The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
The problem they have created is that they can hardly say things are as bad as ever and we’re going to reopen schools on a random date to get a good headline in the Mail.
But that is what they are trying to do.
What they should be saying is that because schools are reopening everyone else will have to be a lot more careful because one-fifth of the population will be mingling every weekday.
Which, in fairness, is what they said in September but rather got forgotten.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was far far far too optimistic.
With the benefit of hindsight the government was right to agree with you and cancel the relaxation. I freely accept that you may well have exercised rather more foresight (and I recall agreeing with you at the time) but the fact remains the relaxation did not happen and therefore cannot be the reason of the January carnage.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
The November lockdown (which was too late) ended on Dec 2nd, with cases still at around 15,000 per day. People then started Christmas shopping and preparing for their 'freedom' at Christmas. By 13 December there were over 27,000 cases. It was very obvious to many of us that it was getting out of control, long before the government eased back on Christmas and, I think it was on Jan 4, decided that stricter measures were needed, once many youngsters had had one day at school. I don't think there's much doubt the government was negligent, regardless of the new variant.
That's a good summary of all the mistakes around Christmas time. The last one especially, a single day of school. A massive amount of household mixing and then indirect household mixing when the kids went home.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
The November lockdown (which was too late) ended on Dec 2nd, with cases still at around 15,000 per day. People then started Christmas shopping and preparing for their 'freedom' at Christmas. By 13 December there were over 27,000 cases. It was very obvious to many of us that it was getting out of control, long before the government eased back on Christmas and, I think it was on Jan 4, decided that stricter measures were needed, once many youngsters had had one day at school. I don't think there's much doubt the government was negligent, regardless of the new variant.
That's a good summary of all the mistakes around Christmas time. The last one especially, a single day of school. A massive amount of household mixing and then indirect household mixing when the kids went home.
Yes, unfortunately that period also coincided with the ideological anti-lockdown lobby gaining some political traction.
Good news, and it suggests we are at last in if not the endgame at least where the endgame is approaching.
The rather sad corollary of that is the continent is about where we were two months ago on infections and is a lot more than two months behind us on jabs, even leaving aside the much greater vaccine scepticism they seem to have. They have a very difficult time to get through.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was far far far too optimistic.
With the benefit of hindsight the government was right to agree with you and cancel the relaxation. I freely accept that you may well have exercised rather more foresight (and I recall agreeing with you at the time) but the fact remains the relaxation did not happen and therefore cannot be the reason of the January carnage.
It did happen everywhere in the country except London, SE and East. The government allowed two days of household mixing on the 25th and 26th. I remember very clearly because my wife and I pre-empted it by isolating for 10 days and then going to stay with my parents the day before lockdown for London was announced.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.
BUT
Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.
My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).
Your point is bullshit. The day that Britain measures its public health performance against Brazil and Russia will be a very sad day indeed, so cavilling about statistics in countries like that is pathetic.
By any measure Britain did exceptionally badly. You have named the three countries with a worse death rate in an attempt to suggest Britain is mid table. It is fourth worst in the world (and set to overtake Slovenia imminently). It is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy. If Britain had done as well to date as "slightly worse" Italy, more than 14,000 people in Britain would not have died of Covid-19.
Britain's success at vaccination is fantastic. It in no way erases the appalling and avoidable errors that the government has repeatedly made in every other aspect of its handling of this disease. Anyone with a conscience should feel shame at that awful failure of our most vulnerable.
But far too many on this site want only to sweep it under the carpet.
Its a strawman to say people want to sweep it under the carpet. I specifically mentioned the enquiries which will be crucial to understanding why we have been hit so hard. I believe it is wrong to decide already the outcome of this and just pin it on the government. The pandemic is not over, people are horrifically still dying around the work. You also neglected to mention the USA, the nation with the greatest medical resources in the world.
Do you believe the Spanish figures, despite their own press/media doubting the government figures? I guess you do, as its only the UK (or is it just the Tory government) who have struggled through this?
Many countries have struggled. I live in one of the worst performing. I'm surrounded by government supporters who contemptibly try to pretend that it's been mid-table to date, when it obviously has not.
Now, you started your deranged attack on me by suggesting this is about Brexit. But all I can see from you is wishful thinking.
We owe it to the dead to see that the mistakes made are properly investigated. There may well be lessons to learn. Incidentally, there may be government ministers who should lose their jobs, but that's actually the least interesting bit. But Britain has no hope of getting some governance that is above atrocious until government supporters start to exercise some critical faculties.
Instead, they hope to conceal the mistakes and move on.
Deranged? A bit harsh for Friday. I'm glad that you admit that other countries have struggled. What is the wishful thinking I am engaging in? My wish would be covid never happened. I hate the 'ranking' of deaths that is going on. I want full, transparent enquiries after the event to change things for the future. I worry that too many have already decided that they know what went wrong and who was to blame and why. That's not the approach needed for an enquiry.
I withdraw my point about Brexit, but you are fixated on attacking the UK government. Does your ire also assail the Welsh government, or the Scottish?
Your wishful thinking is to pretend that the UK has put in an average performance and to try to present information misleadingly to that end. By any sensible measure it has put in an awful performance.
I live in Essex. The Westminster government is my concern. Not Scotland, Estonia, Nepal or Sudan.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
Things are still pretty bad. They’re improving dramatically, the press conference accepted that, but things can go pear shaped very fast as we have seen. As JVT just said -
“My key message tonight is, 'look this is going very well but there are some worry signs that people are relaxing, taking their foot of the brake at the exact wrong time'”.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I am not claiming we have done well. Only a lunatic would. We have been hit extremely hard and I hope the resulting enquiries will help to understand why.
BUT
Our death rate to the current time is better than Belgium, Czechia and Slovenia, and slightly worse than Italy, Portugal, USA, Hungary and Spain. At the current time. Lets see where we end up.
My point is that NO-ONE is doing particularly at preventing "avoidable" deaths. You clearly feel we are by far and away the worst country, but the evidence doesn't fit that, and as I said, I have doubts over some countries reporting (Russia for instance).
Your point is bullshit. The day that Britain measures its public health performance against Brazil and Russia will be a very sad day indeed, so cavilling about statistics in countries like that is pathetic.
By any measure Britain did exceptionally badly. You have named the three countries with a worse death rate in an attempt to suggest Britain is mid table. It is fourth worst in the world (and set to overtake Slovenia imminently). It is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy. If Britain had done as well to date as "slightly worse" Italy, more than 14,000 people in Britain would not have died of Covid-19.
Britain's success at vaccination is fantastic. It in no way erases the appalling and avoidable errors that the government has repeatedly made in every other aspect of its handling of this disease. Anyone with a conscience should feel shame at that awful failure of our most vulnerable.
But far too many on this site want only to sweep it under the carpet.
Its a strawman to say people want to sweep it under the carpet. I specifically mentioned the enquiries which will be crucial to understanding why we have been hit so hard. I believe it is wrong to decide already the outcome of this and just pin it on the government. The pandemic is not over, people are horrifically still dying around the work. You also neglected to mention the USA, the nation with the greatest medical resources in the world.
Do you believe the Spanish figures, despite their own press/media doubting the government figures? I guess you do, as its only the UK (or is it just the Tory government) who have struggled through this?
Many countries have struggled. I live in one of the worst performing. I'm surrounded by government supporters who contemptibly try to pretend that it's been mid-table to date, when it obviously has not.
Now, you started your deranged attack on me by suggesting this is about Brexit. But all I can see from you is wishful thinking.
We owe it to the dead to see that the mistakes made are properly investigated. There may well be lessons to learn. Incidentally, there may be government ministers who should lose their jobs, but that's actually the least interesting bit. But Britain has no hope of getting some governance that is above atrocious until government supporters start to exercise some critical faculties.
Instead, they hope to conceal the mistakes and move on.
You claimed for some bizarre reason that the UK "is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy." How do you substantiate that? Unless you were too ignorant of the fact that the Italians aren't reporting deaths which is why they have excess deaths double their official death toll?
Belgium has excess deaths of 177 per 100k by 24 January. Britain has excess deaths of 160 per 100k by 22 January. Italy has excess deaths of 157 per 100k by 30 November.
Throughout December and the first 3 weeks of January Italy has had well over 3 deaths per 100k. They idea we're miles ahead of Italy in deaths is so erroneous it could have only been said by someone trying to score partisan points out of the misery in others. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mental note. Never let Mr Allan speak in favour of anything I am in favour of, ever.
Allan is the MSP for Western Isles. Salmond fan, Angus MacNeil, is the MP for Western Isles. Wonder if there will be an attempt to remove Allan as the candidate by the local members aided and abetted by MacNeil.
I'm pretty sure that was ironic given his tweeting history. Suspect he despises O'Hara.
Indeed, iff the SNP do lose their majority in May then the internal warfare is going to be something to behold.
One side will say 'Sturgeon has cost us independence' and other side will say 'Salmond has cost us independence.'
If that happened Boris would once again have proved he has 9 lives and can comfortably ignore any demands for indyref2 while leaving the SNP to their civil war
This is why Boris Johnson deserves all the opprobrium he gets over the avoidable deaths.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
This is why Boris Johnson deserves all the opprobrium he gets over the avoidable deaths.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
Things are still pretty bad. They’re improving dramatically, the press conference accepted that, but things can go pear shaped very fast as we have seen. As JVT just said -
“My key message tonight is, 'look this is going very well but there are some worry signs that people are relaxing, taking their foot of the brake at the exact wrong time'”.
Which is a sensible message to give.
It is a sensible message but I fear it will fall on death ears. For one, I don't know anyone (outside of PB) who actually watches the press conferences anymore, me included.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
She is an HR professional and has the effrontery to say that neither mediation nor arbitration are suitable for HR matters. Just astonishing and, as Salmond pointed out, contrary to the Scottish government's policy in respect of current ministers.
We see little of the MSPs down here but if this lot are the cream of the crop theyre a shower of shite. Fraser is the only one with any gravitas and he's just having fun giving Salmond more ammo to fire.
It helps explain why Ian Blackford is seen as talent
Baillie is reasonable. Allan and Watt are on a wicket that makes that one in Ahmedabad look like a road.
you have to say the pressure to reveal the missing documents will soon become irresistable
if it doesnt get published it will get leaked.
If they get leaked, the Crown Office will just forbid the committee from looking at them
I await the joy of the documents being published outside Scotland
What chance of The Spectator publishing clearly different Scotland and England versions next week?
This is why Boris Johnson deserves all the opprobrium he gets over the avoidable deaths.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I would like to see again one of those comparisons between 'normally expected deaths' and deaths from Covid. And, while I'm a long way from being an apologist for our PM, I do feel that whoever decided to include all deaths where someone had tested positive in the previous 28 days didn't do UK figures any favours. Friend of mine died just after having a +ve Covid test. However, he'd been 'sick unto death' for a couple of years and the infection from an ingrowing toenail (sorry) could have carried him off.
I get your point, but isn't that likely to be counterbalanced by the number of people who take longer than 28 days, sometimes much longer, to die from Covid having had a positive test? These presumably don't count as Covid deaths; no idea how many there are, but anecdotally quite a lot. Derek Draper is still at death's door after nearly a year.......
With the benefit of hindsight, I was far far far too optimistic.
With the benefit of hindsight the government was right to agree with you and cancel the relaxation. I freely accept that you may well have exercised rather more foresight (and I recall agreeing with you at the time) but the fact remains the relaxation did not happen and therefore cannot be the reason of the January carnage.
It did happen everywhere in the country except London, SE and East. The government allowed two days of household mixing on the 25th and 26th. I remember very clearly because my wife and I pre-empted it by isolating for 10 days and then going to stay with my parents the day before lockdown for London was announced.
You're right, there was 2 days but with lots of cautions and warnings.
Things were taking off in December, I do not dispute that. The government could well have acted faster. Certainly international travel should have been more restricted. The schools thing was a fiasco caused by an incompetent. I am not giving the government a clean card on this by any means. But we do not know why there was such an exceptional increase in cases in January leading to an exceptional number of deaths. Our results over that period are really exceptional, well outside the European norm. They demand an explanation. But not assumptions.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
Things are still pretty bad. They’re improving dramatically, the press conference accepted that, but things can go pear shaped very fast as we have seen. As JVT just said -
“My key message tonight is, 'look this is going very well but there are some worry signs that people are relaxing, taking their foot of the brake at the exact wrong time'”.
Which is a sensible message to give.
It is a sensible message but I fear it will fall on death ears. For one, I don't know anyone (outside of PB) who actually watches the press conferences anymore, me included.
On topic, yes! Planning to be in the U.K. in September, nasty pandemic virus and associated quarantine measures notwithstanding. I’ll be quite close to Cambridge, London’s doable - and definitely up for Millom if it means we can collectively help out a friend of the site, even if it’s a long way from anywhere!
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
Things are still pretty bad. They’re improving dramatically, the press conference accepted that, but things can go pear shaped very fast as we have seen. As JVT just said -
“My key message tonight is, 'look this is going very well but there are some worry signs that people are relaxing, taking their foot of the brake at the exact wrong time'”.
Which is a sensible message to give.
It is a sensible message but I fear it will fall on death ears. For one, I don't know anyone (outside of PB) who actually watches the press conferences anymore, me included.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
Please do not seek to engage with me. I have no interest in doing so. You were willing to risk my partner's health to prove a political point. You disgust me.
On the specific point, you do not get to choose your preferred measure and insist it is the only valid one. It is not.
Now, I shall not engage with anything you write again.
...... The queue was epic, since it seemed that everyone else who got the text had the same idea. He eventually got jabbed at 12.50pm: I asked nicely and had my NHS number and driving licence with me, so I got done at the same time.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
The government are desperate for you to see lockdown as a central heating thermostat on covid. Even today Van Tam linked minor blip ups in cases with minor infractions of lockdown, as if the link between the two were that close and sensitive. He has no evidence of any infractions of lockdown whatsoever, of course, but they must be happening because cases are up, right?
The reason you must believe in this relationship implicitly is because of the downsides of lockdown, which we can now see coming down the track in spades. If you believe in Van Tam's thermostat, you won't mind them. Lock down worked, so Gallowgate getting a tube train up his backside in the aftermath was worth it.
In the real world cases are falling in areas with no lockdowns, proving that Van Tam's notion of the relationship between lockdown and cases is completely false.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?
January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.
There was certainly a lot of talk about the Christmas relaxation, how long, how many people etc but it did not happen. In Scotland, which also suffered badly in January, I do not recall any relaxations over that period at all. Did some people make plans for Christmas and then decide not to cancel them? Maybe, some. Did that lead to the January spike? Almost certainly not.
Did you see the graphs in the FT article? Scotland shows quite a big difference, in fact.
This is why Boris Johnson deserves all the opprobrium he gets over the avoidable deaths.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
It is worth pointing out at this juncture that Woolhouse, whom many on here were quoting with approval a couple of days ago over his ‘zero Covid’ comments about Scotland, is also a member of this group. He was in favour of a Swedish strategy and he is on record as saying there was no surge in cases last September.
Unless I'm being colourblind the top and bottom of that colour scale look identical. That could either make it look much worse or much better than it actually is.
With the benefit of hindsight, I was far far far too optimistic.
With the benefit of hindsight the government was right to agree with you and cancel the relaxation. I freely accept that you may well have exercised rather more foresight (and I recall agreeing with you at the time) but the fact remains the relaxation did not happen and therefore cannot be the reason of the January carnage.
It did happen everywhere in the country except London, SE and East. The government allowed two days of household mixing on the 25th and 26th. I remember very clearly because my wife and I pre-empted it by isolating for 10 days and then going to stay with my parents the day before lockdown for London was announced.
You're right, there was 2 days but with lots of cautions and warnings.
Things were taking off in December, I do not dispute that. The government could well have acted faster. Certainly international travel should have been more restricted. The schools thing was a fiasco caused by an incompetent. I am not giving the government a clean card on this by any means. But we do not know why there was such an exceptional increase in cases in January leading to an exceptional number of deaths. Our results over that period are really exceptional, well outside the European norm. They demand an explanation. But not assumptions.
I detect a strong preference among many to blame the monkey Williamson rather than the organ grinder Johnson for this.
The message this evening from the government is clear....things still bad.
That might be a good thing in order to manage expectations and to prevent complacently. However conversely people need the hope that things are improving...
A toughie.
Ultimately people aren't idiots and they can see that ca. 250 people per day are dying from this down from 1300. Things are a lot better than they were and the government messaging is eventually just going to seem out of step. It feels like ministers have realised the fall in the death rate is inevitably going to lead to people relaxing their approach to lockdown over Easter. By then we might actually be down to around 20 people per day dying from this. It will be impossible for the government to justify a continued lockdown over Easter if less than 20 people per day are dying from it.
I agree – but then why the downbeat press conference? The only rational explanation is to try and discourage people from breaking lockdown rules as things improve (which understandably people are already doing in greater and greater numbers).
If we can open up even quicker that would be fantastic.
The government are desperate for you to see lockdown as a central heating thermostat on covid. Even today Van Tam linked minor blip ups in cases with minor infractions of lockdown, as if the link between the two were that close and sensitive. He has no evidence of any infractions of lockdown whatsoever, of course, but they must be happening because cases are up, right?
The reason you must believe in this relationship implicitly is because of the downsides of lockdown, which we can now see coming down the track in spades. If you believe in Van Tam's thermostat, you won't mind them. Lock down worked, so Gallowgate getting a tube train up his backside in the aftermath was worth it.
In the real world cases are falling in areas with no lockdowns, proving that Van Tam's notion of the relationship between lockdown and cases is completely false.
Which areas - so that we can check whether the evidence is fact or made up anecdote.
Good news, and it suggests we are at last in if not the endgame at least where the endgame is approaching.
The rather sad corollary of that is the continent is about where we were two months ago on infections and is a lot more than two months behind us on jabs, even leaving aside the much greater vaccine scepticism they seem to have. They have a very difficult time to get through.
They are, at least, technically better vaccinated that we were when our latest wave began, but being more reluctant to take up jabs would suggest that it will drag on longer than it needs to even once supplies pick up, given some are apparently not using all they have.
Unless I'm being colourblind the top and bottom of that colour scale look identical. That could either make it look much worse or much better than it actually is.
No, you're not - I can't tell either. The temptation is to infer from the neighbouring areas, but that is daft.
Unless I'm being colourblind the top and bottom of that colour scale look identical. That could either make it look much worse or much better than it actually is.
The falling areas are green and the rising areas are purple. Why they've not gone for green and red instead I don't know. Anyhow, they're bound to look similar on that map because it's too small to pick out the difference between the darker shades.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
It was his need to be the saviour of Christmas IMO that overrode everything else. It worked out poorly and I think we're going to reopen the country a month later than we'd otherwise have been able to. That March 8th date for schools could have been a much bigger reopening if we didn't have to stay in the current lockdown to bring cases down from the 80k peak.
I think that's absolutely spot on.
If there had been a bit more caution around Xmas, we would have left 2020 with half (or fewer) the number of cases, and given current vaccination numbers, we might be looking to be almost fully open by Easter.
This is why Boris Johnson deserves all the opprobrium he gets over the avoidable deaths.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
The irony is Johnson’s getting his herd immunity. He’s just got it with a huge number of avoidable deaths in addition to what appears to be a successful vaccine rollout .
“As much as one-third of the UK population may already have gained some level of immunity by contracting and recovering from Covid-19, said Prof Ferguson. And this pool of protection is being quickly expanded by vaccination to take the population towards herd immunity status.”
The takeaway from that interview with Ferguson is that Johnson’s bought at least some of the recent “success” in bringing down infection rates with tens of thousands of lives. There is now an increasing body of evidence (from SA and India largely) that natural immunity helps but in an older demographic like ours it just could not work without horrific consequences (indeed the excess deaths in SA last year point to them not getting away with it either) but, ultimately, that is partly what happened.
Unless I'm being colourblind the top and bottom of that colour scale look identical. That could either make it look much worse or much better than it actually is.
Yeah that's a really terrible visualisation. Both trending to almost black is completely stupid.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?
January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.
There was certainly a lot of talk about the Christmas relaxation, how long, how many people etc but it did not happen. In Scotland, which also suffered badly in January, I do not recall any relaxations over that period at all. Did some people make plans for Christmas and then decide not to cancel them? Maybe, some. Did that lead to the January spike? Almost certainly not.
Did you see the graphs in the FT article? Scotland shows quite a big difference, in fact.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?
January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.
There was certainly a lot of talk about the Christmas relaxation, how long, how many people etc but it did not happen. In Scotland, which also suffered badly in January, I do not recall any relaxations over that period at all. Did some people make plans for Christmas and then decide not to cancel them? Maybe, some. Did that lead to the January spike? Almost certainly not.
Did you see the graphs in the FT article? Scotland shows quite a big difference, in fact.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Except fourth in the world is not true. There is no semblance of truth to it whatsoever so only someone trying to lie to score partisan points would use that claim.
Please do not seek to engage with me. I have no interest in doing so. You were willing to risk my partner's health to prove a political point. You disgust me.
On the specific point, you do not get to choose your preferred measure and insist it is the only valid one. It is not.
Now, I shall not engage with anything you write again.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
My recollection is closer to AlistairMeeks on this one - we had relaxed a bit from November, cases were creeping up, and all the talk was opening up for a Christmas break essentially. Eventually it was realised that was a very stupid idea, but I think it improbable the planned position had no impact. How much impact I think is hard to say. Can it really all be down to Kent?
January was bloody awful though, far worse than anticipated.
There was certainly a lot of talk about the Christmas relaxation, how long, how many people etc but it did not happen. In Scotland, which also suffered badly in January, I do not recall any relaxations over that period at all. Did some people make plans for Christmas and then decide not to cancel them? Maybe, some. Did that lead to the January spike? Almost certainly not.
Did you see the graphs in the FT article? Scotland shows quite a big difference, in fact.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I don't remember it being obvious or indeed any actual relaxation in December. There was an argument about Christmas where clearly Boris wanted a relaxation and which he eventually had to concede was inappropriate and cancelled it. What happened was that the underlying facts changed because of the Kent variant. That led to the spike in cases and then deaths in January and early February.
The November lockdown (which was too late) ended on Dec 2nd, with cases still at around 15,000 per day. People then started Christmas shopping and preparing for their 'freedom' at Christmas. By 13 December there were over 27,000 cases. It was very obvious to many of us that it was getting out of control, long before the government eased back on Christmas and, I think it was on Jan 4, decided that stricter measures were needed, once many youngsters had had one day at school. I don't think there's much doubt the government was negligent, regardless of the new variant.
1. Many people remained as cautious over the Christmas period as they had in the months running up to it. They did not take advantage of the easing. They were waiting for the vaccination first.
2. I suspect that many of those who did take advantage of the Christmas "freedom" would have done so regardless of whether it was permitted.
3. If you had tried to lock down the UK from November right through to February, it would have collapsed as a regime. We would now be where France is - 20,000 cases a day and rising.
4. The current regime from late December to March--> April is probably about the only regime that stood any chance of adherence. That it has been matched on timing with the fantastic roll-out to the more vulnerable is where you would want to be. If it starts breaking down again about now, we have still had the maximum amount of adherence exactly when it was needed.
5. The one day back at school was utterly stupid. No excuse for that. It should have been screamingly obvious - "Don't do it!"
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
My Ears were burning... Hi Mike and everyone Yes, I was abroad for a while, and now living in the boondocks, so I'm probably not the best person to organise a PB London pub session. A few comments - I think most people want a pub that's reasonably spacious, not too noisy, and well-ventilated. I think it helps to physically visit a pub and speak to the manager - Email or phone arrangements can suddenly turn a bit vague, in some pubs, at the most inconvenient time. - A lot of pubs have a bunch of admin around booking places, paying deposits, minimum spend etc. I always tried to look for places that didn't overdo the admin - If you can find a good one, "organising" is not a big onerous task.
- I'm posting less but continuously lurking. I'm not "not posting" for any particular reason - simply that the site is so good and broad in its views - whenever I have a political thought, someone else has already had it and expressed it better than I could ..
Anyone fancy PB drinks in Cambridge?
Absolutely, I love Cambridge.
Every time I have been to Cambridge, literally every time, I have managed to catch something - most seriously a nasty bout of bronchitis from a spliff I shared after the 1994 Freshers Varsity - a meeting memorable for the hosts ("The oldest Athletic Club in the World.") failing to measure the 100 metres properly at their antideluvian track meaning two UK records appeared to be broken until someone checked.
Well. I was at Aber, and experienced the nightlife there.
I’ve always found Cambridge very flat as a result.
Walking up Penglais Hill at 3am, after far more consumption than was thought possible, was definitely a highlight of the week!
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
I agree. And it’s so hard to know what to do about it. In relative terms every statistic that’s published is good news and will make more people relax a bit. I suppose the only answer is to vaccinate as quickly as possible and hope test and trace is prepped this time.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
I'm sure you're diligently noting down in your ledger the untold thousands of EU citizens who will perish completely unnecessarily due to the EU, and various Member State governments, putting political ideology and dogma ahead of the lives of their citizens.
Your position the other night was that this was a pandemic and as such a natural phenomenon for which no government could be blamed for anything at all. Have you yet moved on from that ridiculous position?
Not at all. I'm just naively assuming you must be doing as I mentioned as a logical extension of your criticisms of the UK government.
If you're not then it doesn't bother me, but it would be interesting to know. Unless of course there's axes to be ground.
I don't blame any government for anything as it happens. No government is deliberately seeking to kill their citizens. All are doing what they consider to be the best at the time they make any decision, in rapidly changing situations, with new and constantly evolving scientific evidence or theories.
But if there's an axe to be ground then so be it. Fill your boots. It won't assuage your evident hate of the UK government though. Use your vote instead. If enough people agree with you then democracy will have its say.
I have a feeling though that it won't be your current angst that'll be the undoing of Johnson.
So you do agree that the outrageous number of avoidable deaths that the British government is responsible for is something that they should be held accountable for?
No I don't as I don't consider them to be "outrageous" or ultimately what I would consider to be "avoidable".
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
Expected? The fourth worst in the world? This country is well and truly up shit creek if your disgusting complacency about such disastrous performance is widely shared.
Do I expect deaths in a global pandemic? Absolutely.
Do I expect the UK to have a relatively "high" death rate due to a highly contagious respiratory disease which overwhelmingly kills the old and infirm? Considering our population density, extent of urbanisation, inter-connectiveness of those urban areas and our overall demographic profile. Yes.
If the UK was a overwhelmingly rural country, twice the land-area with half the population, with a much younger demographic then I may think differently. But it isn't.
Added to which you could add a recording methodology of deaths which is very much more transparent and accessible than many other comparable nations.
Am I happy about the above? Of course not. But a liberal use of emotive language, and ignorance of any other factors to pretend somehow you think you now have your man is, well, transparent.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
What are your projections for hospitalisations by 12th April?
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
What are your projections for hospitalisations by 12th April?
Logged off for the day (2h ago!), will have a look on Monday.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
Can't you just ignore the engagement?
My wife tried that, but we got married in the end.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
Hang on, you used to say JVT and politicians would never end lockdowns.
Is it possible you're as much wrong now as you were then?
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
My favourite is still
One the deaths...
It's a hard one - at some point the descent will slow. But yes, probably at a very low number.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
The light is very definitely at the end of the tunnel. Given how quickly we're now getting jabs into arms (and even getting people second doses), I can't help think that June seems increasingly pessimistic.
Yes, out forwards projection is for deaths to be at around 10-40 per day by the 12th of April based on the vaccine numbers alone. Anything like that and the pressure to unlock faster will have to tell, especially for the June date.
What are your projections for hospitalisations by 12th April?
Logged off for the day (2h ago!), will have a look on Monday.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
Christ! If they are real, and depending on who wrote them....
But.... shouldn’t that be a police matter?
That's insane - someone actually went through the thought process of - "I will commit a crime. I will clearly write my intent to commit said crime by literally writing it in a message. No euphemisms or anything." ??!?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
As I recall, there was a suggestion made that you were incorrect in this assumption.
Do you have the figures? Because without them, your statement is asserted, not proved.
"The Crown Office cannot produce the data requested by the committee, as the only copy was stored on a floppy disk which was inadvertently left next to a magnetic eraser. We apologise for this oversight."
Christ! If they are real, and depending on who wrote them....
But.... shouldn’t that be a police matter?
That's insane - someone actually went through the thought process of - "I will commit a crime. I will clearly write my intent to commit said crime by literally writing it in a message. No euphemisms or anything." ??!?
Yes it’s very hard to believe anyone is that thick. But if they are....
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
Hang on, you used to say JVT and politicians would never end lockdowns.
Is it possible you're as much wrong now as you were then?
Lockdown has not ended and Johnson would not guarantee that 21 June is day or that his irreversible path out is indeed irreversible.
You tried to abuse your unfounded fears of your partner's health to try and gazzump an election you lost. There was no basis to your paranoid delusions but your unsubstantiated phobias supposedly mean I'm disgusting? Pathetic.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
I have asked you to stop engaging with me. Since you are unable to respect even that simple wish, I shall withdraw from the site permanently.
You'd rather pretend to withdraw than acknowledge I had a point and you made a mistake on contrasting Britain with Italy?
OK, not the first time someone has claimed they'll withdraw permanently. See you next week.
I see the Guardian says the Begum ruling is “controversial”
This is one of those special Guardian word-definitions, where “controversial” means “it dismays three people in Islington”
The view of the court about the respect to be given to the views and judgment of Ministers is something of a throw back and may cause ripples. It is not easy to reconcile that view with the unanimous view of the Court in the Prorogation case, to take an example.
The court over-reached with the prorogation case; this time they are exactly right. These difficult executive decisions must be made by people who are democratically accountable
These two cases are easily reconciled.
In both cases the court found it had the power to intervene. It took the view that it should intervene in the prorogation case because the government was taking the piss (which it was): the government's refusal to give any account under oath for its actions may well have proven fatal to its case. You seem to have forgotten that at the time of the purported prorogation Britain had a Prime Minister who had not been elected at a general election, who did not command a majority in Parliament and indeed had not won a vote in Parliament pursuing a policy that had not been put before the British public and using prorogation as a tool to impose that irreversibly.
In the present case it took the view that the government had acted within the wide latitude granted to governments when taking decisions. Which, given that the Home Secretary was exercising statutory powers given to them in an extreme case, is not all that surprising.
The main consequence of the prorogation case was political. The public decided, unlike in the USA, that they were AOK with self-coups. As a result Britain now has a government with a light attachment to democracy and an extreme aversion to any form of accountability enthusiastically supported by a self-radicalised posse who are quite willing to overlook anything it does, up to and including the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands.
Nice example of ensuring people wont pay attention to your solidly put points because you wanted to indulge in unrelated theatrical condemnation.
Now you can pretend to be affronted when people ignore your good first paras, even though that was presumably your intention and you want Brexiteers to rage at you so you can respond in turn.
Well, each of us has fun in their own way i suppose.
The last bit is the important bit. Tens of thousands of people have died avoidable deaths, but the government's supporters simply don't think that's as important as supporting the government.
I am staggered at the self-degradation of these partisans.
Pot meet kettle. I assume the Italians, French, Germans, Americans (need I go on?) who died were all unavoidable deaths? Or maybe. just maybe there is a nasty virus in worldwide circulation causing epic problems to all governments. Ours has not performed well, I think most would accept that, but they are not the only ones to struggle in this pandemic. At least we have one of the most open and trustworthy reporting systems. How many Chinese died in Wuhan province? How many Spaniards have died (unclear reporting, and a suggestion that that true figure is far higher than the official one? I get that you hate Brexit and the current government, but you are one of the most blinkered on this site. You are an intelligent man, but your own lack of self awareness is stark.
Britain has done exceptionally badly, in the bottommost tier of countries in its response to Covid-19. Only the most crazed zealots would suggest otherwise.
Sadly, many of those crazed zealots infest this site. Here's the sort of problem that they're determined to avoid discussing:
I raised this this morning but the hypothesis of that comment that this is something that could have been avoided is at best unproven. As far as we can tell what happened was that Kent variant took a much greater hold in this country than elsewhere, it was far more infectious and possibly marginally more dangerous.
Your default assumption that this was a consequence of government incompetence or ineptitude may prove to be correct but it is an assumption. The UK has the best genomic analysis in the world. By that time (December) it had amongst the best test and trace and was one of the very highest levels of testing. And yet we were still caught with our trousers down. Incompetence? Maybe but it is possible that we did our very best and were simply unlucky.
My memory is good enough to remember early December, when cases in Britain were obviously rising and the government was resisting tightening up. I remember the Prime Minister mocking the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting the same thing.
It was obvious what was happening at the time. And untold thousands paid with their lives because the Prime Minister couldn't bear to do the unpopular but necessary thing.
It was his need to be the saviour of Christmas IMO that overrode everything else. It worked out poorly and I think we're going to reopen the country a month later than we'd otherwise have been able to. That March 8th date for schools could have been a much bigger reopening if we didn't have to stay in the current lockdown to bring cases down from the 80k peak.
Yet it was blindingly obvious at the time - and said here at the time - that the best way to save Christmas would have been to continue the November lockdown until mid December. Instead, everyone was released and told to go shopping. The sharpness of the uptick in that graph speaks for itself.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
My favourite was when Twitter got really excited about a map of Gloucestershire showing one small town had over 10,000 cases just after Cheltenham.
But Newent doesn’t have 10,000 people. They had got the scale wrong, and it was one case per ten thousand
In fact I think there was one case in Foley Road.
I've been investigating some of the areas where cases have actually been increasing, simply by clicking on the map on the dashboard website to investigate the data. Here are a couple of examples:
On the one hand, I give you the City of Edinburgh: 499 cases, up 178 (55.5%) on the previous week On the other hand, I give you North Norfolk: 54 cases, up 2 (3.8%) on the previous week
These two areas would, presumably, count just the same towards that total of one fifth of authorities in which cases have recently risen.
I think we need a better understanding of where exactly the problems actually are, and where changes in case numbers are statistical noise.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
My favourite was when Twitter got really excited about a map of Gloucestershire showing one small town had over 10,000 cases just after Cheltenham.
But Newent doesn’t have 10,000 people. They had got the scale wrong, and it was one case per ten thousand
In fact I think there was one case in Foley Road.
I've been investigating some of the areas where cases have actually been increasing, simply by clicking on the map on the dashboard website to investigate the data. Here are a couple of examples:
On the one hand, I give you the City of Edinburgh: 499 cases, up 178 (55.5%) on the previous week On the other hand, I give you North Norfolk: 54 cases, up 2 (3.8%) on the previous week
These two areas would, presumably, count just the same towards that total of one fifth of authorities in which cases have recently risen.
I think we need a better understanding of where exactly the problems actually are, and where changes in case numbers are statistical noise.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
You can literally walk around any town or city to see for yourself that lockdown observance is different.
That is anecdote not evidence. Believe the Van Tam thermostat like a good little boy if you want. You won't mind when your education, life chances and future income is f8cked by the downside of lockdown. You won;t mind when you are wading through a treacle of taxation and regulation.
I want lockdown to end just as much as you mate.
I'm sure you do but you wanted to know why today was so down beat. And I was just offering an explanation. It has to happen their way, because if it doesn't you will question their approach.
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
My favourite was when Twitter got really excited about a map of Gloucestershire showing one small town had over 10,000 cases just after Cheltenham.
But Newent doesn’t have 10,000 people. They had got the scale wrong, and it was one case per ten thousand
In fact I think there was one case in Foley Road.
I've been investigating some of the areas where cases have actually been increasing, simply by clicking on the map on the dashboard website to investigate the data. Here are a couple of examples:
On the one hand, I give you the City of Edinburgh: 499 cases, up 178 (55.5%) on the previous week On the other hand, I give you North Norfolk: 54 cases, up 2 (3.8%) on the previous week
These two areas would, presumably, count just the same towards that total of one fifth of authorities in which cases have recently risen.
I think we need a better understanding of where exactly the problems actually are, and where changes in case numbers are statistical noise.
Yes, the figures used in the press conference were clearly to make a comms point more than anything (not saying that’s wrong if there are concerns at the start of a trend).
Does Salmond have allies who are still in the Commons or Lords and have full fat Parliamentary Privilege?
Probably, but presumably the Government would have to call a debate on devolution or some such thing, to furnish them with an excuse to reveal the missing information when speaking in the chamber?
Actually, on this subject it would be interesting to know in which areas these increases are truly of concern and in which they are not.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
Does the government, or Van Tam, have a shred of evidence that observance of lockdown is any different now than it was last month or last year.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
Speaking as somebody who has spent a lot of time criticising Van Tam’s statistical errors around education, do you have evidence that he is wrong?
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
My critique is based on the fact that cases in America have dropped sharply, whatever the state's approach to lockdown.
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
I mean, lockdown has worked. That's undeniable. It's basic common sense that if you keep people away from each other they can't spread the virus to each other.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
Basic common sense, I agree. But basic common sense doesn't always come to the right answer. The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal. Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.
Comments
But that is what they are trying to do.
What they should be saying is that because schools are reopening everyone else will have to be a lot more careful because one-fifth of the population will be mingling every weekday.
Which, in fairness, is what they said in September but rather got forgotten.
Comparatively high to others, at this precise moment in time, yes. Expected, yes.
We have a habit of making our governments "accountable" every 4 or 5 years. If your belief is shared by the majority of people come judgement day then you'll be the first to celebrate I'm sure.
The rather sad corollary of that is the continent is about where we were two months ago on infections and is a lot more than two months behind us on jabs, even leaving aside the much greater vaccine scepticism they seem to have. They have a very difficult time to get through.
I live in Essex. The Westminster government is my concern. Not Scotland, Estonia, Nepal or Sudan.
“My key message tonight is, 'look this is going very well but there are some worry signs that people are relaxing, taking their foot of the brake at the exact wrong time'”.
Which is a sensible message to give.
You claimed for some bizarre reason that the UK "is closer to the death rate in worst-performing Belgium than to fifth-placed Italy." How do you substantiate that? Unless you were too ignorant of the fact that the Italians aren't reporting deaths which is why they have excess deaths double their official death toll?
Belgium has excess deaths of 177 per 100k by 24 January.
Britain has excess deaths of 160 per 100k by 22 January.
Italy has excess deaths of 157 per 100k by 30 November.
Throughout December and the first 3 weeks of January Italy has had well over 3 deaths per 100k. They idea we're miles ahead of Italy in deaths is so erroneous it could have only been said by someone trying to score partisan points out of the misery in others. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Even in September it was clear Gupta and Heneghan had been consistently wrong.
A report in the Sunday Times over the weekend suggests that the decision not to impose a circuit-breaker lockdown was influenced by a meeting involving the prime minister, the chancellor and three proponents of a “herd immunity” approach to managing the virus: Prof Sunetra Gupta and Prof Carl Heneghan of the University of Oxford and Prof Anders Tegnell, the Swedish epidemiologist who has masterminded Sweden’s catastrophic Covid control policy (in the last month, Sweden has reported 1,400 Covid deaths, while neighbours Norway and Finland, both of which have roughly half its population, reported 100 and 80 respectively). The delay in imposing national restrictions resulted in an estimated 1.3 million extra Covid infections.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/14/herd-immunity-boris-johnson-coronavirus
Things were taking off in December, I do not dispute that. The government could well have acted faster. Certainly international travel should have been more restricted. The schools thing was a fiasco caused by an incompetent. I am not giving the government a clean card on this by any means. But we do not know why there was such an exceptional increase in cases in January leading to an exceptional number of deaths. Our results over that period are really exceptional, well outside the European norm. They demand an explanation. But not assumptions.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1365345055238668300?s=20
On the specific point, you do not get to choose your preferred measure and insist it is the only valid one. It is not.
Now, I shall not engage with anything you write again.
The reason you must believe in this relationship implicitly is because of the downsides of lockdown, which we can now see coming down the track in spades. If you believe in Van Tam's thermostat, you won't mind them. Lock down worked, so Gallowgate getting a tube train up his backside in the aftermath was worth it.
In the real world cases are falling in areas with no lockdowns, proving that Van Tam's notion of the relationship between lockdown and cases is completely false.
If a remote rural area has 10 cases this week instead of 5 in the last then its case rate has doubled, but that's not necessarily cause for panic.
https://www.ft.com/content/e1eddd2f-cb0b-4c7a-8872-2783810fae8d
Presumably, the documents will have to be released.
If the effect is greater than the size of the error bars, then some further statistical tests are warranted.
If there had been a bit more caution around Xmas, we would have left 2020 with half (or fewer) the number of cases, and given current vaccination numbers, we might be looking to be almost fully open by Easter.
“As much as one-third of the UK population may already have gained some level of immunity by contracting and recovering from Covid-19, said Prof Ferguson. And this pool of protection is being quickly expanded by vaccination to take the population towards herd immunity status.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-uk-neil-ferguson-lockdown-b1801354.html
The takeaway from that interview with Ferguson is that Johnson’s bought at least some of the recent “success” in bringing down infection rates with tens of thousands of lives. There is now an increasing body of evidence (from SA and India largely) that natural immunity helps but in an older demographic like ours it just could not work without horrific consequences (indeed the excess deaths in SA last year point to them not getting away with it either) but, ultimately, that is partly what happened.
But Newent doesn’t have 10,000 people. They had got the scale wrong, and it was one case per ten thousand
In fact I think there was one case in Foley Road.
No. He has come to a conclusion on this based on a theory of a relationship between lockdown and cases that is at least debatable, at worst false.
As for engaging, this is Mike Smithson's site. I'll engage with whoever I want to here unless he decides to start telling people not to do so.
As for "preferred measure" - I prefer accuracy. Excess deaths shows how many people have actually died. In Italy's case by 30 November they had 92,730 excess deaths contrasted with supposedly having had 54,380.
I prefer accurate figures. If you prefer inaccurate dodgy ones then that just speaks about your own lack of integrity it doesn't mean the UK is worse than Italy simply because in Italy half of their Covid deaths went without Covid being recorded as the reason they died.
Because unless you do, it’s not as though we have a reason to believe you ahead of him.
If you do, please produce it.
2. I suspect that many of those who did take advantage of the Christmas "freedom" would have done so regardless of whether it was permitted.
3. If you had tried to lock down the UK from November right through to February, it would have collapsed as a regime. We would now be where France is - 20,000 cases a day and rising.
4. The current regime from late December to March--> April is probably about the only regime that stood any chance of adherence. That it has been matched on timing with the fantastic roll-out to the more vulnerable is where you would want to be. If it starts breaking down again about now, we have still had the maximum amount of adherence exactly when it was needed.
5. The one day back at school was utterly stupid. No excuse for that. It should have been screamingly obvious - "Don't do it!"
Do I expect the UK to have a relatively "high" death rate due to a highly contagious respiratory disease which overwhelmingly kills the old and infirm? Considering our population density, extent of urbanisation, inter-connectiveness of those urban areas and our overall demographic profile. Yes.
If the UK was a overwhelmingly rural country, twice the land-area with half the population, with a much younger demographic then I may think differently. But it isn't.
Added to which you could add a recording methodology of deaths which is very much more transparent and accessible than many other comparable nations.
Am I happy about the above? Of course not. But a liberal use of emotive language, and ignorance of any other factors to pretend somehow you think you now have your man is, well, transparent.
And that's OK.
But.... shouldn’t that be a police matter?
That being the case, how can Van Tam's thermostat reality be correct? The relationship is much more complex. For Hancock and Van Tam this is political now.
Soon the public will see the true extent of the downsides of lockdown. Its won't be pretty. Voters must believe that lockdown worked.
Is it possible you're as much wrong now as you were then?
One the deaths...
It's a hard one - at some point the descent will slow. But yes, probably at a very low number.
The question is not whether lockdown has worked but rather if it was worth it.
Most of the population think it was worth it.
He has just reiterated that all his comments are of course subject to his sworn oath at the commencement of the hearing
Do you have the figures? Because without them, your statement is asserted, not proved.
Hmm. Given the record for 'interesting' events when OGH is on holiday it might be best to stay close to home just in case an asteroid hits.
Though to be fair these are mostly political events so maybe it will be a good time to be with fellow poli-nerds.
When we are out I will admit I am wrong. Gladly.
OK, not the first time someone has claimed they'll withdraw permanently. See you next week.
On the one hand, I give you the City of Edinburgh: 499 cases, up 178 (55.5%) on the previous week
On the other hand, I give you North Norfolk: 54 cases, up 2 (3.8%) on the previous week
These two areas would, presumably, count just the same towards that total of one fifth of authorities in which cases have recently risen.
I think we need a better understanding of where exactly the problems actually are, and where changes in case numbers are statistical noise.
and then lookup on
Past speakers have stopped parliamentarians talking about things they consider sub judice for example.
Given the subject matter of the original complainants then the Speaker won't allow an effective doxxing of the complainants.
The evidence that lockdown has worked is pretty equivocal.
Though you never have a perfect control so you can never really compare like with like.