, threatened with sanction etc. This was because she had married into a Hindu family, and converted, but was guilty of being melanin challenged. The school tried the "you can't convert to Hinduism" angle. Which made me laugh... finally they decided for the purposes of this rule (breaking??) she was an honorary Hindu...

    Thank you. I'm sure we almost all are. Your example is of bigoted practices in a faith school? OK, so that's bad. I don't believe in faith schools of any stripe. I'd ban them, state or private. You can't be a progressive and be sanguine about religious segregation in schools.

    Back to what I'm saying the correct progressive position is -

    Treat people with equal respect but be sensitive to difference and support efforts to reduce barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups.

    Equal respect. You do not factor in identity when dealing with people day to day. You base it on who they are not what they are.

    Difference. But you DO respect difference. For example, you do not serve up pork pies to a vegan who's come for lunch.

    Reduce barriers. You support things like preferential university access for bright kids from state comps in tough areas.

    The above template is all we need. Each issue judged on its own merits with this as a reference. This is progressive politics. There's nothing to be scared of here. Don't be scared.
    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...
    Why the hell did you report it up the chain, if you didn't want HR to overreact to it?
    I told my boss there was an issue with the restaurant and it would possibly be a good idea to change it. He (I presume) started the comedy.

    Why should HR fire people for not wanting to go to a Halal restaurant? Should we fire animal rights concerned individuals who dislike the practises involved? Who is on the list of "allowed not to go"?
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
    Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
    Shouldn't Piers Morgan be the first to be seconded. His expertise and knowledge on everything to do with this situation is clearly second to none.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 35,015
    Charles said:

    I am still interested as to what the standard hospital treatment is for someone struggling with coronavirus.

    We know that they are monitored, and we know that their breathing is supported with oxygen and ventilation to a greater or lesser degree.

    Is there anything else? Vitamins and minerals on a drip? Any of the existing drugs that have been mentioned? It would be fascinating to hear how the treatment of this is developing in real time.

    At Bournemouth Hospital they are trialing the HIV and Malaria combination
    In Basingstoke it’s neubulised interferon and HCQ (malaria) under investigation
    Beta 1a ?

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 47,491
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,132
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    I think virtually all western countries are on the herd immunity path. If a vaccine comes early to give us herd immunity painlessly then that will be wonderful. We are trying to reduce casualties by keeping the number of acute cases lower than the health service capacity to treat. Also buying time should mean better treatments are developed. The elderly and vulnerable will remain in greater isolation for longer as the lock down unwinds. Only herd immunity, possibly via vaccine will see the end to the threat. Given the widespread presence of the virus isolating and eliminating small outbreaks is not viable now.
    For the umpteenth time. The crazy herd immunity policy I am talking about was for around 60% of the population to be infected over a two month period - May to June this year.

    Acquiring herd immunity much more gradually, in two or three waves, might or might not be a feasible strategy. But that wasn't the idea. The idea was to do it all in one go. I remember the Deputy Medical Officer saying that if measures were applied too soon there might be another wave in the Autumn. No - the idea was to get it all over and done with in a couple of months. Insanity, that no other country on Earth is now subscribing to.
    My interpretation was that not applying measures too early was based on a view of how long a lock down can be made to last and trying to avoid stopping too soon. More data about the degree of mortality and length of time in IC and estimates on increasing ICU capacity will presumably have governed decisions. I strongly suspect that there won't be a lot for the government's critics to exploit because I suspect that they have basically followed a synthesis of advice from experts. I agree that there should be a full publication of the decision making trail and an objective review to learn any lessons.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Agree with most of that, but note that the thing that irritates both conservatives and liberals is the collectivist urge to categorise people into groups/communities rather than seeing people as individuals.

    For example, liberals take pride in "not seeing colour". They think this is to their credit. But some on the left think this is absolutely wrong - insisting that early doors you have to treat people as being victims of the group that they themselves regard that person as being part of. Which is usually just in their minds. The one that irritates me the most is "the LGBT community".

    Starmer has got to distance the party from this way of thinking to have any chance of winning back support in sufficient numbers.

    Less focus on gender issues - for example - is fine by me. But I don't want Labour to morph into a party which thinks all of that stuff does not matter. And I'd say the same even if to do so gained votes.
    Yes. The whole point of the left is to tear down oppressive hierarchies. If you decide you'd actually rather let them slide, what's the point of you?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,217

    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    That is because you are a reasonable, compassionate human being.

    I have personally witnessed the bullshit above and watched as it damaged peoples lives.

    Case in point - as part of Religious Education, visits to places of worship. Certain groups do not visit other groups places of worship. You could make a grid. As is also usual, a stern letter was sent out mandating attendance at the Mosque visit. As was usual, the Hindus and Sikhs didn't attend. One parent was summoned to the school, threatened with sanction etc. This was because she had married into a Hindu family, and converted, but was guilty of being melanin challenged. The school tried the "you can't convert to Hinduism" angle. Which made me laugh... finally they decided for the purposes of this rule (breaking??) she was an honorary Hindu...

    Thank you. I'm sure we almost all are. Your example is of bigoted practices in a faith school? OK, so that's bad. I don't believe in faith schools of any stripe. I'd ban them, state or private. You can't be a progressive and be sanguine about religious segregation in schools.

    Back to what I'm saying the correct progressive position is -

    Treat people with equal respect but be sensitive to difference and support efforts to reduce barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups.

    Equal respect. You do not factor in identity when dealing with people day to day. You base it on who they are not what they are.

    Difference. But you DO respect difference. For example, you do not serve up pork pies to a vegan who's come for lunch.

    Reduce barriers. You support things like preferential university access for bright kids from state comps in tough areas.

    The above template is all we need. Each issue judged on its own merits with this as a reference. This is progressive politics. There's nothing to be scared of here. Don't be scared.
    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...
    Why the hell did you report it up the chain, if you didn't want HR to overreact to it?
    I told my boss there was an issue with the restaurant and it would possibly be a good idea to change it.

    Why should HR fire people for not wanting to go to a Halal restaurant?
    I quite agree; it's just (based on my own experiences) a massive mistake to get HR involved in anything that requires careful handling unless there's a chance that you or the company could get sued.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,408

    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...

    Sorry, I'm not totally getting it. You are talking about Muslims getting preferential treatment?
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,132
    Piers Morgan needs skin in the game. He should shut up or agree to be executed if any of his advice subsequently proves to be sub-optimal.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,116
    edited April 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    eadric said:
    That's the equivalent of 3,000 deaths in the UK.

    Or put it another way: if 500 people died of the Coronavirus every day for a year in Sweden, then that would be 2% of the population that expired from it.

    I don't think anywhere holds their nerve. When you can't sleep for the sirens, the death rate is spiking from lack of ventilator capacity and everybody knows someone who died, then governments have no choice but to change course.
    It’s 76 in a day not 477.

    477 total.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,932
    The thing with Boris's hospital visit, is that they could just be telling the truth, fully aware that people will assume a lie.

    Boris has got coronavirus. Clearly symptoms have rumbled on and he's not doing the best with it. But all around, people are bouncing back to work like nothing has happened, and that would no doubt have become the media's expectation, and they'd started asking 'where's sicknote Boris?' etc. So rather than allow people to underestimate his symptoms, they are going out to make very clear that he is ILL, and he won't be in a fit state to fend off Robert Peston and Kay Burleigh for a while.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    Andy_JS said:

    Boris used to be 16 and a half stones until fairly recently according to this, quite heavy for 5 feet 9 or 10 inches (depending on the source).

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/28/boris-johnson-put-weight-relentless-leadership-campaign/

    If 2 heights are given for an individual, it's always the shorter one that's accurate, scientific fact.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
    Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    kinabalu said:

    It wasn't a faith school. Standard state primary school.

    I've encountered the grid of racial preferment in a number of places, including a HR trying to fire a couple of people from my team, only to reverse because they had the correct place on the grid -

    A celebratory bash was organised. At a Halal restaurant. 2 members of the team refused to go, since they (and their culture) have a bad history with the imposition of Halal - think colonialism. As manager I reported this up the chain. Within a short time a very enthusiastic HR bod arrived, fully of savage enjoyment at the idea of firing the bigots. She was non-plussed at first - almost panicked. I actually had to send her some links to the historical issues in question. Then the whole matter evaporated...

    Sorry, I'm not totally getting it. You are talking about Muslims getting preferential treatment?
    Nope - HR was all fired up (ha) to fire the people concerned. Until they discovered they were another minority (not Muslim)..
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
    Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
    I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.

    But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.

    I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus over a two-month period would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,217
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    But we're no longer going for herd immunity all in one go. And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine. So where are these excess death's he's responsible for coming from?

    Unless the NHS collapses within the next two months, it seems like he (at worst) changed direction just in time to avoid the calamity you think he should be called to account for.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,683

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    Where are tens of thousands coming from. You are losing it
    Italy's already on 15k and we seem to be following in their footsteps.
    scientific.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Richard please don't interrupt or distract Chris as he is about to let us know how he would have handled the crisis since Jan 1st, thereby avoiding (I presume) all these deaths. I for one am looking forward to the gold standard, we will all be studying this in 50 years time answer he is shortly to provide.
    Good point, I'm particularly looking forward to seeing his posts from January and February where he laid out the detail which the government wilfully ignored.
    All these posts from January and February warning specifically of the dangers we currently face, and yet none of them can be now found. Who deleted them all? We should be told!
    " "herd immunity" nonsense"

    It isn't nonsense. It is a scientific fact. If a certain % become immune then they act as a buffer to the non-immune getting it.
    I repeat - the nonsense was the policy of acquiring herd immunity through 60% of the population becoming infected over two months this year.

    You don't have to defend it any more. Johnson isn't defending it any more. No country on Earth is mad enough to do it.
    That was simply never expressed as policy. Maybe a Cummings fever dream, but not seriously.
    No - it was all made public - the two-month peak in May and June. The not more than 20% of workers being off sick at any one time. That was clearly the policy.

    Don't you remember what they said?
    Hang on, now you seem to be blaming the Chief and Deputy Medical officers (although quite how you know they were wrong about a second peak in the Autumn is unclear). So, to be clear, you are saying that the responsibility which Boris will try to 'wriggle out of' is that of accepting expert advice?
    I'm saying the herd immunity strategy - of getting most of the population infected over a two-month period - was obviously wrong. Crazy, in fact. To apportion the blame we'll need to see what scientific advice was given and how ministers responded to it.

    But if scientists were giving advice that was so obviously wrong that laypeople could see it was crazy, I'm not sure we should be too quick to absolve politicians.

    I keep coming back to this - wasn't it obvious to everyone here that infecting most of the population with this virus would lead to the NHS collapsing for several months? Who here couldn't see that? If people here could see it, what excuse have ministers?
    Doesn't that conclusion depend on the various input parameters? Infection rate, number of asymptomatic cases etc.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    Endillion said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    I have this awful foreboding that we're on the verge of emerging from the worst of this but Charon the ferryman will have been paid with Boris.

    I hope the former is right and the latter wrong.

    It seems COVID hospital admissions are running at something like 13,000 a day, while deaths are a twentieth of that. Admittedly there is a time lag, but the numbers are on Boris Johnson's side, and I'm convinced he will get adequate care if anyone does.

    I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time.
    Not a very nice last sentence in the circumstances
    Not a very nice thing. How many more people will have died because of the delay in taking measures. You don't think it's polite to ask the question?
    You weren't asking the question, you were stating what you think is the answer, in extremely partisan and TBH offensive terms. But no doubt in your favour you'll be able to point us to your posts showing how much ahead of the government you were,
    Quite frankly, given what's happened, I think the onus is on those who think the "herd immunity" nonsense _wasn't_ a mistake to prove their point.

    Yes - I think that strategy has cost many lives, and will cost many more. If you think differently, make your argument, but don't whine about it being "offensive" to state the opinion that it's cost many lives. Get real, and have more respect for the victims of this almighty cock-up.
    Nothing wrong with stating an opinion, albeit with hindsight and on incredibly scant information - the truth is that no-one knows whether the UK government's approach has been optimal or not - but if you don't see that "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time" is offensive, then I'm afraid the problem is entirely yours.
    Don't talk to me about hindsight. Any fool could see at the time that the herd immunity policy would have been disastrous.

    And frankly, if you find "offensive" the prospect of the prime minister being called to account for the decisions he has taken, just because he is currently ill, your way of thinking is alien to me. It's very unlikely Johnson will die. But perhaps tens of thousands will die because of his decisions.
    You didn't say he should be called to account for his decisions, of course he should and will, as will all other major players and governments everywhere. You said "I don't think we'll be deprived of the prospect of him trying to wriggle out of his responsiility for the death toll in a few months' time". You seem to be doing rather a lot of wriggling yourself.
    No - I say quite clearly I think he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths because of the decisions he has taken in an official capacity. No wriggling whatsoever.

    I hope he is called to account for it.
    And you've conceded that herd immunity as a more staged approach is fine.
    No I didn't. I don't want to be rude, but I really think it's pointless posting here when people are so incapable of reading basic English. What's the problem?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,040
    edited April 2020
    Lord Falconer has yet to resign!

    I hope Obama hasn't heard about the Butler being Burgonned. Shame re Shami.... not. And Lavery taken his leave too.

    All wise steps.
This discussion has been closed.