By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Michael Gove straight up lying to the country about why they haven't been able to carry out many COVID tests - surely they would know someone would check? (read the whole twitter thread)
.@michaelgove said just now that the difficulty in increasing number of #COVID19 tests was due to a shortage of the relevant "chemcial reagents". Well I've just talked to the Chemical Industries Association, which represents the UK's very substantial chemicals industry. It...
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:31 - Mar 31 by Eireannach_gorm
This the type of thing you are looking for?
3 weeks ago today @BorisJohnson was suggesting that people could take a deadly virus 'on the chin' & allow the disease to 'move through the population' ... without a vaccine. Try & let that sink in, because I can't. Never let him or them forget #HerdImmunitypic.twitter.com/qzKeKIEvQB
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:23 - Mar 31 by GlasgowBlue
Where has anyone said it's unacceptable to criticise the government? Who has ever said that?
Apparently I was. Because it was easier to shout PERLERTERCERL PERNT SCERERNG than actually address concerns about 10 years of austerity damage that is now exposed in our healthcare/benefits, the fact we had no clear plan, the fact pubs were made to remain open so no one could claim on insurance, the fact it took them a week to reassure workers for pay, the fact even now no one can access this money and by the time anyone sees it real damage could have been done (we’re talking food here), the fact they completely missed the self-employed and ZHCs off their worker plan and had to play catch up, the fact the NHS is screaming for protective gear and not getting it, the fact they lied about an EU ventilator scheme and instead favoured a nice pay out to mates in the manufacturing industry, the fact renters have no real protection, the fact we’re lying about testing and still aren’t doing enough, I could go on.
They’re doing better now and I feel more relaxed, but you’d have to be a serious present victim of gaslighting to think the entire narrative has been anything remote to smooth, long term and considered.
You’re not a politician or a party member anymore. You don’t need to act like you’re in a court of law.
The approach was “do nothing” then two days later “the science changed” whilst the WHO, NHS staff and other experts tore the lacklustre approach to shreds. If you need that spelt out for you you can watch the first Thursday briefing again and then watch the Monday one straight after.
The fact you can even roll out this line as a defence shows just how much they are winging it.
#cuthimandhebleedsblue
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:37 - Mar 31 by monytowbray
Apparently I was. Because it was easier to shout PERLERTERCERL PERNT SCERERNG than actually address concerns about 10 years of austerity damage that is now exposed in our healthcare/benefits, the fact we had no clear plan, the fact pubs were made to remain open so no one could claim on insurance, the fact it took them a week to reassure workers for pay, the fact even now no one can access this money and by the time anyone sees it real damage could have been done (we’re talking food here), the fact they completely missed the self-employed and ZHCs off their worker plan and had to play catch up, the fact the NHS is screaming for protective gear and not getting it, the fact they lied about an EU ventilator scheme and instead favoured a nice pay out to mates in the manufacturing industry, the fact renters have no real protection, the fact we’re lying about testing and still aren’t doing enough, I could go on.
They’re doing better now and I feel more relaxed, but you’d have to be a serious present victim of gaslighting to think the entire narrative has been anything remote to smooth, long term and considered.
You specifically said that Boris Johnson announced a policy of herd immunity. I'm still waiting for this clip.
You’re not a politician or a party member anymore. You don’t need to act like you’re in a court of law.
The approach was “do nothing” then two days later “the science changed” whilst the WHO, NHS staff and other experts tore the lacklustre approach to shreds. If you need that spelt out for you you can watch the first Thursday briefing again and then watch the Monday one straight after.
The fact you can even roll out this line as a defence shows just how much they are winging it.
Until concrete numbers came out of Italy we had number from China, which at best were scanty.
The approach wasn’t “do nothing”.
January saw screenings of all passengers from Wuhan. February saw quarantining persons who had come from Wuhan.
The measures have all come in slowly as the situation deteriorated.
Yes, some of it could have been a lot quicker.
There are things that the government can be rightly criticised for. PPE, lack of urgency in preparing the NHS, years of underfunding the NHS.
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:41 - Mar 31 by GlasgowBlue
You specifically said that Boris Johnson announced a policy of herd immunity. I'm still waiting for this clip.
Whatteraboutery about slight wording.
The government’s first announcement whilst the world shut down was an entire weekend extra the virus spread, after a press conference full of talk of a herd immunity approach.
But if clinging onto the idea of wanting a video of Johnson specifically saying it is the hill you want to die on, you go for it.
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:47 - Mar 31 by monytowbray
Whatteraboutery about slight wording.
The government’s first announcement whilst the world shut down was an entire weekend extra the virus spread, after a press conference full of talk of a herd immunity approach.
But if clinging onto the idea of wanting a video of Johnson specifically saying it is the hill you want to die on, you go for it.
Well the thread was about politicians telling lies, which Give appears to have done, and you weighed in with your size threes banging on about "They’ve not stopped telling fibs since Johnson’s first announcement of herd immunity" so you can see why I was kind of interested in whether you had actually see BJ make this announcement.
Obviously you hadn't as he never made such an announcement so you wither dreamed it or made it up.
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 20:52 - Mar 31 by GlasgowBlue
Well the thread was about politicians telling lies, which Give appears to have done, and you weighed in with your size threes banging on about "They’ve not stopped telling fibs since Johnson’s first announcement of herd immunity" so you can see why I was kind of interested in whether you had actually see BJ make this announcement.
Obviously you hadn't as he never made such an announcement so you wither dreamed it or made it up.
I'll leave it there Lord Haw Haw.
Okay Glassers, you carry on writing your UK history book according to the Tories.
Also, for someone who regularly has a hissy for using Nazism as an insult, that's a weird nickname you've come up with.
Under Sir Patrick’s initial modelling, the disease would be controlled so that it remained manageable for the NHS; a peak would be achieved in early summer. After this, thanks to population immunity, it would tail off and not recur at any scale next winter.
It was the modelling which informed chancellor Rishi Sunak’s first Budget on March 11, which assumed a relatively short and sharp economic hit this summer, then a rebound. At that time a £12bn package of help was widely seen as generous; a few days later it was seen as painfully inadequate.
Last week, the scientists changed their advice, warning that the virus was accelerating and more cases than expected would end up in swamped hospitals. Research from Imperial College London warned that, if the government continued with its “mitigation strategy”, 250,000 could die.
Catherine Calderwood, Scotland’s chief medical officer, agreed that scientists had underestimated the speed of spread and that they had previously estimated that one person might infect two to three others. “It’s more than that, maybe four, maybe five, maybe six,” she said. “That explosion of cases is likely to be accelerating more rapidly than we realised.”Â
Mr Cummings was quick to agree with the sharply revised scientific view that much more aggressive suppression measures were needed, to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The idea of “herd immunity” was banished. Under the harsher suppression strategy the aim is to cut deaths to 20,000, but it may have to be in place for a year, with massive economic consequences.
Either huge swarms of the media are lying or they borked it up with a plan of herd immunity that quickly got dropped when "The Science Changed"*
Under Sir Patrick’s initial modelling, the disease would be controlled so that it remained manageable for the NHS; a peak would be achieved in early summer. After this, thanks to population immunity, it would tail off and not recur at any scale next winter.
It was the modelling which informed chancellor Rishi Sunak’s first Budget on March 11, which assumed a relatively short and sharp economic hit this summer, then a rebound. At that time a £12bn package of help was widely seen as generous; a few days later it was seen as painfully inadequate.
Last week, the scientists changed their advice, warning that the virus was accelerating and more cases than expected would end up in swamped hospitals. Research from Imperial College London warned that, if the government continued with its “mitigation strategy”, 250,000 could die.
Catherine Calderwood, Scotland’s chief medical officer, agreed that scientists had underestimated the speed of spread and that they had previously estimated that one person might infect two to three others. “It’s more than that, maybe four, maybe five, maybe six,” she said. “That explosion of cases is likely to be accelerating more rapidly than we realised.”Â
Mr Cummings was quick to agree with the sharply revised scientific view that much more aggressive suppression measures were needed, to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The idea of “herd immunity” was banished. Under the harsher suppression strategy the aim is to cut deaths to 20,000, but it may have to be in place for a year, with massive economic consequences.
Either huge swarms of the media are lying or they borked it up with a plan of herd immunity that quickly got dropped when "The Science Changed"*
*"The Model Was Wrong"
[Post edited 31 Mar 2020 21:02]
The model wasnt wrong it was changing as more information arrived and they reacted to that. But hey you want to make a political statement so rather than accept they reacted to the change in data you just want to blame them because you hate the Tories.
-2
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:12 - Mar 31 with 854 views
Under Sir Patrick’s initial modelling, the disease would be controlled so that it remained manageable for the NHS; a peak would be achieved in early summer. After this, thanks to population immunity, it would tail off and not recur at any scale next winter.
It was the modelling which informed chancellor Rishi Sunak’s first Budget on March 11, which assumed a relatively short and sharp economic hit this summer, then a rebound. At that time a £12bn package of help was widely seen as generous; a few days later it was seen as painfully inadequate.
Last week, the scientists changed their advice, warning that the virus was accelerating and more cases than expected would end up in swamped hospitals. Research from Imperial College London warned that, if the government continued with its “mitigation strategy”, 250,000 could die.
Catherine Calderwood, Scotland’s chief medical officer, agreed that scientists had underestimated the speed of spread and that they had previously estimated that one person might infect two to three others. “It’s more than that, maybe four, maybe five, maybe six,” she said. “That explosion of cases is likely to be accelerating more rapidly than we realised.”Â
Mr Cummings was quick to agree with the sharply revised scientific view that much more aggressive suppression measures were needed, to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. The idea of “herd immunity” was banished. Under the harsher suppression strategy the aim is to cut deaths to 20,000, but it may have to be in place for a year, with massive economic consequences.
Either huge swarms of the media are lying or they borked it up with a plan of herd immunity that quickly got dropped when "The Science Changed"*
*"The Model Was Wrong"
[Post edited 31 Mar 2020 21:02]
I would say that the model was fine, and the theory was sound, but the understanding of the scale of the problem changed and hence the strategy had to change.
It's not binary (not either right OR wrong), and it is also a dynamic situation.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:12 - Mar 31 by NthQldITFC
I would say that the model was fine, and the theory was sound, but the understanding of the scale of the problem changed and hence the strategy had to change.
It's not binary (not either right OR wrong), and it is also a dynamic situation.
This was a pretty simple, clear summary of what went wrong with the initial modelling.
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:08 - Mar 31 by BloomBlue
The model wasnt wrong it was changing as more information arrived and they reacted to that. But hey you want to make a political statement so rather than accept they reacted to the change in data you just want to blame them because you hate the Tories.
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:20 - Mar 31 by monytowbray
See link above.
But that tells you what I just said once you have more data the model will change and that's what they did. The original data was coming from China and they either weren't honest with the truth or the virus changed once it got to Italy. The Chinese data indicated a much lower infection rate, Italy was also operating off that data as was Spain & France, but once it got into Italy that infection rate data changed and so did the modelling. That link above is written after the Italian data became available and as you'll see it states you have to work off various forms of data. Once more data came in the UK modelling reacted and changed the model. You seem to forget this is a brand new virus people are learning about it while reacting.
-1
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:38 - Mar 31 with 801 views
This is a bit worrying, if predictable on 21:33 - Mar 31 by BloomBlue
But that tells you what I just said once you have more data the model will change and that's what they did. The original data was coming from China and they either weren't honest with the truth or the virus changed once it got to Italy. The Chinese data indicated a much lower infection rate, Italy was also operating off that data as was Spain & France, but once it got into Italy that infection rate data changed and so did the modelling. That link above is written after the Italian data became available and as you'll see it states you have to work off various forms of data. Once more data came in the UK modelling reacted and changed the model. You seem to forget this is a brand new virus people are learning about it while reacting.
The model didn’t change. The model was out of date for a different virus and therefore incorrect. It didn’t account for the NHS and shows a massive gap between what the party has actually done with it, at best.
When we had so much data coming from around the world there was no need for what they did, but it has certainly landed us in a worse potential place when the peak hits.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
