| Consensus has not changed on 09:30 - May 10 with 860 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:19 - May 10 by Guthrum |
What this really highlights is that virtually all governments are, in reality, more or less chaotic, muddling through from crisis to crisis. We just don't always get to see quite as much of that out in the open.
Even those who set out with a concrete plan fall into shambles when practicalities or unforseen events get in the way.
I'm not sure whether this administration is even a particularly bad example, they have just been put under an especially harsh spotlight with Brexit and the Covid-19 outbreak. |
Agreed.
If only we had stocked up on hindsight before this pandemic broke.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing will be the mantra for years to come in response to this. |  | |  |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:34 - May 10 with 842 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:30 - May 10 by blueblueburleymcgrew |
Agreed.
If only we had stocked up on hindsight before this pandemic broke.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing will be the mantra for years to come in response to this. |
If only herbivore had been made CMO instead of Chris Whitty. With his degree in armchair epidemiology from the university of social media we could have had a far better outcome. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:37 - May 10 with 832 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:22 - May 10 by eireblue |
There is no science on “lockdown fatigue”, only opinion. |
And yet we see it happening all around us. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:43 - May 10 with 810 views | StokieBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:22 - May 10 by eireblue |
There is no science on “lockdown fatigue”, only opinion. |
I agree there is no science around lockdown fatigue so we probably need to go on observations and what the police are telling us (some photos in the article along with the police tweet):
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/police-losing-battle-lockdown-breaches-pi
There are photos from lots of other parks in London with similar or worse scenes as well.
It wasn't great in London yesterday. Weather much worse today so hopefully that will counteract things a bit.
SB [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:46]
|  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:45 - May 10 with 799 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:34 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
If only herbivore had been made CMO instead of Chris Whitty. With his degree in armchair epidemiology from the university of social media we could have had a far better outcome. |
Was the decision to lock down just based on epidemiology then?
Did Chris Whitty give the Government one course of action? |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:47 - May 10 with 792 views | Churchman |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:17 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
The strategy, as set out by Valance and Whitty, was always about timing the lockdown to start a few weeks before the peak whilst ensuring that leak was at a number that didn’t overwhelm
NHS capacity. They explained that if we went too soon thane lockdown fatigue would set in (which we are seeing as each day passes) infection rates would go up and the NHS would collapse as it did in Italy.
Remember the footage of the Italian field hospitals that resembled a scene from M*A*S*H? Or the footage of people dying on the floor in Italian hospitals due to the lack of beds? And being told that if this could happen in one of the best funded healthcare systems in Europe then what chance did the “underfunded NHS” have?
These are the questions that came into play when it was decided in the timing of the lockdown. From what the SAGE whistleblowers are saying is that the scientists didn’t bend to government inter fence and made there decision based in what they thought was the best outcome.
As I said, we won’t know if this was right or wrong for at least another year to 18 months, ince we have coped with the second and possibly third waves. Did that extra couple of weeks build up sine extra herd immunity to cope with a second wave? [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:18]
|
The irony is that by not doing what was blindingly obvious and going hard into lockdown like NZ, Portugal, even Greece, not only have people died unnecessarily, but they’ve made it far worse in economy terms because restrictions will last far longer. The rate of infection is still high and deaths still high by comparison. We still have had no border control either. Basically chaos.
The government needed to go hard and early - two weeks earlier really. It has no excuses as it was crystal clear from Italy where this was going and it could see what others were doing. Lockdown fatigue? Another idiotic assumption. Who was the expert on that? They didn’t know; they guessed based on the feeling that the plebs wouldn’t comply.
People are actually keeping their distance as far as I can see, even if they are getting about more. They have been overall far more responsible than a government that tells lies about testing numbers and has to send 50k to America last week because of failures here - strangely omitted from the briefings when the numbers were trumpeted out. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:52]
|  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:52 - May 10 with 777 views | Darth_Koont |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:30 - May 10 by blueblueburleymcgrew |
Agreed.
If only we had stocked up on hindsight before this pandemic broke.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing will be the mantra for years to come in response to this. |
Although the Cygnus exercise was explicitly designed to let us "stock up on hindsight". And we've already seen the mortality effects in normal times of stripping the NHS and care back.
There have been major systemic failures here. Possibly even some personal and professional negligence failures too. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:53 - May 10 with 775 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:43 - May 10 by StokieBlue |
I agree there is no science around lockdown fatigue so we probably need to go on observations and what the police are telling us (some photos in the article along with the police tweet):
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/police-losing-battle-lockdown-breaches-pi
There are photos from lots of other parks in London with similar or worse scenes as well.
It wasn't great in London yesterday. Weather much worse today so hopefully that will counteract things a bit.
SB [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:46]
|
Correct.
But GB has implied, when attacking posters or defended the Government, that “lockdown fatigue” was a factor, and hence the timing of the lockdown was correct.
There was no science on lockdown fatigue.
One of the SAGE advisors has been open in stating they didn’t realise that the U.K. population would actually follow the lockdown as well as they did.
There is still no science on “lockdown fatigue”, e.g. is it better to have lockdown, with 70% adherence resulting in an R number of x. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consensus has not changed on 10:00 - May 10 with 757 views | NewcyBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:53 - May 10 by eireblue |
Correct.
But GB has implied, when attacking posters or defended the Government, that “lockdown fatigue” was a factor, and hence the timing of the lockdown was correct.
There was no science on lockdown fatigue.
One of the SAGE advisors has been open in stating they didn’t realise that the U.K. population would actually follow the lockdown as well as they did.
There is still no science on “lockdown fatigue”, e.g. is it better to have lockdown, with 70% adherence resulting in an R number of x. |
If there is no science on this, surely there will have been assumptions made.
They can’t have not factored lockdown fatigue into any planning. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:00 - May 10 with 752 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:29 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
And absolutely pathetic response from you. |
An entirely accurate response actually. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:01 - May 10 with 754 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:37 - May 10 by blueblueburleymcgrew |
And yet we see it happening all around us. |
That is an observation, not science.
In March, you would not have been able to tell me that the lockdown would hold with an adherence of x% of over y weeks, and have an effect of the R number and death rate. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:02 - May 10 with 748 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:34 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
If only herbivore had been made CMO instead of Chris Whitty. With his degree in armchair epidemiology from the university of social media we could have had a far better outcome. |
Your attempts to deflect any criticism from the government are utterly pathetic, so this kind of childish bullish!t is about your level. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:05 - May 10 with 741 views | footers |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:02 - May 10 by Herbivore |
Your attempts to deflect any criticism from the government are utterly pathetic, so this kind of childish bullish!t is about your level. |
Please don't waste Gibbers' time with your childish games. After all, he graces us with his expert knowledge even though there is sanding to be done. Think you owe him an apology. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:06 - May 10 with 735 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:53 - May 10 by eireblue |
Correct.
But GB has implied, when attacking posters or defended the Government, that “lockdown fatigue” was a factor, and hence the timing of the lockdown was correct.
There was no science on lockdown fatigue.
One of the SAGE advisors has been open in stating they didn’t realise that the U.K. population would actually follow the lockdown as well as they did.
There is still no science on “lockdown fatigue”, e.g. is it better to have lockdown, with 70% adherence resulting in an R number of x. |
And a later lockdown very likely means a longer lock down since the peak is both higher and longer than early intervention. So any thinking around lockdown fatigue was horribly unsophisticated. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:06 - May 10 with 737 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:02 - May 10 by Herbivore |
Your attempts to deflect any criticism from the government are utterly pathetic, so this kind of childish bullish!t is about your level. |
I’ve criticised the government on numerous threads. Including this one.
Read what is written rather than what your prejudice wants to read.
I gave what I thought was a fair assessment if the SAGE thinking regarding the timing of the lockdown based on the announcements of the CMO and the CSA and yet you whet in with a childish “apologist” jibe.
Maybe your just pissed off that your thinking was along the same lines as Dominic Cummings rather than SAGE. Either way you can go back on the div list for a while. You are incapable of having a rational discussion with somebody who holds a different view to you. [Post edited 10 May 2020 10:07]
| |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:09 - May 10 with 725 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:00 - May 10 by NewcyBlue |
If there is no science on this, surely there will have been assumptions made.
They can’t have not factored lockdown fatigue into any planning. |
The Government made the decisions on what to do.
It keeps saying, it followed the science. Some people keep defending this position.
If the Government made a decision, based on a theory of lockdown fatigue, or for instance balancing the needs of the economy, it was not following the science.
There was not a single action given by SAGE to the Government. A range of outcomes was always presented.
The Government, lead by a non-detail, libertarian PM, that didn’t attend a number of COBRA meetings, that also has “nudge” unit, decided to say things like, please don’t go to the pub, rather than closing pubs, in the middle of an exponentially growing pandemic.
I think it is quite reasonably that people can be critical of the government actions. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:11 - May 10 with 716 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:05 - May 10 by footers |
Please don't waste Gibbers' time with your childish games. After all, he graces us with his expert knowledge even though there is sanding to be done. Think you owe him an apology. |
Sanding the banister is so two weeks ago.
It’s refurbishing the games room this weekend. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:11 - May 10 with 715 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:06 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
I’ve criticised the government on numerous threads. Including this one.
Read what is written rather than what your prejudice wants to read.
I gave what I thought was a fair assessment if the SAGE thinking regarding the timing of the lockdown based on the announcements of the CMO and the CSA and yet you whet in with a childish “apologist” jibe.
Maybe your just pissed off that your thinking was along the same lines as Dominic Cummings rather than SAGE. Either way you can go back on the div list for a while. You are incapable of having a rational discussion with somebody who holds a different view to you. [Post edited 10 May 2020 10:07]
|
I'm really getting through my irony meters this year. Please div list away, it's a compliment to me to be div listed by you. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:13 - May 10 with 710 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:09 - May 10 by eireblue |
The Government made the decisions on what to do.
It keeps saying, it followed the science. Some people keep defending this position.
If the Government made a decision, based on a theory of lockdown fatigue, or for instance balancing the needs of the economy, it was not following the science.
There was not a single action given by SAGE to the Government. A range of outcomes was always presented.
The Government, lead by a non-detail, libertarian PM, that didn’t attend a number of COBRA meetings, that also has “nudge” unit, decided to say things like, please don’t go to the pub, rather than closing pubs, in the middle of an exponentially growing pandemic.
I think it is quite reasonably that people can be critical of the government actions. |
Yep. Those who keep parroting the "following the science" line and defending the government on that basis really need to take a look at themselves. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:14 - May 10 with 711 views | NewcyBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:01 - May 10 by eireblue |
That is an observation, not science.
In March, you would not have been able to tell me that the lockdown would hold with an adherence of x% of over y weeks, and have an effect of the R number and death rate. |
I wonder if a study into social media posts would have given an idea as to lockdown adherence.
People seem to put every aspect of their lives on social media. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:14 - May 10 with 710 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:06 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
I’ve criticised the government on numerous threads. Including this one.
Read what is written rather than what your prejudice wants to read.
I gave what I thought was a fair assessment if the SAGE thinking regarding the timing of the lockdown based on the announcements of the CMO and the CSA and yet you whet in with a childish “apologist” jibe.
Maybe your just pissed off that your thinking was along the same lines as Dominic Cummings rather than SAGE. Either way you can go back on the div list for a while. You are incapable of having a rational discussion with somebody who holds a different view to you. [Post edited 10 May 2020 10:07]
|
Well what is amusing.
Callis was even further ahead of Cummings, in his thinking and questioning.
Maybe Callis should be one of the free thinkers that Cummings was looking for. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:16 - May 10 with 696 views | sparks |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:53 - May 10 by eireblue |
Correct.
But GB has implied, when attacking posters or defended the Government, that “lockdown fatigue” was a factor, and hence the timing of the lockdown was correct.
There was no science on lockdown fatigue.
One of the SAGE advisors has been open in stating they didn’t realise that the U.K. population would actually follow the lockdown as well as they did.
There is still no science on “lockdown fatigue”, e.g. is it better to have lockdown, with 70% adherence resulting in an R number of x. |
Three was explicit advice on lockdown fatigure from the CMO. he talked about it being a factor in briefings... |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:19 - May 10 with 686 views | footers |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:11 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Sanding the banister is so two weeks ago.
It’s refurbishing the games room this weekend. |
Most of us just call it the bedroom. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:22 - May 10 with 682 views | Darth_Koont |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:09 - May 10 by eireblue |
The Government made the decisions on what to do.
It keeps saying, it followed the science. Some people keep defending this position.
If the Government made a decision, based on a theory of lockdown fatigue, or for instance balancing the needs of the economy, it was not following the science.
There was not a single action given by SAGE to the Government. A range of outcomes was always presented.
The Government, lead by a non-detail, libertarian PM, that didn’t attend a number of COBRA meetings, that also has “nudge” unit, decided to say things like, please don’t go to the pub, rather than closing pubs, in the middle of an exponentially growing pandemic.
I think it is quite reasonably that people can be critical of the government actions. |
Indeed.
And re: the guidance and taking a Swedish long-term approach that balances containment with slowly building immunity, the central issue is whether we had the healthcare resources and emergency preparedness to cope. That is specifically what Ferguson's Imperial model addresses and was rushed out in order to change the approach and demand a lockdown.
But the relative lack of healthcare provision and preparedness should have been the bottom line from the start, surely?
Whether politics got in the way or there was simply a failure to assess the risk in the first place, it's been a poor performance. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
