Howdy, Stranger!

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

Revisiting Covid – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2023 in General
Revisiting Covid – politicalbetting.com

In hindsight, do you think the government’s handling of the Covid-19 outbreak was…All Britons? About right: 34%?? Not strict enough: 37%? Too strict: 19%Con voters? 50%?? 20%? 25%Lab voters ? 23%?? 54%? 14%https://t.co/tyuPj74snx pic.twitter.com/xeZSyHKlvJ

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Test to see if the comments work.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753

    Test to see if the comments work.

    Yeah, yeah.
  • As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    @channel4news

    “Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”

    Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    So Labour voters still want to wave shrouds and are unconcerned about the economic damage of lockdowns? Colour me surprised.

    FWIW I expect there to be a lot of agonising over very long winded inquiries with conclusions that could probably be written today after a few minutes thought. There will also be attempts to play the hindsight game but I suspect very few will be interested and most of the players will have left the stage before anything is published. A classic British Inquiry in other words.
  • FPT:
    dixiedean said:

    Bloody freezing here now. Expecting snow tomorrow night. Sigh.

    Was nice but cold yesterday so took the opportunity to chainsaw and axe up more wood from out log mountain. Now have a nice roaring fire going. Darts on until the Grand Prix. Then Man U vs Liverpool. Then more darts. Then Indycar later. Bliss.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    The problem with this question is whether the public responding “not strict enough” mean the measures passed by the government or the members of the government’s own adherence to them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,051
    edited March 2023
    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this question is whether the public responding “not strict enough” mean the measures passed by the government or the members of the government’s own adherence to them.

    I think though that this polling is in line with previous. Despite our freedom loving self image, an awful lot of our fellow Britons favour harsh authoritarian government.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    ping said:

    @channel4news

    “Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”

    Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.

    Only if Trump gets the GOP nomination again.

    DeSantis and Pence and Haley are all still firmly pro Ukraine and anti Putin
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,113

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Bit unfair. Slime is useful and important stuff - with interesting properties arising from its mucopolysaccharide structure.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    I'm not sure that amything will be achieved by this enquiry. Hindsight could be slightly useful if we have the exact same virus, the exact same immunity conditions, and identical politicians involved. We can guarantee we won't.

    Lessons to be learned. Don't trust politicans or journalists with an inflated idea of their knowledge (that's most of them). When scientists give definite answers to vaguely sensible questions, they're probably out of their own field of excellence, and it's not a journalist asking the question.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    @channel4news

    “Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”

    Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.

    Only if Trump gets the GOP nomination again.

    DeSantis and Pence and Haley are all still firmly pro Ukraine and anti Putin
    Will RDS maintain that position, though, in a fight for the nomination with Trump?
  • John1889John1889 Posts: 6
    I don't believe those statistics.
    Even if they are accurate the government spent a billion pounds on military grade propaganda to achieve that result.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909

    Test to see if the comments work.

    You passed with flying colours!
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,865
    DougSeal said:

    The problem with this question is whether the public responding “not strict enough” mean the measures passed by the government or the members of the government’s own adherence to them.

    The public mean “not strict enough” for everyone else except themselves, especially the sort of people they disapprove of.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,874
    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753
    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786
    Is there a record for the journalist with the most imprisoned sources?
  • John1889John1889 Posts: 6
    Lockdowns were a disastrous decision. Only a small fraction of the population were at risk. Those at risk amend their behaviour based on perceived risk. The best option is always for the healthy to get infected to provide a natural immunity buffer but that doesn't sell vaccines.
  • Is there a record for the journalist with the most imprisoned sources?

    Ah come on, jailing Mancock would be an over-reaction. A session in the stocks would be more humane.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    @channel4news

    “Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”

    Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.

    Only if Trump gets the GOP nomination again.

    DeSantis and Pence and Haley are all still firmly pro Ukraine and anti Putin
    Will RDS maintain that position, though, in a fight for the nomination with Trump?
    Yes as Republican voters are divided 50% pro Zelensky, 50% Putin appeasers. Even if less pro Zelensky than Democrat voters who are about 75% pro Zelensky and 25% hard left Putin appeasers
  • WillGWillG Posts: 1,993

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    The death toll in Germany was much lower than here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,753

    Is there a record for the journalist with the most imprisoned sources?

    The editor of the Brixton Times?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,874
    WillG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    The death toll in Germany was much lower than here.
    Define much lower. I don’t want this to be a pissing contest - the point is all western governments lost hundreds of thousands.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited March 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    Ignore the poll. It's another one where one wonders who the heck they ask, or in this case one where if you are a Labour supporter you will only answer one way for partisan reasons. The poll may as well ask 'did you like the Johnson government?'.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    What grown up government? Fixing the NI mess is tactical not strategic. An opportunity to do a deal with the EU and blame Johnson. It doesn't mean he will be looking for long term or sane solutions - he promoted Lee Anderson to be face of the party...
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261
    I would say on the whole about right, lockdowns bought us enough time to ease some pressure on the NHS and for the vaccines to be deployed in particular to the most at risk age groups.

    There were of course some failings but that they got more right than wrong especially with the bigger decisions that had to be made.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    @channel4news

    “Donald Trump says if he's re-elected president he would end the Ukraine war in "one day" because he "got along very well" with the Russians.”

    Time for the tories to cut their ideological ties with the GOP, once and for all.

    Only if Trump gets the GOP nomination again.

    DeSantis and Pence and Haley are all still firmly pro Ukraine and anti Putin
    Will RDS maintain that position, though, in a fight for the nomination with Trump?
    Yes as Republican voters are divided 50% pro Zelensky, 50% Putin appeasers. Even if less pro Zelensky than Democrat voters who are about 75% pro Zelensky and 25% hard left Putin appeasers
    A key question is will RDS be able to peel off lots of MAGA types by being more Trump than Trump on culture (as opposed to real Ukraine) war issues. If he can he's in good shape imo.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    The previous thread header was about YouGov preaching clear, neutral wording… yet the example given in this thread header is an absolute stinker.

    “The government” ?!?
    How are Welsh or Scottish respondents meant to answer that one?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited March 2023

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    As a result of my operation and subsequent disability….. my life is bed to chair and vice versa nowadays, with daily side excursions to the commode ……I’m seeing care staff twice daily, all of whom wear masks, as do the health professionals…… GP, district and specialist nurses who come to see what can be done for me.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Luxury redefined.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    What grown up government? Fixing the NI mess is tactical not strategic. An opportunity to do a deal with the EU and blame Johnson. It doesn't mean he will be looking for long term or sane solutions - he promoted Lee Anderson to be face of the party...
    Ultimately, the thing to remember about Rishi the Grownup is that he backed BoJo from the beginning and served in his Cabinet until almost the end.

    Yes, he's an improvement on Johnson, no that's not enough.
  • Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,741
    Afternoon all :)

    My recollection was the decision to impose restrictions on movement was to try to slow the spread of the virus and prevent the NHS becoming overwhelmed by patients requiring oxygen to fight the virus. The problem was ICU beds were full and oxygen supplies were becoming dangerously depleted as more cases came in.

    The decision to restrict movement and encourage hundreds of thousands of people to remain at home had other consequences which were seen at local authority level - the provision of PPE, feeding those who could not leave their homes as well as other vulnerable people, the provision of temporary mortuaries. An enormous amount was done in a very short time and even after three years I don't think many recognise just how effectively public and private agencies responded to the crisis.

    The true restrictions lasted to Easter - after that, I was out most days for exercising or food shopping (as allowed) and while there were few people out and about, I read at an early stage external transmission of the virus was very rare so I felt comparatively safe.

    The legacy of those events and messages remain - there are those who still wear masks because they think or know they are potentially highly vulnerable to the consequences of Covid and for them the virus might not be a few days in bed but a death sentence. The fear hasn't gone away with time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,596
    edited March 2023
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    Hare’s a nasty idea. Send the small boaters to…. NI
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    1. wrongly ignored - in favour of Johnson running round like a headless chicken, trying to minimise criticism of himself and blindly following Italy.
    2. A bit of both
    3. The government wanted to continue to scare people disproportionally (nudge unit)
    4. Impressive in some ways but way too much testing of people with no symptoms
    5. came down to whom they appointed to formulate the advice. In consequence, lack of focus on non-health principles: e.g. economics and liberties.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,596
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    My recollection was the decision to impose restrictions on movement was to try to slow the spread of the virus and prevent the NHS becoming overwhelmed by patients requiring oxygen to fight the virus. The problem was ICU beds were full and oxygen supplies were becoming dangerously depleted as more cases came in.

    The decision to restrict movement and encourage hundreds of thousands of people to remain at home had other consequences which were seen at local authority level - the provision of PPE, feeding those who could not leave their homes as well as other vulnerable people, the provision of temporary mortuaries. An enormous amount was done in a very short time and even after three years I don't think many recognise just how effectively public and private agencies responded to the crisis.

    The true restrictions lasted to Easter - after that, I was out most days for exercising or food shopping (as allowed) and while there were few people out and about, I read at an early stage external transmission of the virus was very rare so I felt comparatively safe.

    The legacy of those events and messages remain - there are those who still wear masks because they think or know they are potentially highly vulnerable to the consequences of Covid and for them the virus might not be a few days in bed but a death sentence. The fear hasn't gone away with time.

    The pressure was not so much on oxygen as the ventilator systems to deliver it and the medical staff to monitor patients in that state. Very, very resource hungry.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    Hare’s a nasty idea. Send the small boaters to…. NI
    The Plantations II
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,113

    The previous thread header was about YouGov preaching clear, neutral wording… yet the example given in this thread header is an absolute stinker.

    “The government” ?!?
    How are Welsh or Scottish respondents meant to answer that one?

    And NI. At least when the DUP pick up their toys and get back in the pram.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,596
    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    1. wrongly ignored - in favour of Johnson running round like a headless chicken, trying to minimise criticism of himself and blindly following Italy.
    2. A bit of both
    3. The government wanted to continue to scare people disproportionally (nudge unit)
    4. Impressive in some ways but way too much testing of people with no symptoms
    5. came down to whom they appointed to formulate the advice. In consequence, lack of focus on non-health principles: e.g. economics and liberties.
    With 3 there was also an enemy of “we must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this.”
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    As a result of my operation and subsequent disability….. my life is bed to chair and vice versa nowadays, with daily side excursions to the commode ……I’m seeing care staff twice daily, all of whom wear masks, as do the health professionals…… GP, district and specialist nurses who come to see what can be done for me.
    Hoping for improvements for you, OKC. At least PB can be enjoyed to any age!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080

    WillG said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    The death toll in Germany was much lower than here.
    Define much lower. I don’t want this to be a pissing contest - the point is all western governments lost hundreds of thousands.
    One version of the numbers here:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_death_rates_by_country

    UK 3250 per million
    France 2434 per million
    Germany 2019 per million

    We can, should, investigate how comparable those numbers really are before leaping on culpability, but those seem to be the numbers.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Carnyx said:

    The previous thread header was about YouGov preaching clear, neutral wording… yet the example given in this thread header is an absolute stinker.

    “The government” ?!?
    How are Welsh or Scottish respondents meant to answer that one?

    And NI. At least when the DUP pick up their toys and get back in the pram.
    The Welsh and Scottish governments were very heavily involved in all the Covid decisions. NI was under Direct Rule
  • Too many dark coloured cars! Can we have dayglo pink back and some other colours than dark green/blue/black???
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    If I were asked to design a perfect virus (and I don't claim to be an expert), I'd go for an aerosol-spread virus based on MERS. I'd do the research in a third world country with an authoritarian regime because secrecy is vital. When you're looking for a 'gain of function', CRISP isn't the ideal solution because you don't know what you'll get unless it's well-researched.

    Hence the need for secrecy, but so many things can go wrong, unless you have bags of information. Random mutations are favoured by transmission-gains, not virulence. Your host is precious.

    I've no idea if anyone is actively looking into this, but hopefully Porton Down is.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    I think you're seeing it too much in political terms. Most people don't think about illness in terms of whodunnit etc. (which is why Leon isn't getting much traction with his lab leak) - they see it as a balance of personal risk and personal freedom. People can come to different conclusions without any special motivation, and we should respect that. Certainly most people who I know think that lockdown came too late. especially for care homes, and that includes a lot of folk who don't seem to give politics a thought. I only encounter anti-lockdowners on here. But most people who I talk to are over 50 - could well be a generational thing?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    "Go to Rwanda. Go straight to Rwanda. Do not pass Dover. Do not collect 200 food vouchers."
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080
    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    The previous thread header was about YouGov preaching clear, neutral wording… yet the example given in this thread header is an absolute stinker.

    “The government” ?!?
    How are Welsh or Scottish respondents meant to answer that one?

    Is that finally an admission that what Scotland has isn't a government?

    Speaking of rubbish, Stroll has lost no time in trying to wipe out his new teammate.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    edited March 2023

    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,151
    Lockdown 1 - yes necessary

    Lockdowns 2 and 3 - not sure although the public health exposure remained high as we were essentially in a mass pre vaccine environment

    Masks, curfews, substantial meal rules, cordoning off seats, one way systems - cost a lot to businesses in particular, reduced public confidence and were a complete waste of time!

    Vaccines - excellent! 👍👍👍
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    Ignore the poll. It's another one where one wonders who the heck they ask, or in this case one where if you are a Labour supporter you will only answer one way for partisan reasons. The poll may as well ask 'did you like the Johnson government?'.
    Yes, if you don't like the results ignore the poll. Because that always leads to a deeper understanding of the way people think doesn't it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    They are the ones who believe if we’d locked down early enough (2019, probably) and kept borders closed (impossible) we would have had zero deaths. The ones who say the Tories killed 200,000 people, conveniently forgetting death tolls in non Tory regions, like Germany, France and Italy.
    They are also probably still wearing masks and getting angry at those who don’t.
    As a result of my operation and subsequent disability….. my life is bed to chair and vice versa nowadays, with daily side excursions to the commode ……I’m seeing care staff twice daily, all of whom wear masks, as do the health professionals…… GP, district and specialist nurses who come to what can be done for me.
    All the best, OKC.
    Seconded (or twenty seconded I’m sure)
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    edited March 2023
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add four more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?

    9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add three more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose?
    On 6, the question is why on Earth did we not? Why were we still allowing flights from China and Italy without even basic quarantine measures?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,755

    Lockdown 1 - yes necessary

    Lockdowns 2 and 3 - not sure although the public health exposure remained high as we were essentially in a mass pre vaccine environment

    Masks, curfews, substantial meal rules, cordoning off seats, one way systems - cost a lot to businesses in particular, reduced public confidence and were a complete waste of time!

    Vaccines - excellent! 👍👍👍

    Broadly, I agree. Some of the restrictions were silly at the time, and seem sillier in hindsight, eg meeting up in open places, pubs being allowed to serve meals outside, but not drinks.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add three more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose?
    On 6, the question is why on Earth did we not? Why were we still allowing flights from China and Italy without even basic quarantine measures?
    Because they clearly don't work, as the WHO argues:

    https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-travel-bans-ineffective-who-says/a-60485256
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add four more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?

    9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
    "Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns"

    Perhaps because any genuine and worthwhile analysis of the impact would require data that would take years to collate, when decisions need to be made in days or weeks?

    "Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties"

    Because they were sensible.

    "...when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?"

    It was not.

    There's a fuckload of Monday-morning quarterbacking going on in here.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Can't tell a Merc from an Aston on tv. Not ideal really.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    Ignore the poll. It's another one where one wonders who the heck they ask, or in this case one where if you are a Labour supporter you will only answer one way for partisan reasons. The poll may as well ask 'did you like the Johnson government?'.
    Yes, if you don't like the results ignore the poll. Because that always leads to a deeper understanding of the way people think doesn't it?
    I don't set a lot of store by any poll to be honest. I suspect that this one, like many others, does not lead to a deeper understanding of what people think.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2023

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    I'm puzzled as well as disappointed. Sunak has staked quite a lot on stopping or at least significantly reducing these boat people. If those of us who think it has a cat in hell's chance of working are right, why has he done this?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited March 2023
    Fishing said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add three more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose?
    On 6, the question is why on Earth did we not? Why were we still allowing flights from China and Italy without even basic quarantine measures?
    Because they clearly don't work, as the WHO argues:

    https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-travel-bans-ineffective-who-says/a-60485256
    I don't think the Vietnamese would agree with you and they certainly didn't agree with the WHO. For the first variants, quarantines did work.

    But even if with hindsight they hadn't been effective, it is a very obvious precaution with an infectious disease to put arrivals from an infected area in quarantine to limit the spread.

    They even got that in the Middle Ages, but it was beyond what passes for the the minds of Cummings, Hancock and Johnson.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080

    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of
    that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
    It should be, and it has potential. And if BoJo can survive, he will do his damnedest.

    But.

    The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.

    It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,708
    edited March 2023
    Note the clear divide between Conservative and Labour voters on this. While most Conservative voters think the government's response was about right and more think the approach was too strict than not strict enough, the majority of Labour voters and the plurality of LD voters think the government's approach was not strict enough.

    So if a new Covid variant emerges which is temporarily vaccine immine, expect a likely Starmer government to impose the strictest of lockdowns with the Conservative Leader of the Opposition pushing a much more libertarian line in opposition
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555

    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add four more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?

    9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
    "Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns"

    Perhaps because any genuine and worthwhile analysis of the impact would require data that would take years to collate, when decisions need to be made in days or weeks?

    "Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties"

    Because they were sensible.

    "...when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?"

    It was not.

    Yes, it was. Here are a bunch of links from April and May 2020 showing clearly that the risk of outdoors transmission, while just about possible, was very small:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/closing-parks-ineffective-pandemic-theater/609580/
    https://inews.co.uk/news/coronavirus-catch-outside-indoors-why-get-covid-19-explained-426628
    https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21232696/reopen-parks-coronavirus-covid-19
    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/risks-coronavirus/story?id=70624608
    https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2020/05/coronavirus-spread-outside

    The risks to people's mental health and waistlines from closing outdoor spaces was almost certainly much larger.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add four more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?

    9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
    7 - I think they did to the extent you could in the time available.

    8 - For 2 reasons. They agreed with the approach. They knew the public did too.

    Agree on Travel and overzealous policing. Although on the latter it wasn't the norm. I always felt I could do as I pleased (within reason). It was hardly Colditz.
  • eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    Interesting! When you register for the service do you put in your UK postcode?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    No.

    I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB. ;)

    Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.

    And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,262
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The 37% who replied not strict enough baffle me.

    Ignore the poll. It's another one where one wonders who the heck they ask, or in this case one where if you are a Labour supporter you will only answer one way for partisan reasons. The poll may as well ask 'did you like the Johnson government?'.
    Yes, if you don't like the results ignore the poll. Because that always leads to a deeper understanding of the way people think doesn't it?
    I don't set a lot of store by any poll to be honest. I suspect that this one, like many others, does not lead to a deeper understanding of what people think.
    I find it very tempting to dismiss polls that show respondents largely disagree with my beliefs but I try to recognise that to do so is pointless - if I am in the minority I'd do better to try to argue my case than stick my head in the sand.

    There was lots anecdotal evidence during covid that many people were worried and exercising caution, possibly undue caution. A poll that shows only 1 in 5 thought the restrictions were too tight seems plausible to me.

    Those on here who hated lockdowns and/or thought them pointless or damaging would do well imo to recognise they are in a small minority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729

    A man walks into a greengrocer and asks for a kilo of tomatoes.

    The greengrocer tells him: "That’s 50 pounds please mate".

    The man is shocked - "50 pounds? Last week these tomatoes only cost me two pounds!"

    "Well, today it is 50 pounds."

    "But why 50 pounds? You’re having a laugh!"

    Greengrocer says : "I'll explain it,
    - two pounds for the tomatoes,
    - ten pounds to pay for Brexit,
    - twenty pounds to pay for the Kami-Kwazi budget,
    - ten pounds to pay the Tory donors for their PPE that never worked

    - And finally, eight pounds to pay for Boris Johnson’s legal fees.

    The man silently but angrily took out a fifty pound note and gave it to the greengrocer.

    The greengrocer took the fifty pound note, entered in the cash register and gave him 2 pounds back.

    The man said in disbelief : "Wait, you said 50 pounds, right ? I gave you 50, why are you giving me back 2 pounds?"

    ".....There are no tomatoes."


    https://twitter.com/richardascott/status/1632283177510219777?s=46

    I wouldn't advise him to give up the day job.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of
    that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
    It should be, and it has potential. And if BoJo can survive, he will do his damnedest.

    But.

    The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.

    It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
    I think these days admiration for Boris comes only to those with a heavy emotional investment in the Boris Johnson mythology. To everyone else he comes across more and more as a smug, entitled twit.
  • Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of
    that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
    It should be, and it has potential. And if BoJo can survive, he will do his damnedest.

    But.

    The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.

    It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
    He was up in front of the Liaison Committee on his final day before he resigned. And was *spectacularly* awful. I'm sure he will bluster up to the committee meeting thinking it gives him the chance to be lovable Boris again.

    And will destroy himself.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    HYUFD said:

    Note the clear divide between Conservative and Labour voters on this. While most Conservative voters think the government's response was about right and more think the approach was too strict than not strict enough, the majority of Labour voters and the plurality of LD voters think the government's approach was not strict enough.

    So if a new Covid variant emerges which is temporarily vaccine immine, expect a likely Starmer government to impose the strictest of lockdowns with the Conservative Leader of the Opposition pushing a much more libertarian line in opposition

    Let's hope we don't get to test this particular prediction.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Thought-provoking article from Zoe Strimpel.

    "There’s only one way to protect yourself from the censors
    Disentangling ourselves from digital dependence is now a radical but necessary step"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/one-way-protect-censors/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:

    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    On the big picture I'd answer this 'about right' - ie enforced/recommended distancing of people to control the spread of the virus until the vaccine kicked in, this was the 'approach' and it was the right one.

    To the extent it wasn't right it doesn't come down in my mind to 'strictness' but to execution and competence. Eg lockdowns (esp the 1st one) should have been done quicker but otoh went on for too long. Plus the balance of law v guidance was too weighted towards law. And there was too much micromanaging of people's personal lives - eg Rules of Six and all of that. And the venality and cronyism around equipment and consulting contracts was ... well that was just appalling. And tech could have been far more cost effectively and better harnessed.

    But on the whole, viz the approach, it's a tick from me.

    There are a few things worth looking at:

    1. The NHS had been planning for a pandemic for about 20 years but almost all of that planning collapsed with the first engagement with the virus. Was it rubbish, irrelevant or wrongly ignored?

    2. The government rightly panicked about the shortage of PPE but did the "fast channels" to Ministers really help or was it just a waste of money?

    3. Why did we persist with restrictions which were unlikely to have any material effect (eg cleaning surfaces, washing hands) for so long? Why was there not a feedback mechanism which tested the efficacy of reasonable sounding restrictions eliminating those that did not work?

    4. The vaccine roll out went well but was testing (a) useful or (b) efficient? What sort of mechanisms should we use to monitor the progress of any similar outbreak in future?

    5. Why was there such a bias in the models and institutional advice towards more lockdowns and tighter restrictions? How do we get a more balanced view in future?
    All good questions. I would add four more:

    6. Why did we implement travel restrictions, when these were obviously completely useless unless we sealed ourselves off totally, which clearly wasn't practicable?

    7. Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns, or indeed any other regulation, the way they are required to do for every other?

    8. Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties since perhaps the Second World War, and maybe ever?

    9. Why did the government have the police harass people exercising or relaxing out of doors, when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?
    "Why did the government refuse to do an impact assessment of lockdowns"

    Perhaps because any genuine and worthwhile analysis of the impact would require data that would take years to collate, when decisions need to be made in days or weeks?

    "Why did the opposition not bother to oppose the most Draconian restrictions on our liberties"

    Because they were sensible.

    "...when it was perfectly obvious that the virus did not spread outside?"

    It was not.

    Yes, it was. Here are a bunch of links from April and May 2020 showing clearly that the risk of outdoors transmission, while just about possible, was very small:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/closing-parks-ineffective-pandemic-theater/609580/
    https://inews.co.uk/news/coronavirus-catch-outside-indoors-why-get-covid-19-explained-426628
    https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21232696/reopen-parks-coronavirus-covid-19
    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/risks-coronavirus/story?id=70624608
    https://hive.rochesterregional.org/2020/05/coronavirus-spread-outside

    The risks to people's mental health and waistlines from closing outdoor spaces was almost certainly much larger.
    Wow. Those are all really accurate, peer-reviewed science and in no way opinion pieces. And there were no contemporaneous articles stating exactly the opposite.

    "The risks to people's mental health and waistlines from closing outdoor spaces was almost certainly much larger."

    Opinion, not data. Even worse: opinion based on what we know now, not what we knew then - which is all those having to make decisions had to go on.
  • eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    No.

    I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB. ;)

    Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.

    And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
    It isn't theft - he is paying for a subscription. F1 are not allowed to provide the full package in the UK because they have given that up to Sky. But you are paying for it regardless.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    No.

    I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB. ;)

    Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.

    And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
    I’m paying f1 (Amazon are charging me £5.99 a month for f1tv pro) the only people I’m not paying is sky.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    As well as shame for Mancock, the other fun aspect of the Oakeshott slime is that there is a lot of coverage of all the worst aspects of the Covid period. None of which is helpful to Sunak, and demolishes whatever whiff of good news had been created by the Windsor Framework.

    Sadly he has a less than brilliant solution: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

    People arriving by small boats are not to be allowed to claim asylum here and get sent straight to Rwanda. New legislation this week, allegedly. Didn't we already do this?
    And "straight to Rwanda" will depend on that not being challenged in court - which it will. And on Rwanda actually being able to take refugees - which AFAIK they still can't/won't.

    Meanwhile, prospects of actually doing anything about this tragedy continue to recede. Its the very worst kind of posturing - pushing something they know won't work because they think the target voters are too stupid to know any better.
    It was a classic "stupid" policy by Boris's government wanting simplistic solutions that could be sold, even if they did not work. It is not consistent with the new "grown up" government that we have seen in NI to continue with this nonsense. I am disappointed.
    I'm puzzled as well as disappointed. Sunak has staked quite a lot on stopping or at least significantly reducing these boat people. If those of us who think it has a cat in hell's chance of working are right, why has he done this?
    An eye on his right flank? If It leaks badly it will cost seats.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,728
    He has looked dreadful since long before he made it to Downing Street
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of
    that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
    It should be, and it has potential. And if BoJo can survive, he will do his damnedest.

    But.

    The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.

    It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
    He was up in front of the Liaison Committee on his final day before he resigned. And was *spectacularly* awful. I'm sure he will bluster up to the committee meeting thinking it gives him the chance to be lovable Boris again.

    And will destroy himself.
    My impression of Johnson is that he's a good orator if he has time to think. If he has to write (or have ghost-written...) an opinion piece, or give a speech with a few ad=libs, then he's brilliant.

    But if he has to speak on his feet, then he's not good. In some ways, Blair was better *because* he was a better dissembler.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    No.

    I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB. ;)

    Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.

    And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
    It isn't theft - he is paying for a subscription. F1 are not allowed to provide the full package in the UK because they have given that up to Sky. But you are paying for it regardless.
    That's a very odd definition of "It isn't theft".

    "I didn't steal these cigarettes. I paid for them from a bloke who smuggled them into the country."
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    Sky F1 trying to justify £lots to watch with endless pointless camera options. Just show the race and scrap the Brundle grid walk of shame and I will be happy.

    Or save a fortune and watch the race on f1tv pro via a vpn connecting to the Netherlands.

    Watching it in 4k with the f1 commentary team (David coulthard and Jolyon Palmer)
    No.

    I used to love F1, and do everything I wanted to watch it. But if it costs too much (according to your definition of 'too much') then you have a choice: to pay or not to pay. I chose not to, and use my time for more productive things: like arguing on PB. ;)

    Not paying for something like this is theft. Yes, it may be theft from a large corporation, but still theft. If F1 matters that much to you, pay for it. If it does not, don't - and the cost will eventually come down.

    And if you say: "But it's a large corporation!", ask yourself what level you wouldn't steal it at.
    I’m paying f1 (Amazon are charging me £5.99 a month for f1tv pro) the only people I’m not paying is sky.
    You watching it on a Fire Stick..?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,206
    A real puzzler from the Sunday Times Insight team here. Morons across the world are reduced to bemused frowns. @Nigelb @turbotubbs @kinabalu and @IanB2 are stroking their chins and scratching their tiny pin-like heads




  • Did a gypsy put a curse on Ocon today?
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261

    Lockdown 1 - yes necessary

    Lockdowns 2 and 3 - not sure although the public health exposure remained high as we were essentially in a mass pre vaccine environment

    Masks, curfews, substantial meal rules, cordoning off seats, one way systems - cost a lot to businesses in particular, reduced public confidence and were a complete waste of time!

    Vaccines - excellent! 👍👍👍

    I totally agree on vaccines. The vaccines created in 2020 were a modern miracle. ;)

    On masks: I have an issues with your statement. Personally I *think* (though not conclusively) that they helped stop the virus spreading. Incidentally, not just directly, but indirectly: the mere wearing of a mask sends a message to others that might limit the spread.

    In addition, we did not, and still don't, know the effectiveness. There're studies both ways on the effectiveness of masks wrt Covid 19, especially the initial variants. And much relies on the type and the wearing. We may never actually now for sure, and anyone citing certainty is a fool.

    But there's also another issue here. The anti-vaxer and anti-mask shits (*) are creating a situation where, when another pandemic occurs, vast numbers of people won't take appropriate action. Because they've been told it was all a con in 2020. That's a real worry for the future.

    (*) And that's a nice word for them.
    Totally agree on that and we do have H5N1 on the horizon (a random mutation or two away) that could be that next one, with devastating consequences.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080
    edited March 2023

    Maybe part of him (the part he's learned to ignore) knows this is unlikely to work. The narrative of his brilliant life demands he tries it, but it's unlikely to work.

    The wheel is still spinning, but the hamster is dead.
    'Bang to rights' - reminds me of what they said about Sturgeon's witness stand performance before the Salmond enquiry. She managed to bullshit herself successfully out of
    that. Will Boris's comittee evidence be televised? It will be compulsive viewing.
    It should be, and it has potential. And if BoJo can survive, he will do his damnedest.

    But.

    The format doesn't play to his strengths. He needs an audience to play off, and doesn't always think well on his feet. And the PMQs tactic of not answering the question five times and doing a rousing clip for the evening news at the end won't work. See what happened with the liaison committee, or his interview with Brillo.

    It could very well be the moment when the country pulls back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
    He was up in front of the Liaison Committee on his final day before he resigned. And was *spectacularly* awful. I'm sure he will bluster up to the committee meeting thinking it gives him the chance to be lovable Boris again.

    And will destroy himself.
    I think that's the most likely answer.

    But I also think he will keep trying to return until his dying day.

    And it will be tempting to divide his corpse into seven, buried in distant places.

    Just to be sure.
  • Did a gypsy put a curse on Ocon today?

    Bit mean describing Stroll's mum like that
This discussion has been closed.