Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[Old Skier]

I’d take yougov polls with a pinch of salt, your pre selected for the survey and they can swing them how they like by selecting people’s past voting habits. Just a theory as I do them everyday and it just seems very coincidental with the questions I get.
Good to do though as you get an Amazon voucher every couple of months.

I take all polls with a pinch of salt, I just countered SILH quoted poll. We all know there are stats & there are stats.

 

[Old Skier]

Is this some sort of bizarre deflection?
I'm genuinely impressed by your desire to continue to defend the indefensible.
And genuinely curious to see how utterly incompetent the government would need to be to have you admit what a s***show this whole sorry saga has been.
Hey ho.

What deflection, what defence, half the country can defend half the country can attack, until all the facts come about we will not know.

 

[Old Skier]

I didn't realise your arguments had descended to personal attacks. You are obviously taking this personally. You really shouldn't. That snarky response misses the point(s). I was talking about contact tracing in general and Serco and Dido in particular. Everything I said is in the public domain, including anger at stopping contact tracing, calls to scale up PHE instead, and that most (85%, I think) of cases in the first week of NHS Test and Trace claimed by Dido were in fact traced by PHE.

The failure of NHS Test and Trace can be easily estimated by someone with GCSE in Maths, starting with the publicly available number of new cases cases that week and a few quick sums leading to a percentage actually traced and engaged. The Govt then wisely stopped publishing all the figures so that people couldn't tell just how bad it was. No medical or pharma credentials are needed to easily find al this stuff.

I don't see where SAGE comes into it, although I do know one of the guys on the Independent SAGE.

Nothing personal in anything I have posted, I admitted that you had expertise in some areas but like me, none in others. Me thinks you are the one who wants to be personal.

Independent SAGE, is this an official group of advisors or a group set up by those with apposing views of the government advisors and have nothing to do with the SAGE group.

PS- PHE are part of the test and trace strategy.

 

[drdel]

I didn't realise your arguments had descended to personal attacks. You are obviously taking this personally. You really shouldn't. That snarky response misses the point(s). I was talking about contact tracing in general and Serco and Dido in particular. Everything I said is in the public domain, including anger at stopping contact tracing, calls to scale up PHE instead, and that most (85%, I think) of cases in the first week of NHS Test and Trace claimed by Dido were in fact traced by PHE.

The failure of NHS Test and Trace can be easily estimated by someone with GCSE in Maths, starting with the publicly available number of new cases cases that week and a few quick sums leading to a percentage actually traced and engaged. The Govt then wisely stopped publishing all the figures so that people couldn't tell just how bad it was. No medical or pharma credentials are needed to easily find al this stuff.

I don't see where SAGE comes into it, although I do know one of the guys on the Independent SAGE.

IMO You post wilth unnecessary aggresion and when others respond in a similar style you react. Some if the content is often interesting but some is just stridently written 'after the event' opinions

Pandemics are handled by politicians with input from medics and economists et al. Each has their view but in the end the nation's economics will always eventually drive policy since capitalism reigns. Any PM or Government will never be proactive as the political risk is too high, just look worldwide at other democracies.

There is no point deriding policies developed from the past when confronted with a novel virus. Decisions will be wrong with the wisdom of hindsight, its a sport of the media and unintelligent.

Galbraith said it well "one of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you don't know" and to allow and manage the uncertainty as best we can.

 

[Ethan]

IMO You post wilth unnecessary aggresion and when others respond in a similar style you react. Some if the content is often interesting but some is just stridently written 'after the event' opinions

Pandemics are handled by politicians with input from medics and economists et al. Each has their view but in the end the nation's economics will always eventually drive policy since capitalism reigns. Any PM or Government will never be proactive as the political risk is too high, just look worldwide at other democracies.

There is no point deriding policies developed from the past when confronted with a novel virus. Decisions will be wrong with the wisdom of hindsight, its a sport of the media and unintelligent.

Galbraith said it well "one of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you don't know" and to allow and manage the uncertainty as best we can.

Dr Del accuses me of having written stridently. Looks up 'irony' in the dictionary.

You seem to be the one attacking, and not for the first time. When it comes to adding substance, you get a bit quieter, though.

As I have said before, this is NOT hindsight. Much of it was said repeatedly, loudly and publicly with foresight, some of it was even practised for a century beforehand. The WHO publicly called on the UK to take action. Some issues with the novel virus (although it isn't completely novel) are dealt with using standard traditional principles. These were abandoned. Since you are a big fan of the Johari window, then you will know that there were quite a few known unknowns with Covid, but some of the policy overlooked the fact they were unknowns.

Simply dismissing it all as hindsight and a novel experience is grade 1 gaslighting.

 

[chrisd]

I’d suggest living in a Democracy nobody needs or should have to “put up and shut up” if people had of done that, we’d still be living in the dark ages.

I’d also suggest SILH trolling (in your opinion) is no worse than Homers stalking (in my opinion) of SILH.

I'm happy to agree with you Paul - I'd be happy if they stopped both

 

[SocketRocket]

Offer one coherent argument in favour of your position. refute anything I have said above which is untrue. Tell me why the Govt has done anything better than a terrible job with Covid. Don't just accuse me of being against them, tell me why I am wrong. What have I missed that will change my mind when you enlighten me?

The Government make decisions with Covid based on expert advice. You seem to be of the opinion that everything they have done is completely wrong so they are either ignoring expert advice or the advice is always flawed.

You have said a number of times the Government had a reckless policy of herd immunity, from my recollection the Chief Medical and Scientific Officers were recommending this and the Government pulled out when they saw the potential death rates.

You always take the high ground of hindsight and never suggest something was handled reasonably or at the time it was difficult to handle the huge logistics of procurement and operations, or that the information available at the time was affected by the lack of experience of such a pandemic.

Bad decisions will have been made but it cant be all bad, there has to be things like the Nightingale Hospitals that were good incentives.

 

[funkycoldmedina]

IMO You post wilth unnecessary aggresion and when others respond in a similar style you react. Some if the content is often interesting but some is just stridently written 'after the event' opinions

Pandemics are handled by politicians with input from medics and economists et al. Each has their view but in the end the nation's economics will always eventually drive policy since capitalism reigns. Any PM or Government will never be proactive as the political risk is too high, just look worldwide at other democracies.

There is no point deriding policies developed from the past when confronted with a novel virus. Decisions will be wrong with the wisdom of hindsight, its a sport of the media and unintelligent.

Galbraith said it well "one of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you don't know" and to allow and manage the uncertainty as best we can.

5 COBRA meetings missed right at the very beginning of all this showed how serious this was being taken early on, the science was there and wasn't being listened to well enough. We had a head start as other developed nations were 4-6 weeks ahead and we were still caught out and have been playing virus control catch up ever since.
Also if you're going to attack somebody for their aggressive style which you have regularly done with this poster, there's no need to put in a passive aggressive point like the highlighted part in . Plenty of intelligent scientists knew what was coming but it was falling on deaf ears for too long.

 

[Ethan]

The Government make decisions with Covid based on expert advice. You seem to be of the opinion that everything they have done is completely wrong so they are either ignoring expert advice or the advice is always flawed.

You have said a number of times the Government had a reckless policy of herd immunity, from my recollection the Chief Medical and Scientific Officers were recommending this and the Government pulled out when they saw the potential death rates.

You always take the high ground of hindsight and never suggest something was handled reasonably or at the time it was difficult to handle the huge logistics of procurement and operations, or that the information available at the time was affected by the lack of experience of such a pandemic.

Bad decisions will have been made but it cant be all bad, there has to be things like the Nightingale Hospitals that were good incentives.

It isn’t hindsight. There was plenty of foresight and structures in place which could have been used. The Govt’s received scientific advice from SAGE but SAGE is not very independent. Most of the membership are on Govt payrolls. There have been plenty of critics, including Jeremy Hunt, for example.

The herd immunity story needs to be looked at carefully. In my opinion, Vallance was pushed out as the spokesman but was not the instigator. I can’t believe that a physician of his standing, or Chris Whitty, would propose such a plan without much much better data that it would even work.

I never criticised the Nightingale Hospitals which were not a bad idea although they did pull some resources from other London hospitals when they could ill afford it. The fact they had few patients was a risk worth taking and better than the alternative.

But amongst all the ‘it's a new virus’ and ‘nobody knew how to deal with it’ someone needs to explain how Germany, New Zealand and S. Korea did much better. In my opinion the answers are actually very simple snd the U.K. was strongly advised with foresight to do the same but didn’t.

 

[Old Skier]

It isn’t hindsight. There was plenty of foresight and structures in place which could have been used. The Govt’s received scientific advice from SAGE but SAGE is not very independent. Most of the membership are on Govt payrolls. There have been plenty of critics, including Jeremy Hunt, for example.

The herd immunity story needs to be looked at carefully. In my opinion, Valkance was pushed out as the spokesman but was not the instigator. I can’t believe that a physician of his standing, or Chris Whitty, would propose such a plan without much much better data that it would even work.

I never criticised the Nightingale Hospitals which were not a bad idea although they did pull some resources from other London hospitals when they could ill afford it. The fact they had few patients was a risk worth taking and better than the alternative.

But amongst all the ‘it's a new virus’ and ‘nobody knew how to deal with it’ someone needs to explain how Germany, New Zealand and S. Korea did much better. In my opinion the answers are actually very simple snd the U.K. was strongly advised with foresight to do the same but didn’t.

Are you suggesting that because SAGE were not independent they would rather toe the party line and deliberately put the lives of thousands in danger. Independent or not, they were professionals in their field and would have been quick to blow the whistle if the government deliberately ignored them putting everyone at risk.

 

[Ethan]

Are you suggesting that because SAGE were not independent they would rather toe the party line and deliberately put the lives of thousands in danger. Independent or not, they were professionals in their field and would have been quick to blow the whistle if the government deliberately ignored them putting everyone at risk.

We already know from the minutes that SAGE have offered advice, somewhat nuanced, which wasn’t taken. In the last few Number 10 briefings, you could see differences between Whitty, Vallance, van Tam and the politicians.

But it is a basic principle of science that you take into account biases and conflicts of interest and seek peer review. SAGE members have clear limitations on their ability to speak out. The Imperial model also lacked peer review or they would have come up with their numbers a lot faster.

 

[SocketRocket]

We already know from the minutes that SAGE have offered advice, somewhat nuanced, which wasn’t taken. In the last few Number 10 briefings, you could see differences between Whitty, Vallance, van Tam and the politicians.

But it is a basic principle of science that you take into account biases and conflicts of interest and seek peer review. SAGE members have clear limitations on their ability to speak out. The Imperial model also lacked peer review or they would have come up with their numbers a lot faster.

Why do you think Politicians would ignore the advice of SAGE and I cant believe the members would hold back if they believed the government were being reckless. What would they have to gain, they were not trying to open up the ecconomy at that point.

You know that it's not possible to make comparisons between NZ and the UK, for so many reasons they are incompatible. Germany have done well but I am not convinced we are recording cases the same way and eventually there will be some clarity there.

I have to stand by my comments that you do not use any balance in your views and have a blind hatred for the Conservatives to a level it clouds your ability to be fair and unbiased. You were the same with Brexit.

 

[ExRabbit]

Please stop arguing with Ethan - he is always right. I think. Maybe... mmmmm

 

[Ethan]

Why do you think Politicians would ignore the advice of SAGE and I cant believe the members would hold back if they believed the government were being reckless. What would they have to gain, they were not trying to open up the ecconomy at that point.

You know that it's not possible to make comparisons between NZ and the UK, for so many reasons they are incompatible. Germany have done well but I am not convinced we are recording cases the same way and eventually there will be some clarity there.

I have to stand by my comments that you do not use any balance in your views and have a blind hatred for the Conservatives to a level it clouds your ability to be fair and unbiased. You were the same with Brexit.

Nonsense. Germany can count the number of people in their ICU departments, and there were a lot fewer than here. People at other stages of disease are proportional in umber. There is no doubt from any credible person that their Covid experience is an order of magnitude better than here. If you believe otherwise, then there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you in a rational manner.

As for NZ, it is perfectly possible to compare. They have centres of high pollution density, presumably upper explanation, but the basic principle is that if you do not let the disease in, you have less of a problem with subsequent spread. We could have done the same here but didn't.

As for Brexit, I make no apology for arguing that it is a disastrous idea born of a braindead ideology which has already done much harm to this country and now will severely damage any prospect of a Brexit recovery. No credible economist believes otherwise. If you know of one, please tell.

At least I use facts and explain my arguments so that others can judge them. It is therefore not 'blind'. You just arbitrarily dismiss in a few words without any substance. I think it is therefore obvious you have an unquestioning support for the Conservatives and are unable to actually explain why, it is just a blind faith. Of that is not true, please enlighten me with examples.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Quite a comparison to do UK with NZ, I always wished we had taken a more aggressive stance earlier but to compare them is almost impossible.

There are massive differences between the two countries and economies.

We have far greater integration with the world economy with vastly greater numbers.

The numbers that would have had to have been dealt would not have been possible.

I think NZ comparisons are worthless.

However don't get me wrong, we could have done it much better, much much better.

 

[Ethan]

Quite a comparison to do UK with NZ, I always wished we had taken a more aggressive stance earlier but to compare them is almost impossible.

There are massive differences between the two countries and economies.

We have far greater integration with the world economy with vastly greater numbers.

The numbers that would have had to have been dealt would not have been possible.

I think NZ comparisons are worthless.

However don't get me wrong, we could have done it much better, much much better.

The comparison is valid in that there are basically two stages of dealing with the virus. First, stop as much of it getting in as you can. Second, contain what has got in. You can apply that basic model to anywhere, whether an island or not and whether big or small. It is not saying that the countries are similar in population or population density (although that is misused as an explanation) or economy.

NZ jumped on the first part, with tight border controls fast. As a result they massively reduced the amount of circulating virus. The US tried the same, to a certain extent, although did not quarantine returning Americans, but failed badly on the containment part.

The UK could have imposed the same border controls in March that they imposed in June, and if policed properly that would very likely have reduced the amount of virus that came in and later circulated. Then that makes your job of testing, tracing dn dealing with cases a lot easier.

Funnily enough, some of those (not you) who say we can't compare with NZ or Germany are very happy to compare with Sweden and argue we did not need a lockdown. I think they picked their desired conclusion and worked back to find supporting evidence.

 

[drdel]

The comparison is valid in that there are basically two stages of dealing with the virus. First, stop as much of it getting in as you can. Second, contain what has got in. You can apply that basic model to anywhere, whether an island or not and whether big or small.

NZ jumped on the first part, with tight border controls fast. As a result they massively reduced the amount of circulating virus. The US tried the same, to a certain extent, although did not quarantine returning Americans, but failed badly on the containment part.

The UK could have imposed the same border controls in March that they imposed in June, and if policed properly that would very likely have reduced the amount of virus that came in and later circulated. Then that makes your job of testing, tracing dn dealing with cases a lot easier.

Funnily enough, some of those (not you) who say we can't compare with NZ or Germany are very happy to compare with Sweden and argue we did not need a lockdown. I think they picked their desired conclusion and worked back to find supporting evidence.

Comparing the UK with NZ (a population less than Scotland, and almost the same as Manchester) is simply just not valid and is just silly

More people commute in and out of London daily than live in NZ. The UK is an international transit hub, NZ is not. the health policies and logistic challenges for a population of 4.6mill. is vastly different to that of 70mill. Closing the UK borders 'overnight' without reasonable notice was impossible given the numbers of people in transit and the economic consequences.

 

[SocketRocket]

Nonsense. Germany can count the number of people in their ICU departments, and there were a lot fewer than here. People at other stages of disease are proportional in umber. There is no doubt from any credible person that their Covid experience is an order of magnitude better than here. If you believe otherwise, then there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you in a rational manner.

As for NZ, it is perfectly possible to compare. They have centres of high pollution density, presumably upper explanation, but the basic principle is that if you do not let the disease in, you have less of a problem with subsequent spread. We could have done the same here but didn't.

As for Brexit, I make no apology for arguing that it is a disastrous idea born of a braindead ideology which has already done much harm to this country and now will severely damage any prospect of a Brexit recovery. No credible economist believes otherwise. If you know of one, please tell.

At least I use facts and explain my arguments so that others can judge them. It is therefore not 'blind'. You just arbitrarily dismiss in a few words without any substance. I think it is therefore obvious you have an unquestioning support for the Conservatives and are unable to actually explain why, it is just a blind faith. Of that is not true, please enlighten me with examples.

There you go again blinded with prejudice. You have absolutely nothing but vitriolic castigation for the Government and EVERYTHING they do, never a mention of doing something good or even reasonably. How can anyone discuss a subject with someone so politically blinkered.

 

[Ethan]

Comparing the UK with NZ (a population less than Scotland, and almost the same as Manchester) is simply just not valid and is just silly

More people commute in and out of London daily than live in NZ. The UK is an international transit hub, NZ is not. the health policies and logistic challenges for a population of 4.6mill. is vastly different to that of 70mill. Closing the UK borders 'overnight' without reasonable notice was impossible given the numbers of people in transit and the economic consequences.

Actually the health policies and logistics are very similar, just a matter of scale. Closing the borders is perfectly possible and does not need to be overnight, although the recent addition of Spain to quarantine countries was done same day despite many Brits being in Spain at the time.

As for the economic consequences, those have been dire already and won't be getting much better anytime soon.

 

[Deleted member 16999]