funkycoldmedina
Newbie
Maybe we should apportion more of our taxes then.
Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...
- Thread starter AmandaJR
- Start date
- Status
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
What we get for free is the reason I'm still here posting; without it I would be no longer, and like yourself, am very glad of it.
looks like cuts started alreadyhttps://www.fbu.org.uk/news/2020/04...cbbv6loP0Giedo5ssgWi3kEAEpNWIAdkIJPTbUwNGlX-k
i see you missed out Tory cuts for the last 10 years
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
If you read the article, you will see both scientists quoted are members of the committee. Both declined to be named, which is understandable given Cummings' reputation.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Membership of the SAGE Coronavirus is kept secret unless the attendee themself disclose they are part of it.
Maybe part of them speaking to the guardian is on the understanding their name is witheld.
It really isn’t as straightforward as simply naming the “shocked” scientists or dismissing it as sour grapes from some other scientist.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
If some of the scientists on SAGE are worried that the presence of Cummings has "inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process" then maybe those scientists need to be replaced with others who aren't influenced by the presence of someone with no, or very little, scientific knowledge.
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
Why not post up the front page of the Sun too? Seriously, you're quoting a paper that is anti-Tory, and saying its all true? Do you see one named source? However, the article does name the person(attendee), Prof Ferguson, who doesn't feel there's anything wrong with Cummings being there. And the unnamed source... the tooth fairy?
Further down the article someone who perhaps would have a major axe to grind with Cummings, the ex-chancellor Sajid Javid, said he sees no problem with govt advisors attending and does have a poke at the media for sowing mistrust - I note you only quoted the bits that supported your argument... that kinda says something too.
And where is this storm of controversary? Plastered all over the Beeb and ITV? Wow, a silent tsunami of a stormreally, this is the best evidence?
A quick Google shows the story on BBC and ITV websites as well as Sky and a number of national newspapers.
I merely posted the first couple of paragraphs as well as providing a link to the full article. If I had just been picking out the bits which suited my argument, I would have included this bit -
"The Conservative former Brexit secretary, David Davis, also criticised the attendance of Cummings and Warner at the Sage meetings. “The whole point of having Sage is you’re getting scientific advice based on the data, based on the best theories, and the best models we have at the time,” he told Sky News. “You don’t want any outside influences, either direct or indirect, either deliberate or accidental.”
Old Skier
Tour Winner
And if there were any shenanigans it will all come out but I'm not convinced that high grade scientists worth anything would be worried about Cummings and seeing as Willey admitted on national TV as to his membership why would people who thought that something was going on wouldn't come out in the open. There is also the evidence by a named member that nothing wrong or inappropriate was going on.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Just pointing out it’s not so easy to just name these people if they don’t wish to be named.
It wouldn’t be the first time a Government has been accussed of taking bad advice from a so called “expert”.
If there’s no issue then why not name the SAGE and publish the advice they are following?
Old Skier
Tour Winner
A member of the committee who has the gonads to say his name is saying nothing strange in Cummings being there and he is not involved in any of the scientific recommendations so who do you choose to believe, the choice is yours.
We could take turns at this. You believe one thing, and I believe something else. As an aside, and for clarity, I'd prefer a socialist(Labour) govt, so please don't think I have a Tory bias. However, I prefer my evidence to be nailed on facts, not opinions and editorials.
I don't for one minute think any government of any flavour would risk doing anything stupid. Why? If it comes out that they deliberately did something stupid their chance of being re-elected would be close on zero. Do you think Boris, the 1922 Committee and the rest of the Tory party are that stupid? Do you think they'd let Cummings influence Sage?
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Wouldn’t be the first time a SPAD has been accussed of influencing “experts”
David Kelly anyone?
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I'll leave you to decide whether the following is criminal or merely "stupid"
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
Image captionAn NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
I'll leave you to decide whether the following is criminal or merely "stupid"
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
Image captionAn NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.
Criminally stupid?
Kellfire
Blackballed
Don’t you think we now live in an age where people are too easily fooled by the media and rarely change their politic opinions because they would see it as admitting a mistake?
Boris Johnson is our Prime Minister. We voted for Brexit for real once and then reinforced that with subsequent elections which became de facto votes on Brexit. We keep getting it wrong and people don’t learn. The more affluent and more highly educated in society finally became more thoughtful in general but the working class and poor inexplicably have moved towards voting for sound bites and lies, ignoring evidence and history.
We’re not quite at Trump levels yet but I wouldn’t trust the Tories not to make a self serving decision in the face of what’s best for the public if they felt they could spin it.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
I work in the offshore industry, where currently my main focus is windfarms and identifying (mainly WWII) unexploded ordinance (UXO) before installation of wind turbines, to avoid any potential risks. I would probably be considered to be an expert in my field, in the same way that those on the SAGE committee are. If the survey identifies what I consider to be a potential UXO risk then that is what I put in my report. It doesn't matter what the contractor thinks should be in there, what the client thinks should be in there, or what anyone else who might be attending the meetings thinks should be in there, if I consider there to be a risk then I will go through the data and explain my reasoning to my office and that is what will be reported.
If the scientists on the SAGE committee are not strong enough, or are too insecure, to stand up to outside influence (whether from Cummings or the Government) then that is the real scandal that needs to be investigated.
If the scientists on the SAGE committee are not strong enough, or are too insecure, to stand up to outside influence (whether from Cummings or the Government) then that is the real scandal that needs to be investigated.
2blue
Journeyman Pro
If this is correct then the feelings I had many. many weeks ago that the NHS had been hung-out-to-dry has been vindicated....... & many of their dedicated work force are gone!!I'll leave you to decide whether the following is criminal or merely "stupid"
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
Image captionAn NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.
I'll leave you to decide whether the following is criminal or merely "stupid"
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
Image captionAn NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.
I look forward to the answers on the re-designation. When I heard as it happened I had my doubts.
But on the photo above; is it real or staged? Why do I ask that? For the sake of argument lets assume most hospitals have 20 (main) theatres, a Day Surgery Unit - most have more. All elective surgery has been cancelled. In one theatre there'd be a surgeon, an anaesthetist, scrub nurse, theatre sister at least. 4x hats x20 theatres. A minimum of 80 hats a day not used. And how many staff take the hat, gloves etc off for lunch, especially if they're going down to the canteen. 100 hats a day not used, a 100 masks a day not used? How many extra staff to man an extra 30 beds in the hospital x2 shifts? Would that be 100 staff? Really? I'm really sceptical about that photo.
Just over a week ago I rang a Senior Sister, who was working in ITU in one of the London hospitals. I asked the question about PPE. She said she had enough. I asked for how long, and she replied we're ok, nothing to worry about. I asked her about the type of face mask they had, and she replied that they had the right ones for the job - she also said she'd gone out and bought the all-singing all-dancing version for herself because she sweated too much in the FFP3 masks.
I don't doubt there are some serious questions to be answered on PPE, and I don't doubt there's been shortages. But I do wonder what exactly the truth is in it all.
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Exactly, and we are not talking about one scientist, we are talking in excess of a dozen. Are they all, weak and easily led or threatened by someone that is , in reality and in their view, in intellectual terms , not their equal.?
Of course not. If one were "advised to stay quiet or else" etc, do you think they wouldn't back each other.
Imagine the majority of SAG alleging undue interference and threats.
Especially in these circumstances.
As I've said - all hell would break loose.
- Status
Similar threads
