Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[drdel]

If anyone is interested there are plenty of quotes around from people who have and do work for Cummings and speak well of him; but that doesn't fit the childish "svengali" narrative

The PM and the Cabinet members ares not stupid and BJ does not lack the confidence to follow his own mind. He would not be swayed from his views by Cummings or any other advisor unless the information warranted it..

Advisors and Departmental resps attend most Government 'Expert' panels and, often because of activists and security reasons membership is not always widely broadcast/ publicised; It also allows the 'experts' to be frank.

Just because its not all over the media does not make it sinister.

 

[Hobbit]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.....
He's top SPAD to Johnson Govt, not a minister, who has form for heavy interference, just ask S Javid. No reason to be there other than to lean on them for govt friendly output.
When my FoI request is returned with minutes I will happily share.

In other words, you don't know. And you won't know till the FoI kicks in well down the road. But you still don't know, do you? Do you? No need to answer, its pretty obvious you don't know.

 

[Hobbit]

I don't actually really care much either.

Despite any suspicions I might hold given the man's admitted history of spin and scheming to the public in the interests of Johnson and the government - if he helps the government make the right decisions then that's fine by me.

In time it is the government and Johnson who be judged by the public on their handling of the coronavirus pandemic - not Cummings. Johnson can listen to whomsoever he wants - as long as Cummings is not influencing the decisions and advice given by SAGE. Cummings can try and influence what Johnson does with the advice - what advice Johnson accepts is the prerogative of the PM and the government.

Is that right answer. We all know Cummings' reputation, and some might have a better idea than others. I agree it doesn't read well, and I'm inclined to believe some of it. But the, he's there to lean on SAGE, is pathetic. No one leans on a top scientist, or if they do they're ignored. Any one of them could walk away tomorrow into a top job in the world. Being leaned on, jeez, me sides are splitting.

Next there'll be monsters under beds

 

[funkycoldmedina]

If anyone is interested there are plenty of quotes around from people who have and do work for Cummings and speak well of him; but that doesn't fit the childish "svengali" narrative

The PM and the Cabinet members ares not stupid and BJ does not lack the confidence to follow his own mind. He would not be swayed from his views by Cummings or any other advisor unless the information warranted it..

Advisors and Departmental resps attend most Government 'Expert' panels and, often because of activists and security reasons membership is not always widely broadcast/ publicised; It also allows the 'experts' to be frank.

Just because its not all over the media does not make it sinister.

He's another product of how binary our political discourse has become, you either love him or loathe him dependent on your political affiliation with no middle ground.
What I don't like about the SAGE meetings is not who is on the advisory panel, that can be anonymised but that there is no minuted public record of the meetings. The term being led by the science is used a lot. Well have they been led by the advice and what was that? It's not sinister but neither is it very transparent.

 

[rosecott]

He's another product of how binary our political discourse has become, you either love him or loathe him dependent on your political affiliation with no middle ground.
What I don't like about the SAGE meetings is not who is on the advisory panel, that can be anonymised but that there is no minuted public record of the meetings. The term being led by the science is used a lot. Well have they been led by the advice and what was that? It's not sinister but neither is it very transparent.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

I believe the minutes of the current meetings are not being released at this stage but will be released at some time.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

He's another product of how binary our political discourse has become, you either love him or loathe him dependent on your political affiliation with no middle ground.
What I don't like about the SAGE meetings is not who is on the advisory panel, that can be anonymised but that there is no minuted public record of the meetings. The term being led by the science is used a lot. Well have they been led by the advice and what was that? It's not sinister but neither is it very transparent.

But I simply don't think that it's as B&W as you suggest.

I had zero time for him in the context of Brexit - but if he helps Johnson make the right decisions on coronavirus then I'll say good on him. I don't actually care if Johnson and the Conservatives gain politically from their handling of the pandemic if things turn out well. That I don't think they have handled things that well to date is a separate matter altogether - what has happened so far will be taken into account in the final reckoning. What happens from now on is what is critically important - especially in respect of the risk associated with PPE, testing and easing of restrictions and a second wave in autumn.

I would be concerned were it to turn out that Cummings was in any way pressurising SAGE on the conclusions they reach and what they advise the government. But I doubt very much that anything of that is happening. Cummings can advise Johnson on what to do with that advice, and Johnson can listen to Cummings or not.

And for the same reason I am not that bothered about knowing what is discussed in SAGE and what advice it gives. I suspect it is very sensitive, and what a government does with sensitive information is entirely up to that government.

 

[funkycoldmedina]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/830336/toddbrook_minutes_06_08_19.pdf

I believe the minutes of the current meetings are not being released at this stage but will be released at some time.

Thanks, that's definitely a good way forward as they seem to be pretty timely.

 

[Ethan]

I haven't read al the posts here, but this is my take:

Firstly, it is worth saying that this is a very tough, unprecedented situation which only has a series of bad choices available. On the one hand, restrictions, limitations on public freedom, directly affecting aspects of the economy, on the other a huge death toll and probably much the same economic effects, only indirectly occurring. In some cases, I am happy to see him screw up, because to will hurt him politically. Not this case, in which the price of failures is measured in bodies.

Having said that, I think Johnson has still done a pretty bad job and made it much worse than it needed to be. This is in part because of the bad job done by previous Governments. The pandemic planning exercise in 2016 identified PPE and ventilators as being critical issues. Nothing was done here to prepare for that need. Other countries acted much more wisely. The NHS has been run down over they last few years in terms of bed numbers and staffing. Many EU doctors and nurses have left. Many others have restricted their hours because of perverse incentives in the pension system. Others have left because of scapegoating of medical staff for managerial failings.

I trained as a public health physician some years ago, although I now work in pharma drug development. The basic principle of outbreak management is test, trace and isolate. That we are only starting doing so now is somewhere worse than shameful. The herd immunity strategy, supposedly promoted by Dominic Cummings, was a massive gamble even if you know that immunity is conferred by exposure. We don't even know that. Shielding older people is only a temporary fix. Even when you achieve herd immunity thresholds, that doesn't mean older people are safe. Transmission will still occur and they will be picked off. The herd immunity strategy would have cost an unspeakable number of lives.

The pack of lies about the UKs membership of the EU procurement systems should be a public scandal for which senior heads rolled. Unfortunate it is part of the ideology that separation from the EU must be absolute. Dropping out of the European Medicines Agency is another part of this, and we should urgently make sure that the UK MHRA is aligned with EMA on treatment and vaccine development.

The Govt sneakily downgraded Covid from being a High Consequence Infectious Disease. This allowed them to downgrade PPE regulations without legal liability. This is a cynical move.

It was clear for some time that Itlay was giving the UK a vision of the future. At a time when Italy was seeing exponential rise in cases and deaths, we should have locked down, imposed immigration controls and acted to suppress this condition. Instead we saw political uncertainty, eventually followed by Johnson's advice not to go to the pub, which his father said he would ignore. Then a week later, we saw the current lockdown arrangements. That delay with advice, then strengthening it, was probably pretty critical. That is why we have busted through 20k hospital deaths, probably 40k in total, and will likely see a lot more.

Now, the Govt parrots lines about following the science. Nonsense, they have not done so thus far. Nor did they do it at the right time when they eventually did. Testing is a shambles, PPE is still a disaster and now Johnson has a choice to make. It basically boils down to what level of increase of cases will he tolerate in order to placate backbenchers. Instead of Raab and the like deflecting every question about exit strategy to an answer that it is too soon, they should publish criteria that will allow some degree of easing. This could be in terms of an X% reduction in deaths from the peak sustained for Y days, or an Ro reduced to 0.6 or whatever. Their call what they are, but publish and let UK public health, social scientists and other people debate them and reach a national consensus. This should also have reinstatement criteria if things get out of control again. That way, Johnson would have broad agreement for the easing strategy. If he doesn't and sticks to his 5 vague tests, it become a purely political decision, and then he owns it and all the bodies that go with it. He would be really unwise to do that.

 

[User62651]

In other words, you don't know. And you won't know till the FoI kicks in well down the road. But you still don't know, do you? Do you? No need to answer, its pretty obvious you don't know.

You have no idea he's not there to exert political influence any more than I think he is. He's not a scientist at a supposedly impartial scientific advisory group, he is very influential in government and his presence was leaked because some think he shouldn't be there. He is unaccountable and unelected yet wields significant power in No 10, that is not a secret and worries many people. Your asking for proof of political opinion is largely impossible in this case. It was a big enough story with ample commentary from those who are or have been close to the workings of govt to be worth discussion. SAGE should be apolitical, it's a story because it was him and it was secretive. Clearly some political angle to it.

 

[Old Skier]

All this so called leaking without the leaker having the gonads to but their name to it. Perhaps it really isn't a leak at it has been common knowledge and those that matter don't give a stuff.

 

[drdel]

I haven't read al the posts here, but this is my take:

Firstly, it is worth saying that this is a very tough, unprecedented situation which only has a series of bad choices available. On the one hand, restrictions, limitations on public freedom, directly affecting aspects of the economy, on the other a huge death toll and probably much the same economic effects, only indirectly occurring. In some cases, I am happy to see him screw up, because to will hurt him politically. Not this case, in which the price of failures is measured in bodies.

Having said that, I think Johnson has still done a pretty bad job and made it much worse than it needed to be. This is in part because of the bad job done by previous Governments. The pandemic planning exercise in 2016 identified PPE and ventilators as being critical issues. Nothing was done here to prepare for that need. Other countries acted much more wisely. The NHS has been run down over they last few years in terms of bed numbers and staffing. Many EU doctors and nurses have left. Many others have restricted their hours because of perverse incentives in the pension system. Others have left because of scapegoating of medical staff for managerial failings.

I trained as a public health physician some years ago, although I now work in pharma drug development. The basic principle of outbreak management is test, trace and isolate. That we are only starting doing so now is somewhere worse than shameful. The herd immunity strategy, supposedly promoted by Dominic Cummings, was a massive gamble even if you know that immunity is conferred by exposure. We don't even know that. Shielding older people is only a temporary fix. Even when you achieve herd immunity thresholds, that doesn't mean older people are safe. Transmission will still occur and they will be picked off. The herd immunity strategy would have cost an unspeakable number of lives.

The pack of lies about the UKs membership of the EU procurement systems should be a public scandal for which senior heads rolled. Unfortunate it is part of the ideology that separation from the EU must be absolute. Dropping out of the European Medicines Agency is another part of this, and we should urgently make sure that the UK MHRA is aligned with EMA on treatment and vaccine development.

The Govt sneakily downgraded Covid from being a High Consequence Infectious Disease. This allowed them to downgrade PPE regulations without legal liability. This is a cynical move.

It was clear for some time that Itlay was giving the UK a vision of the future. At a time when Italy was seeing exponential rise in cases and deaths, we should have locked down, imposed immigration controls and acted to suppress this condition. Instead we saw political uncertainty, eventually followed by Johnson's advice not to go to the pub, which his father said he would ignore. Then a week later, we saw the current lockdown arrangements. That delay with advice, then strengthening it, was probably pretty critical. That is why we have busted through 20k hospital deaths, probably 40k in total, and will likely see a lot more.

Now, the Govt parrots lines about following the science. Nonsense, they have not done so thus far. Nor did they do it at the right time when they eventually did. Testing is a shambles, PPE is still a disaster and now Johnson has a choice to make. It basically boils down to what level of increase of cases will he tolerate in order to placate backbenchers. Instead of Raab and the like deflecting every question about exit strategy to an answer that it is too soon, they should publish criteria that will allow some degree of easing. This could be in terms of an X% reduction in deaths from the peak sustained for Y days, or an Ro reduced to 0.6 or whatever. Their call what they are, but publish and let UK public health, social scientists and other people debate them and reach a national consensus. This should also have reinstatement criteria if things get out of control again. That way, Johnson would have broad agreement for the easing strategy. If he doesn't and sticks to his 5 vague tests, it become a purely political decision, and then he owns it and all the bodies that go with it. He would be really unwise to do that.

Then you will know the NHS has been short of money for 4 decades at least. A variety of reasons mostly not political.

You refer to the PM but he was not in position in 2016

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Thank you Ethan, you have put my exact take on this Government's actions in letters and words far more cleverly than I would ever manage.

 

[funkycoldmedina]

Then you will know the NHS has been short of money for 4 decades at least. A variety of reasons mostly not political.

You refer to the PM but he was not in position in 2016

What are the reasons then?

 

[Ethan]

Then you will know the NHS has been short of money for 4 decades at least. A variety of reasons mostly not political.

You refer to the PM but he was not in position in 2016

The NHS has not been critically short of money for 4 decades. There have been period s or reasonable funding. Much of the money has, in recent years, been spent on trappings on the internal market which has been an enormous waste of needed NHS money.

I know Johnson was not PM in 2016, hence my reference to 'previous Govts'.

Johnson's main failing as PM has been his contribution to losing NHS staff, failing to align with EMA and failing to get his finger out fast enough despite the ruling of WHO and others. He contributed to some previous Govt failings and an MP and Minister.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I haven't read al the posts here, but this is my take:

Firstly, it is worth saying that this is a very tough, unprecedented situation which only has a series of bad choices available. On the one hand, restrictions, limitations on public freedom, directly affecting aspects of the economy, on the other a huge death toll and probably much the same economic effects, only indirectly occurring. In some cases, I am happy to see him screw up, because to will hurt him politically. Not this case, in which the price of failures is measured in bodies.

Having said that, I think Johnson has still done a pretty bad job and made it much worse than it needed to be. This is in part because of the bad job done by previous Governments. The pandemic planning exercise in 2016 identified PPE and ventilators as being critical issues. Nothing was done here to prepare for that need. Other countries acted much more wisely. The NHS has been run down over they last few years in terms of bed numbers and staffing. Many EU doctors and nurses have left. Many others have restricted their hours because of perverse incentives in the pension system. Others have left because of scapegoating of medical staff for managerial failings.

I trained as a public health physician some years ago, although I now work in pharma drug development. The basic principle of outbreak management is test, trace and isolate. That we are only starting doing so now is somewhere worse than shameful. The herd immunity strategy, supposedly promoted by Dominic Cummings, was a massive gamble even if you know that immunity is conferred by exposure. We don't even know that. Shielding older people is only a temporary fix. Even when you achieve herd immunity thresholds, that doesn't mean older people are safe. Transmission will still occur and they will be picked off. The herd immunity strategy would have cost an unspeakable number of lives.

The pack of lies about the UKs membership of the EU procurement systems should be a public scandal for which senior heads rolled. Unfortunate it is part of the ideology that separation from the EU must be absolute. Dropping out of the European Medicines Agency is another part of this, and we should urgently make sure that the UK MHRA is aligned with EMA on treatment and vaccine development.

The Govt sneakily downgraded Covid from being a High Consequence Infectious Disease. This allowed them to downgrade PPE regulations without legal liability. This is a cynical move.

It was clear for some time that Itlay was giving the UK a vision of the future. At a time when Italy was seeing exponential rise in cases and deaths, we should have locked down, imposed immigration controls and acted to suppress this condition. Instead we saw political uncertainty, eventually followed by Johnson's advice not to go to the pub, which his father said he would ignore. Then a week later, we saw the current lockdown arrangements. That delay with advice, then strengthening it, was probably pretty critical. That is why we have busted through 20k hospital deaths, probably 40k in total, and will likely see a lot more.

Now, the Govt parrots lines about following the science. Nonsense, they have not done so thus far. Nor did they do it at the right time when they eventually did. Testing is a shambles, PPE is still a disaster and now Johnson has a choice to make. It basically boils down to what level of increase of cases will he tolerate in order to placate backbenchers. Instead of Raab and the like deflecting every question about exit strategy to an answer that it is too soon, they should publish criteria that will allow some degree of easing. This could be in terms of an X% reduction in deaths from the peak sustained for Y days, or an Ro reduced to 0.6 or whatever. Their call what they are, but publish and let UK public health, social scientists and other people debate them and reach a national consensus. This should also have reinstatement criteria if things get out of control again. That way, Johnson would have broad agreement for the easing strategy. If he doesn't and sticks to his 5 vague tests, it become a purely political decision, and then he owns it and all the bodies that go with it. He would be really unwise to do that.

 

[Old Skier]

It's only his take as he says, doesn't make it fact.

 

[User20205]

It's only his take as he says, doesn't make it fact.

no not fact, but I imagine, considered opinion backed up by an understanding of the medicine, disease control & the politics surrounding the NHS. Why would we listen to that ??

 

[Hacker Khan]

It's only his take as he says, doesn't make it fact.

Yes it is a take but it was IMHO a very intelligent post by someone with obvious insight and experience in this area. Anyone is free to intelligently counter it.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

@Ethan dont be talking too much sense, you'll be accused of playing Party Politics and/or being a "loony leftie"

What a post though ??

 

[SocketRocket]

I haven't read al the posts here, but this is my take:

Firstly, it is worth saying that this is a very tough, unprecedented situation which only has a series of bad choices available. On the one hand, restrictions, limitations on public freedom, directly affecting aspects of the economy, on the other a huge death toll and probably much the same economic effects, only indirectly occurring. In some cases, I am happy to see him screw up, because to will hurt him politically. Not this case, in which the price of failures is measured in bodies.

Having said that, I think Johnson has still done a pretty bad job and made it much worse than it needed to be. This is in part because of the bad job done by previous Governments. The pandemic planning exercise in 2016 identified PPE and ventilators as being critical issues. Nothing was done here to prepare for that need. Other countries acted much more wisely. The NHS has been run down over they last few years in terms of bed numbers and staffing. Many EU doctors and nurses have left. Many others have restricted their hours because of perverse incentives in the pension system. Others have left because of scapegoating of medical staff for managerial failings.

I trained as a public health physician some years ago, although I now work in pharma drug development. The basic principle of outbreak management is test, trace and isolate. That we are only starting doing so now is somewhere worse than shameful. The herd immunity strategy, supposedly promoted by Dominic Cummings, was a massive gamble even if you know that immunity is conferred by exposure. We don't even know that. Shielding older people is only a temporary fix. Even when you achieve herd immunity thresholds, that doesn't mean older people are safe. Transmission will still occur and they will be picked off. The herd immunity strategy would have cost an unspeakable number of lives.

The pack of lies about the UKs membership of the EU procurement systems should be a public scandal for which senior heads rolled. Unfortunate it is part of the ideology that separation from the EU must be absolute. Dropping out of the European Medicines Agency is another part of this, and we should urgently make sure that the UK MHRA is aligned with EMA on treatment and vaccine development.

The Govt sneakily downgraded Covid from being a High Consequence Infectious Disease. This allowed them to downgrade PPE regulations without legal liability. This is a cynical move.

It was clear for some time that Itlay was giving the UK a vision of the future. At a time when Italy was seeing exponential rise in cases and deaths, we should have locked down, imposed immigration controls and acted to suppress this condition. Instead we saw political uncertainty, eventually followed by Johnson's advice not to go to the pub, which his father said he would ignore. Then a week later, we saw the current lockdown arrangements. That delay with advice, then strengthening it, was probably pretty critical. That is why we have busted through 20k hospital deaths, probably 40k in total, and will likely see a lot more.

Now, the Govt parrots lines about following the science. Nonsense, they have not done so thus far. Nor did they do it at the right time when they eventually did. Testing is a shambles, PPE is still a disaster and now Johnson has a choice to make. It basically boils down to what level of increase of cases will he tolerate in order to placate backbenchers. Instead of Raab and the like deflecting every question about exit strategy to an answer that it is too soon, they should publish criteria that will allow some degree of easing. This could be in terms of an X% reduction in deaths from the peak sustained for Y days, or an Ro reduced to 0.6 or whatever. Their call what they are, but publish and let UK public health, social scientists and other people debate them and reach a national consensus. This should also have reinstatement criteria if things get out of control again. That way, Johnson would have broad agreement for the easing strategy. If he doesn't and sticks to his 5 vague tests, it become a purely political decision, and then he owns it and all the bodies that go with it. He would be really unwise to do that.

A very politically biased post that is very quick to make criticism but slow to offer any praise. I apreciate it's your opinion but it comes over very unbalanced to me. Although; based on your past postings I expect little else.