O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[Pattylallacks2]

Over the years there have been a number of posters who have derided health and safety at work measures, particularly those initiated by the EU. Maybe they will now rethink

[John2]

I am in the same boat as you in that I do not know which recommendations were adopted and which were not and whether the implementation of the ‘missed’ ones would have had any bearing upon our current situation.

Whether it would have had a bearing on the current situation is not relevant to the point as to whether it is a fact the government had recommendations to implement in preparation for a pandemic and didn't implement them. If by pure luck a drink driver doesn't get in a crash, you don't say "fair enough, no harm done". It is still an action on which it is fair to make assessments of their competence and attitude.

We know Boris went on holiday, skipped COBRA meetings and consistently downplayed the virus at a time when we should have been preparing and stockpiling PPE. I know that this one is popular within the internet echo chambers that pass for discourse between Labour supporters these days, but Johnson went on holiday five days before the Chinese notified WHO of the potential issue. Are you suggesting that he should have used a crystal ball?

I'm referring to his 12 days in Chevening when he didn't do any public events or host any emergency meetings between 12 Feb-24 Feb.

I had major concerns about Coronavirus by this stage, it was so severe that a European country in peace time implemented lockdowns on 21 Feb. It is a fact that Johnson didn't attend a COBRA meeting until 3rd March.

You're inserting your bias and subjectivity on how these facts should be interpreted now, don't you see?!

What new information do you expect might reasonably be released that exonerates him for spending this time away and missing these these meetings? Who would release it? If not yet, at what point do you believe it becomes appropriate to make a judgement based on these facts? Whether we agree on that judgement or not is not the question, just where are you going with all this?

Your use of the word ‘skipped’ demonstrates your prejudice; I would not expect him to attend meetings at which purely technical issues would be discussed. Like you, I don’t know if he missed any meetings at which his input was required or would have had a bearing upon where we are now.

Again, I'm dealing in facts here. I'm using facts known about this government and previous ones.

A PM doesn't have to chair COBRA meetings, but during a foot and mouth crisis in 2007 under Brown not only did he attend every single meeting, he chaired them all too such was how seriously he took it (even though it never went anywhere - maybe there's a connection?).

This is not prejudice, this is just comparing the performance of our current leaders with our past ones. Am I really being as unreasonable as you make out? Do you acknowledge I have any right to make some level of assessment on the basis of things known so far? If not, can you lay out specific criteria of what conditions you believe must be met for me to do this?

Also, you made a lot of judgements and statements about Corbyn that were not based on fact, but bias and perception. Why was that OK, but these examples aren't?

We know that despite this, front line workers are going without adequate PPE. There have been numerous newspapers stories about this, but, like you, I don’t know the extent of the issue.

Completely misses the point. I don't care about the scale. It's happening is a fact. People I deeply care about are having their life endangered over something that should have been avoidable.

They're the bloody government. The buck stops with them. When they get asked about front line workers risking their health due to a lack of proper PPE, its not an answer to go "oh its terrible isn't it" as though its not their fault. Its their job to be prepared for a crisis, they've had 10 years in power.

Maybe Labour wouldn't have done any better on PPE either. But that's not the point. The Tories probably wouldn't have done any better with the 2008 global financial crisis, but it was still used as a stick to beat Labour with, and that's fair.

When you're in power, you're responsible. That's the deal.

Whilst by fluke to have not needed them, we know the government blundered an opportunity to bulk buy ventilators and other equipment with the EU And? Like you. I do not know if this had any bearing upon our situation or whether involvement would simply have tied up government resources that would have been better used elsewhere. The EU is an organisation that is so well run and efficient that it sometimes encounters problems in getting its accounts signed off.

Well, I'm talking about what we do know. For some bizarre reason you've taken it upon yourself to invent hypothetical excuses the government themselves haven't even made.

The government's official position is that they missed the email deadline - a blunder - despite being in multiple meetings where deadlines were discussed. That's the generous interpretation: the position of some of those involved is that it was a politically motivated decision because we didn't want to look like we were getting EU help. I'm just using the government's own position for my judgements of incompetence here. Am I really being so unreasonable as you make out?

We know for a fact the government dragged its heels and events like Cheltenham races should not have been allowed to happen. You ‘know for a fact’ that Cheltenham shouldn’t have been allowed to happen? What was the advice given to the government in relation to Cheltenham and can you show me the epidemiology behind your ‘knowledge’?

OK, sure, since even the idea that we should try and prevent people getting and dying from the virus is a matter of subjective opinion, have this one.

[rolymiller]

...and don't forget to answer my questions you still aint answered Mr Kerr. I will let you off for one...

[caytonmiller]

Sorry, John. I had to sort out a chicken with vent gleet. In some ways it was like responding to a number of the posts on here, but it was a little more pressing.

We know there was a Pandemic simulation in 2016 and the government has admitted that not all the report's recommendations were implemented. The government ran a simulation to test the UK’s preparedness. I am in the same boat as you in that I do not know which recommendations were adopted and which were not and whether the implementation of the ‘missed’ ones would have had any bearing upon our current situation. The simulation was of a pandemic flu outbreak and the Covid19 action plan is based upon the influenza action plan.

We know Boris went on holiday, skipped COBRA meetings and consistently downplayed the virus at a time when we should have been preparing and stockpiling PPE. I know that this one is popular within the internet echo chambers that pass for discourse between Labour supporters these days, but Johnson went on holiday five days before the Chinese notified WHO of the potential issue. Are you suggesting that he should have used a crystal ball?

Your use of the word ‘skipped’ demonstrates your prejudice; I would not expect him to attend meetings at which purely technical issues would be discussed. Like you, I don’t know if he missed any meetings at which his input was required or would have had a bearing upon where we are now. In addition, I am like you in that I don’t know when we began to prepare and stockpile PPE. Unlike you, it seems, I would not expect the PM to be directly involved in that.

I agree that his comms were poor and have commented upon that several times.

We know that experts have been advising us that a pandemic is inevitable for some time now. And? See above - we know that the government ran an exercise in 2016 to test preparedness and for planning purposes.

We know that despite this, front line workers are going without adequate PPE. There have been numerous newspapers stories about this, but, like you, I don’t know the extent of the issue. Two of my colleagues have doctor children, both of whom are working on Covid wards and have not encountered issues. A third has a wife who is a radiologist who is X-Raying patients with Covid. She too reports no issues. Given the size of the task, it would be surprising and, frankly, suspicious if there hadn’t been some issues with supply.

We know that our testing capacity has been woefully inadequate. I have previously commented that we need to look closely at whether testing capacity could have been increased sooner. I think that because, like you, I don’t know the details of what was done and what could have been done.

Whilst by fluke to have not needed them, we know the government blundered an opportunity to bulk buy ventilators and other equipment with the EU And? Like you. I do not know if this had any bearing upon our situation or whether involvement would simply have tied up government resources that would have been better used elsewhere. The EU is an organisation that is so well run and efficient that it sometimes encounters problems in getting its accounts signed off.

We know for a fact the government dragged its heels and events like Cheltenham races should not have been allowed to happen. You ‘know for a fact’ that Cheltenham shouldn’t have been allowed to happen? What was the advice given to the government in relation to Cheltenham and can you show me the epidemiology behind your ‘knowledge’? And you complain about me likening your response to that of a lynch mob… My advice would be not to act like a member of one.

Excellent post.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

Patrick Vallance on death figures

" The Office of National Statistics rates are people who have got Covid on their death certificates, It doesn't mean they were necessarily infected because many of them haven't been tested"


Can someone please explain this?

[Exiletyke]

Patrick Vallance on death figures

" The Office of National Statistics rates are people who have got Covid on their death certificates, It doesn't mean they were necessarily infected because many of them haven't been tested"


Can someone please explain this?

It wouldn't do to have accurate reliable figures/information as it wouldn't leave any wriggle room now would it?
Just take a look at the daily briefings in USA ......... liars paradise

[millertop]

Patrick Vallance on death figures

" The Office of National Statistics rates are people who have got Covid on their death certificates, It doesn't mean they were necessarily infected because many of them haven't been tested"


Can someone please explain this?

Maybe something to do with the pressure of the NHS and some couldn’t have post -mortems.
come on idiot stop winding posters up or feeding the trolls

[the_idiotb_stardson]

Maybe something to do with the pressure of the NHS and some couldn’t have post -mortems.
come on idiot stop winding posters up or feeding the trolls

.


sSome couldn't have post mortems?

Why put them on the covid deaths stats?

Why not have a separate count for those that, lets be honest, they have no idea what they died from?

Half the country is sh hitting themselves about going outside....real psychological problems are developing....lets just be honest....and stop pumping out the fear.

Sensible, cautious, follow certain guidelines....no problem with that, but cranking up the death stats is wrong.

[Exiletyke]

Maybe something to do with the pressure of the NHS and some couldn’t have post -mortems.
come on idiot stop winding posters up or feeding the trolls

Or giving millertop a platform

[millertop]

.


sSome couldn't have post mortems?

Why put them on the covid deaths stats?

Why not have a separate count for those that, lets be honest, they have no idea what they died from?

Half the country is sh hitting themselves about going outside....real psychological problems are developing....lets just be honest....and stop pumping out the fear.

Sensible, cautious, follow certain guidelines....no problem with that, but cranking up the death stats is wrong.

I don’t agree with it just answering your question