| Is "following the science" 06:39 - Apr 18 with 7717 views | bluelagos |
an adequate defence to the charges / lost lives that will have occured due to our government's dithering?
We even had football authorities taking the tough decisions before our own politicians.
Or is it really acceptable that they wasted precious time when all around them the evidence was there for a need to act to reduce social contacts?
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/eleven-days-may-have-tragically-cost-uk-fig [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 6:51]
|  |
| |  |
| Is "following the science" on 11:20 - Apr 18 with 1048 views | Churchman |
No. It doesn’t matter if the government follows the science, the Chuckle Brothers or Mickey Mouse. They are accountable. They are accountable for their decisions, the scale of this mess through slow decision making and lazy implementation, the utter failure on testing and the failure to provide sufficient protection for NHS and other frontline staff. They are accountable for choosing to lie over the EU Ventilator opt out decision. They clearly made a potentially life threatening decision on political ideology, not need. Lucky for them existing capacity seems to be sufficient at the moment.
I know it’s easy to chirp from the sidelines and this is as hard as anything this country has had to deal with since WW2, but if they believe they have got it right, then put it to the electorate in the autumn or next spring when hopefully C-19 has abated. Churchill did at the end of WW2. It would be the right thing to do, so that won’t happen, of course. |  | | |
| Is on 11:23 - Apr 18 with 1033 views | pointofblue |
| Is "following the science" on 11:09 - Apr 18 by bluelagos |
A pretty balanced and fair response.
The only thing I think is wrong is that unfortunately the fatigue argument (Which I accept) doesn't stack against the additional deaths. The exponential growth of the virus means we needed to act asap to minimise the virus' growth.
The harsh reality is that the delay will have caused additional deaths. A very uncomfortable position but a correct one. People not obeying the rules as the numbers of infected are reducing will have had (if that were true) a lower impact that on the path we followed.
Hopefully it will all come out when they do the inquiry.
(Anyhow - off for some govt approved cycling - people will no doubt be glad to hear!) |
I agree. I understand the argument they presented insisting that they wanted to ensure people were not suffering from lockdown fatigue as the virus peaked but did they dictate when the peak would occur by the moment they shut down the country; if they shut down earlier the peak and plateau would have occurred eleven days earlier?
For once I wouldn’t say the government’s approach was down to a lack of care but actually a result of poor advice from those they were being guided by, particularly as we were and are struggling in terms of adequate testing kits and PPE. I am hoping any inquiry will see the advise presented to the government on a day by day basis being published so we can see what they made their decisions on.
Obviously different countries have taken opposing approaches and are going through different stages. It’s odd that Germany seems to think it had the virus under control and are considering lifting parts of the lockdown despite the number of cases rising for the fourth consecutive day. The one thing we should be thankful for is the government did apply the brakes and make a u-turn when they received new advice rather than ignore it and ramp up nationalistic fever, like in Brazil and America.
ETA - I wonder if part of the decision making was economic; possibly the government wanted to make sure they had at least sone funding in place or at least acknowledged for business, employees, councils etc. before initiating the lockdown. The reason why they went down the route of advising people not to visit pubs yet not close them was because they didn’t have the additional finances lined up at that point? I may be completely wrong; it’s just a theory. [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 11:26]
|  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 11:33 - Apr 18 with 1024 views | Guthrum |
| Is "following the science" on 11:12 - Apr 18 by BlueBadger |
Re: your final question, politicians have been trotting out variations on 'we've all had enough of experts' for a few years now without any perceivable harm to their careers and public credulity. |
Tho that was not in the face of a major crisis. Had Covid not happened, but instead Brexit proceeded and turned out to be harmful for the country, then the politicians would have (rightly) been shredded for deriding the experts.
Moreover, to some extent, that was a matter of political ideology, not an area of specific technical and scientific expertise. |  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 11:38 - Apr 18 with 1021 views | pointofblue |
| Is "following the science" on 11:20 - Apr 18 by Churchman |
No. It doesn’t matter if the government follows the science, the Chuckle Brothers or Mickey Mouse. They are accountable. They are accountable for their decisions, the scale of this mess through slow decision making and lazy implementation, the utter failure on testing and the failure to provide sufficient protection for NHS and other frontline staff. They are accountable for choosing to lie over the EU Ventilator opt out decision. They clearly made a potentially life threatening decision on political ideology, not need. Lucky for them existing capacity seems to be sufficient at the moment.
I know it’s easy to chirp from the sidelines and this is as hard as anything this country has had to deal with since WW2, but if they believe they have got it right, then put it to the electorate in the autumn or next spring when hopefully C-19 has abated. Churchill did at the end of WW2. It would be the right thing to do, so that won’t happen, of course. |
The difference being the last election prior to World War II was in 1935 so, by 1945, one was well overdue. Same as the First World War, the last election prior to that was in 1910. | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 11:42 - Apr 18 with 1026 views | Trequartista |
Personally I think they should have locked down earlier, but i'm basing that on instinct, not evidence. There is no evidence. No-one has a clue what they are talking about. |  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 12:01 - Apr 18 with 999 views | Churchman |
| Is "following the science" on 11:38 - Apr 18 by pointofblue |
The difference being the last election prior to World War II was in 1935 so, by 1945, one was well overdue. Same as the First World War, the last election prior to that was in 1910. |
But Churchill chose to go to the country and break the coalition when he did to seek a post-war mandate on the basis of his record so isn’t the principle the same? The 2019 election is essentially null and void - in my view. It’s irrelevant because the world and particularly this country will be in a completely different place when this is over. The very basis on which this lot were elected in December will have changed. The people have the right to decide who leads the country out from this disaster, aside from judging whether the government have handled the crisis well or badly. | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 12:06 - Apr 18 with 991 views | urbanblue |
| Is "following the science" on 11:16 - Apr 18 by StokieBlue |
I think the difference in Australia came when the shocking photos of Bondi beach were published.
After that the public seemed to take on board the need to distance and when coupled with the closed borders and testing it seems to have served them very well.
SB |
I'm no fan of the Morrison Government but despite some very mixed messaging at first they are doing a pretty good job. Not only were the Borders closed to visitors but most of the borders to each state are closed as well. Yes, that day on Bondi caused a 'semi' lockdown and the PM in no uncertain terms basically said that if it wasn't followed there would be stricter measures and as a result the public are generally on board and most seem to be doing the right thing.
Returning Aussies were required to Self Isolate when the borders were closed. Then, when a few were found to have broken the Isolation it was changed to the Government putting them straight into a Hotel as soon as they got off the plane and not let them out for 14 days.
But for the Ruby Princess debacle where about 1500 passengers were let off a Cruise ship in Sydney to scatter to the four winds when there were infected people on board our figures would have been even better. A number of those passengers have since died and there has been a lot of contact tracing going on from that.
The next step will be interesting. New cases are down to Double figures nationwide. Victoria only had 7 new cases yesterday. To loosen restrictions the Government want us all to have an App so that any more cases they can immediately see where the person has been, who was there, and move to isolate the contacts. Obviously, the privacy issue is raising it's head .... Something, I would normally be concerned about, but, I have to say, it makes sense.
As for our Borders opening ... I would guess that's a long, long, way away. We are getting told to get used to holidaying in Australia. |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 12:08 - Apr 18 with 990 views | pointofblue |
| Is "following the science" on 12:01 - Apr 18 by Churchman |
But Churchill chose to go to the country and break the coalition when he did to seek a post-war mandate on the basis of his record so isn’t the principle the same? The 2019 election is essentially null and void - in my view. It’s irrelevant because the world and particularly this country will be in a completely different place when this is over. The very basis on which this lot were elected in December will have changed. The people have the right to decide who leads the country out from this disaster, aside from judging whether the government have handled the crisis well or badly. |
Though there hasn’t been a general election for ten years by 1945 - one was always going to be in the offing. I do understand your point about it being a different world and holding a further election to judge how we are to come out of this but, at the same time, I doubt it will happen because of the arguments about stability and decisions needing to be made quickly relating to the economic situation. Whilst those involved in politics may be invested I am also unsure as to whether the wider population will be interested in holding a fourth election in seven years; I can see the response being “just get on with it”.
I can see this being this government’s version of Black Wednesday though; the start of something they will never recover from. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is "following the science" on 12:18 - Apr 18 with 978 views | Churchman |
| Is "following the science" on 12:08 - Apr 18 by pointofblue |
Though there hasn’t been a general election for ten years by 1945 - one was always going to be in the offing. I do understand your point about it being a different world and holding a further election to judge how we are to come out of this but, at the same time, I doubt it will happen because of the arguments about stability and decisions needing to be made quickly relating to the economic situation. Whilst those involved in politics may be invested I am also unsure as to whether the wider population will be interested in holding a fourth election in seven years; I can see the response being “just get on with it”.
I can see this being this government’s version of Black Wednesday though; the start of something they will never recover from. |
I agree 100%. My opinion was more a right and wrong/moral one than something that could happen. The government will play for time and hope Mr Micawber style ‘something turns up’. But like you I think they will be fatally weakened by this. | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 13:55 - Apr 18 with 923 views | monytowbray |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 by bluejacko |
Here we go again another thread from the experts who know better than the chief scientific and medical officers!
These are the same people who would advise ANY British govt.
Perhaps you all could have joined Cummings in his madcap idea about advisers to join the govt and of course you would have had all this sorted with no problems whatsoever. |
Is this is the best response you have then perhaps save all of us the time and don’t bother. |  |
| |
| Is on 14:29 - Apr 18 with 915 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Is on 06:54 - Apr 18 by TractorWood |
Excellent article. Nails it in my opinion.
This is the herd immunity stage that 'didn't happen'.
The Prem and schools closing of their own volition was my first thought that the Government are fiddling whilst Rome burns. [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 6:55]
|
Yep. More evidence of the Government's thinking on this has popped up:
I take a lot of these with a pinch of salt, but it does again seem to suggest that they haven't exactly been following the science. Or not without weighing it a distant second against economic impacts.
I wonder how much of their ineptitude around testing and procurement (PPE & ventilator kit) is because these economic views are still driving things, or ii it simply that they're pretty useless at getting stuff done? PPE is going the same way as the ventilator saga did with suppliers saying they' offered to help weeks ago but have heard nothing back. |  |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 16:24 - Apr 18 with 880 views | jimmyvet |
| Is "following the science" on 09:32 - Apr 18 by sparks |
The level of fallacy and disinformation / innuendo in this thread is not only extraordinary (starting with the OP) it is embarrassing and dangerous.
I really cant be arsed and wouldnt know where to begin dealing with it. |
Spot on post it’s unbelievable the amount of 5 week qualified viral infection professionals on this forum. Why on earth are they posting on here when they have all the answers, why not do their country a service and offer their great scientific knowledge for the national cause. What is even scarier the more rubbish they post the more a few of them actually think they know what they are talking about. | | | |
| Is on 16:38 - Apr 18 with 865 views | monytowbray |
| Is "following the science" on 16:24 - Apr 18 by jimmyvet |
Spot on post it’s unbelievable the amount of 5 week qualified viral infection professionals on this forum. Why on earth are they posting on here when they have all the answers, why not do their country a service and offer their great scientific knowledge for the national cause. What is even scarier the more rubbish they post the more a few of them actually think they know what they are talking about. |
You don’t need to be a scientist to read evidence, look at the data the rest of the world was processing, take in the WHO advice we ignored, understand “herd immunity” was a lazy plan built around economic reasons and conclude 5 weeks later looking at our death toll we f*cked it.
But to come to that conclusion you’d need to be impartial, have common sense AND use your brain. Which if your recent posts say anything would suggest all 3 may be beyond your realms.
We could have Cobra meeting leak where Boris Johnson is caught saying “It’s clear none of us know what we’re doing but we don’t want to follow the safest advice, f*ck the population, protect business, who cares if they all die and the NHS falls over multiple times!” and you’d still beg to sit under his desk licking his shoes clean like the snake in my avatar. [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 16:39]
| |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 16:39 - Apr 18 with 853 views | brazil1982 |
| Is "following the science" on 12:01 - Apr 18 by Churchman |
But Churchill chose to go to the country and break the coalition when he did to seek a post-war mandate on the basis of his record so isn’t the principle the same? The 2019 election is essentially null and void - in my view. It’s irrelevant because the world and particularly this country will be in a completely different place when this is over. The very basis on which this lot were elected in December will have changed. The people have the right to decide who leads the country out from this disaster, aside from judging whether the government have handled the crisis well or badly. |
Still not accepting a Conservative government are you? |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 16:39 - Apr 18 with 866 views | WD19 |
| Is "following the science" on 10:12 - Apr 18 by StokieBlue |
This is basically the opposite of a study coming out of Germany in one of the most hart hit towns which says infection rates might be as low as 15%.
I think the thing to take from this is that we simply don't know at the moment.
SB |
The top government scientists are currently working on the assumption that infection rates in the UK are between 2-5%. |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 16:55 - Apr 18 with 853 views | monytowbray |
| Is "following the science" on 16:39 - Apr 18 by WD19 |
The top government scientists are currently working on the assumption that infection rates in the UK are between 2-5%. |
They’ve been working on a lot of assumptions (and lies) since day one. | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 16:58 - Apr 18 with 848 views | WD19 |
| Is "following the science" on 16:55 - Apr 18 by monytowbray |
They’ve been working on a lot of assumptions (and lies) since day one. |
Thanks for your impartial view.
Personally speaking I am not clear why people like the Chief Medical Officer and his senior team would deliberately lie, but perhaps I am just naive. | | | |
| Is "following the science" on 17:04 - Apr 18 with 843 views | eireblue |
| Is "following the science" on 16:24 - Apr 18 by jimmyvet |
Spot on post it’s unbelievable the amount of 5 week qualified viral infection professionals on this forum. Why on earth are they posting on here when they have all the answers, why not do their country a service and offer their great scientific knowledge for the national cause. What is even scarier the more rubbish they post the more a few of them actually think they know what they are talking about. |
Are the scientists the government is being guided by, exclusively “viral infection experts”?
I haven’t seen many post critical of specific viral infection science.
I have seen posts critical of the government decision making.
Can you confirm that all government decision making has been made by viral infection experts? |  | | |
| Is "following the science" on 17:20 - Apr 18 with 833 views | Ryorry |
| Is "following the science" on 09:34 - Apr 18 by bluejacko |
Here we go again another thread from the experts who know better than the chief scientific and medical officers!
These are the same people who would advise ANY British govt.
Perhaps you all could have joined Cummings in his madcap idea about advisers to join the govt and of course you would have had all this sorted with no problems whatsoever. |
The epidemiologist doctor who phoned in to Any Answers on BBCRadio4 this pm was scathing about the Govt. Said they'd been listening to wrong docs/scientists - should have listened more to those experienced in epidemiology, social care & pandemics (at the very least should have had those in on the discussions) - and listened less to general medics like CMO & CSO. |  |
| |
| Is on 17:28 - Apr 18 with 823 views | longtimefan |
| Is "following the science" on 17:20 - Apr 18 by Ryorry |
The epidemiologist doctor who phoned in to Any Answers on BBCRadio4 this pm was scathing about the Govt. Said they'd been listening to wrong docs/scientists - should have listened more to those experienced in epidemiology, social care & pandemics (at the very least should have had those in on the discussions) - and listened less to general medics like CMO & CSO. |
You may not realise this but the CMO Professor Chris Whitty is an epidemiologist! He is also a practising NHS consultant physician at University Hospitals (UCLH) and the Hospital for Tropical Diseases. [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 17:30]
| | | |
| Is on 17:28 - Apr 18 with 825 views | monytowbray |
| Is "following the science" on 16:58 - Apr 18 by WD19 |
Thanks for your impartial view.
Personally speaking I am not clear why people like the Chief Medical Officer and his senior team would deliberately lie, but perhaps I am just naive. |
If you believe these scientists have been driven by either/or...
- freedom to conclude.
- having their actual recommendations implemented without any interference.
...then maybe you are a bit naive.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people you can trust the Tories on anything.
They can’t even be straight on Brexit promises, poverty levels, election interference or a tower block setting fire and killing a few dozen people whilst survivors still await rehoming because they covered the building in flammable padding, allowed big business to rig the safety laws and then blamed THE FIREFIGHTERS.
As I said before, a large chunk of the nation are stuck in an abusive relationship with the Conservatives and have been gaslighted beyond all believe. I hope we can wake up from this nightmare soon.
You’ve got two upvotes from our resident “I don’t vote Tory honestly but who I vote for is none of your business” posters on here anyway so well done. [Post edited 18 Apr 2020 17:34]
| |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 17:31 - Apr 18 with 817 views | monytowbray |
Stop sharing expert evidence that isn’t from the Conservative propaganda wing! You’ll get told you’re not being impartial LOLZ. | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 17:32 - Apr 18 with 810 views | Ryorry |
| Is "following the science" on 17:04 - Apr 18 by eireblue |
Are the scientists the government is being guided by, exclusively “viral infection experts”?
I haven’t seen many post critical of specific viral infection science.
I have seen posts critical of the government decision making.
Can you confirm that all government decision making has been made by viral infection experts? |
Hadn't seen this post of yours when I wrote mine of 5.20pm a few mins ago, but according to the epidemiologist doc I referred to there, the answer to your question is either "no", "barely" or "not enough". | |
| |
| Is "following the science" on 17:33 - Apr 18 with 811 views | WD19 |
| Is "following the science" on 17:20 - Apr 18 by Ryorry |
The epidemiologist doctor who phoned in to Any Answers on BBCRadio4 this pm was scathing about the Govt. Said they'd been listening to wrong docs/scientists - should have listened more to those experienced in epidemiology, social care & pandemics (at the very least should have had those in on the discussions) - and listened less to general medics like CMO & CSO. |
Professor John Newton is, amongst other things...
Honorary Professor of Public Health and Epidemiology at the University of Manchester and University of Exeter and academic epidemiologist in the University of Oxford.
He is also outstandingly sensible...although that is neither here nor there.
I judge him unlikely to be a liar. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
