The Covid-19 serious chat thread

[RDW]

First topic message reminder :

A thread set up to house the more serious chat relating to the global pandemic.

Nothing has changed in what we expect from discussions on here though:

- Please treat each other with respect
- Avoid hyperbole and fake news
- This thread shouldn't be used for a political soapbox, but political discussion will likely happen. See point 1!

A reminder that we have a community thread here for people to vent, look for help and all round support each other. https://www.606v2.com/t69506-the-covid-19-community-thread#3896653

[Duty281]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

To be honest I reckon Biden realises that himself so will just be used as an empty vessel by the Democrats, Trump however seems under the impression he's a higher being.

Probably the best hope for now. But long term the Americans need to bring down the closed two-party system, and bring an end to the outdated and ineffectual Republican and Democrat parties.

[jimbopip]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

To be honest I reckon Biden realises that himself so will just be used as an empty vessel by the Democrats, Trump however seems under the impression he's a higher being.

One of the big drawbacks of the American constitution is that the President is empowered to appoint anyone, literally anyone, to his Cabinet. J F Kennedy decided to appoint his youngest brother, who was an lawyer, to the post of Attorney General. Trump has given his offspring and their spouses, business partners and anyone else who was in the room (Hey Pizza Guy, what do you know about Foreign Diplomacy?) to fairly important posts.

A fairly high percentage of these people have been promoted way beyond their abilities and like Elvis' Memphis Mafia know that the only way to stay on board the gravy train is to keep the boss happy. Possibly the main difference between Trump and Bide is that as a career politician Biden will be surrounded by people who know how government works and will behave accordingly.

[123456789.]

I don't think there's any point over-complicating this. Donald Trump should not be President anymore. Why? Because he is an awful human being. He is an utter moron. He is unbelievably stupid. He wasn't even a good business person. He managed to regularly lose the money he inherited from his Father. If he'd put it in a low yield bond and lived off the interest he would have more money than he does now. Even though he regularly engaged in fraud, tax evasion, cheating and bullying to get his way. He has presided over the worst response to this biggest crisis in most of our lifetimes of any developed country. He's a megalomaniac, wannabe Dictator, probable racist, possible r***ist, narcissistic lunatic - and he's getting worse.

[123456789.]

Apparently Matt Hancock is demanding that any UK made Vaccine be first distributed to British citizens. I am not sure I really see the point in this argument. Surely the honest and decent thing to do would be to share the details of the vaccine around the world so countries can then manufacture their own. We can then use our own manufacturing capability to cater for ourselves. It would be sensible after an event like this to bolster the WHO surely and stockpile vaccines, tests, antibody tests etc. in a containment facility somewhere. That way if a Covid-19 outbreak occurs we would know to deal with it by implementing a rapid lockdown. Widespread testing and tracing and a vaccination procedure.

[navyblueshorts]

Speak to him - sure

Make a big song and dance about how coordinated they are while Trump encourages open rebellion against social distancing and drinking bleach - I'm not so sure

Maybe he should speak to Merkel¹, seeing as she has a scientific background, and the Germans are on the verge of ending lockdown. Obviously that won't sit well with the 2 world wars and 1 world cup crowd so he won't do it

You don't think the PM should speak to the POTUS about a global emergency, then? OK.

¹ Maybe he is/has? Germany may regret coming out of a shutdown so soon, but I guess we'll see how they manage it.

[navyblueshorts]

Trump, perhaps he should show some leadership and volunteer to have disinfectant injected into him. He is after all super fit and with the body of a much younger man.

We sure are lucky that our PM has agreed a coordinated response with Trump rather than make a "political decision" to work with the EU

Seriously? You don't think our PM (regardless of whom it is) should speak to the President of the U.S.A. (regardless of whom it is)?? Or is it just that your politics are shining through?

Mr Blueshorts; I often find myself reflecting that as far as language goes meaning is almost entirely dependent on context. I think that BamBam is pointing out that it appears that while the EU was making a serious and sensible move to have a concerted, Europe wide, policy on purchasing, producing and distributing PPE our government felt that if they joined in with that they might be open to criticism of "spent all this time trying to leave us and then come running first time there's a real problem" type. They then decide that it would be sensible for our PM to have a conference call to discuss possible response to covid with the walking Alzheimer's tragedy who is the present sitting tenant in Pennsylvania Avenue.

Other than our PM explaining that the NHS didn't cure him by injecting Dettol into his eyeballs while inserting a sun lamp into his back passage I can't see what might be gained by conference calling the man who  thinks covid will be beaten by antibiotics. However, a steady and guaranteed supply of PPE... Big Gee, and Mrs Gee, may have been spared catching Covid and two of his colleagues may still be alive.

I started this out as a jocular response, but you can only joke up to a certain point.

Take the point re. language and lack of body language/nuance in written word here to help interpret meaning. I'm basing my comment on past form here.

Has it not occurred that our PM should contact the POTUS, whomever it is? Are we assuming that none of the White House staffers are hearing/seeing notes of conversation and so can't relay info/ideas at a wider level, thus helping dialogue/dissemination of relevant ideas etc? You suggest 'conference call' - if so, presume it's a conference of more than two, maybe?

I take the point that it's pretty clear Trump is a Grade A piece of dog merde, in general.

[navyblueshorts]

Boris Johnson suffers from the same problem that has blighted insecure leaders throughout history, generally speaking he doesn't promote the talented people because ultimately they might replace him. If you don't agree with that, that's okay, but ask yourself where all his leadership contenders are now. Rishi Sunak seems to be the exception from that. That means I frequently find myself despairing of the state of our politics when Dominic Raab discovers that the Channel is wet or Priti Patel just announces the biggest number she knows just to show off. However, there is always the sweet release when you wake up in the morning that the most powerful man, not just in America nor even the world but, in fact, the most powerful organism in the known universe has all the mental faculties of a concussed goldfish.

True. I don't disagree, but Sunak is in arguably the second most powerful office - is that where you'd put a serious rival for the future? Think Johnson actually probably feels quite secure w/ his majority, but we'll see where he is whenever this pandemic 'ends'. Patel is awful, I agree.

[navyblueshorts]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

Maybe, but he isn't a narcissist. He won't actively be a bonehead. Seem to recall Reagan not being that well thought of as a speaker for much of his tenure - Not the 9'O'Clock News, for example, skewered him all the time. Assume he'll appoint a good cabinet and VP, who can bear the load?

[BamBam]

Speak to him - sure

Make a big song and dance about how coordinated they are while Trump encourages open rebellion against social distancing and drinking bleach - I'm not so sure

Maybe he should speak to Merkel¹, seeing as she has a scientific background, and the Germans are on the verge of ending lockdown. Obviously that won't sit well with the 2 world wars and 1 world cup crowd so he won't do it

You don't think the PM should speak to the POTUS about a global emergency, then? OK.

¹ Maybe he is/has? Germany may regret coming out of a shutdown so soon, but I guess we'll see how they manage it.

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't speak to Trump, my point is more about the optics and PR that the government chooses to put out. Why are they so keen to shout about coordinating with Trump when they've been so careful about not wanting to appear to need any help from the EU?

It's all just about cultivating a particular image, and playing to the knuckle dragging base of support who think anything the EU does is the worst, while the sun shines out of Trump's brightly lit arse

[navyblueshorts]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

To be honest I reckon Biden realises that himself so will just be used as an empty vessel by the Democrats, Trump however seems under the impression he's a higher being.

One of the big drawbacks of the American constitution is that the President is empowered to appoint anyone, literally anyone, to his Cabinet. J F Kennedy decided to appoint his youngest brother, who was an lawyer, to the post of Attorney General. Trump has given his offspring and their spouses, business partners and anyone else who was in the room (Hey Pizza Guy, what do you know about Foreign Diplomacy?) to fairly important posts.

A fairly high percentage of these people have been promoted way beyond their abilities and like Elvis' Memphis Mafia know that the only way to stay on board the gravy train is to keep the boss happy. Possibly the main difference between Trump and Bide is that as a career politician Biden will be surrounded by people who know how government works and will behave accordingly.

Always thought this was bizarre and assumes the POTUS was both sane and not corrupt. Whoops...

[123456789.]

Boris Johnson suffers from the same problem that has blighted insecure leaders throughout history, generally speaking he doesn't promote the talented people because ultimately they might replace him. If you don't agree with that, that's okay, but ask yourself where all his leadership contenders are now. Rishi Sunak seems to be the exception from that. That means I frequently find myself despairing of the state of our politics when Dominic Raab discovers that the Channel is wet or Priti Patel just announces the biggest number she knows just to show off. However, there is always the sweet release when you wake up in the morning that the most powerful man, not just in America nor even the world but, in fact, the most powerful organism in the known universe has all the mental faculties of a concussed goldfish.

True. I don't disagree, but Sunak is in arguably the second most powerful office - is that where you'd put a serious rival for the future? Think Johnson actually probably feels quite secure w/ his majority, but we'll see where he is whenever this pandemic 'ends'. Patel is awful, I agree.

I am not sure the appointment of Sunak was a particularly planned move. Sajid Javid had shown himself to be either "politically flexible" or lacking in backbone depending on the way you see it. I suspect the expectation was that he would acquiesce to Johnson/Cummings' demands. Sunak was the next cab off the rank. He was also a relative unknown prior to his appointment. I looked on Yougov's approval rating website - in February 2020 one in five people had heard of him. 5% of people had a positive opinion. 7% a negative opinion and 8% fairly ambivalent. He was the 85th most famous Tory. The most common word to describe him was cute. I think it's likely that has changed almost entirely now.
The fact of the matter is that this crisis has meant that politicians beyond the Prime Minister have taken more of a frontline, partly because of the sheer numbers of people wanting to ask questions and also because Johnson fell ill. That means people are becoming more acquainted with Ministers than usual. Sunak has given a very good impression to most people that has elevated him to leadership material rapidly. He was on that 'Big Night In' last night and managed that rarest of things for a multi-millionaire Conservative party MP in that he appeared as a normal person. In a way that BJ never could because he isn't.
I'd agree that Boris Johnson was probably as secure as any Tory has been for decades prior to the Pandemic. He had an enormous majority. Jeremy Corbyn has always been useless. But by then he was a useless, defeated lame duck. The Tory party is ruthless and there will be those remaining in the parliamentary party biding their time to act against him. I think it was William Hague who said that the Tory party is unfailingly loyal to it's leader - until it isn't. Johnson wouldn't be the first or last to remove any alternative power bases quickly. However, this pandemic has ended the honeymoon period overnight. It will overshadow his Premiership. I suspect the next round of elections across the democratic world will amount to referenda on the incumbent's handling of the Pandemic. When it appeared Thatcher had outstayed her usefulness she was dispatched. When this is over and I hope to God it is relatively soon. There will be the Mother of all inquiries. Into preparedness, PPE, lockdowns, COBR meetings, working holidays, procurement etc. etc. Then there will be an unedifying spin war between the two parties. The dust will settle. If Johnson is seen as to blame for all the failings then I suspect he won't be long for the job.

[123456789.]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

To be honest I reckon Biden realises that himself so will just be used as an empty vessel by the Democrats, Trump however seems under the impression he's a higher being.

One of the big drawbacks of the American constitution is that the President is empowered to appoint anyone, literally anyone, to his Cabinet. J F Kennedy decided to appoint his youngest brother, who was an lawyer, to the post of Attorney General. Trump has given his offspring and their spouses, business partners and anyone else who was in the room (Hey Pizza Guy, what do you know about Foreign Diplomacy?) to fairly important posts.

A fairly high percentage of these people have been promoted way beyond their abilities and like Elvis' Memphis Mafia know that the only way to stay on board the gravy train is to keep the boss happy. Possibly the main difference between Trump and Bide is that as a career politician Biden will be surrounded by people who know how government works and will behave accordingly.

Always thought this was bizarre and assumes the POTUS was both sane and not corrupt. Whoops...

It's not entirely different to our own. Just in Britain you have to be ennobled before the Prime Minister can appoint you. I am not sure if that the case legally or a consequence of longstanding precedence. I suppose the idea is that if you are deemed fit to be President by the people then you are fit to choose your own cabinet. I think it's unlikely that those who wrote the constitution would have recommended democracy at all if they knew that it would end up with someone like Trump in power.

[navyblueshorts]

Boris Johnson suffers from the same problem that has blighted insecure leaders throughout history, generally speaking he doesn't promote the talented people because ultimately they might replace him. If you don't agree with that, that's okay, but ask yourself where all his leadership contenders are now. Rishi Sunak seems to be the exception from that. That means I frequently find myself despairing of the state of our politics when Dominic Raab discovers that the Channel is wet or Priti Patel just announces the biggest number she knows just to show off. However, there is always the sweet release when you wake up in the morning that the most powerful man, not just in America nor even the world but, in fact, the most powerful organism in the known universe has all the mental faculties of a concussed goldfish.

True. I don't disagree, but Sunak is in arguably the second most powerful office - is that where you'd put a serious rival for the future? Think Johnson actually probably feels quite secure w/ his majority, but we'll see where he is whenever this pandemic 'ends'. Patel is awful, I agree.

I am not sure the appointment of Sunak was a particularly planned move. Sajid Javid had shown himself to be either "politically flexible" or lacking in backbone depending on the way you see it. I suspect the expectation was that he would acquiesce to Johnson/Cummings' demands. Sunak was the next cab off the rank. He was also a relative unknown prior to his appointment. I looked on Yougov's approval rating website - in February 2020 one in five people had heard of him. 5% of people had a positive opinion. 7% a negative opinion and 8% fairly ambivalent. He was the 85th most famous Tory. The most common word to describe him was cute. I think it's likely that has changed almost entirely now.
The fact of the matter is that this crisis has meant that politicians beyond the Prime Minister have taken more of a frontline, partly because of the sheer numbers of people wanting to ask questions and also because Johnson fell ill. That means people are becoming more acquainted with Ministers than usual. Sunak has given a very good impression to most people that has elevated him to leadership material rapidly. He was on that 'Big Night In' last night and managed that rarest of things for a multi-millionaire Conservative party MP in that he appeared as a normal person. In a way that BJ never could because he isn't.
I'd agree that Boris Johnson was probably as secure as any Tory has been for decades prior to the Pandemic. He had an enormous majority. Jeremy Corbyn has always been useless. But by then he was a useless, defeated lame duck. The Tory party is ruthless and there will be those remaining in the parliamentary party biding their time to act against him. I think it was William Hague who said that the Tory party is unfailingly loyal to it's leader - until it isn't. Johnson wouldn't be the first or last to remove any alternative power bases quickly. However, this pandemic has ended the honeymoon period overnight. It will overshadow his Premiership. I suspect the next round of elections across the democratic world will amount to referenda on the incumbent's handling of the Pandemic. When it appeared Thatcher had outstayed her usefulness she was dispatched. When this is over and I hope to God it is relatively soon. There will be the Mother of all inquiries. Into preparedness, PPE, lockdowns, COBR meetings, working holidays, procurement etc. etc. Then there will be an unedifying spin war between the two parties. The dust will settle. If Johnson is seen as to blame for all the failings then I suspect he won't be long for the job.

Pretty good overview. Re. the bolded bit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52406261

Damn! Possibly. More needs doing to solidify what this means.

[navyblueshorts]

The problem with Trump being voted out is, if it happens, he'll be replaced by Biden who is even less articulate and has less of a grasp of what is going on.

To be honest I reckon Biden realises that himself so will just be used as an empty vessel by the Democrats, Trump however seems under the impression he's a higher being.

One of the big drawbacks of the American constitution is that the President is empowered to appoint anyone, literally anyone, to his Cabinet. J F Kennedy decided to appoint his youngest brother, who was an lawyer, to the post of Attorney General. Trump has given his offspring and their spouses, business partners and anyone else who was in the room (Hey Pizza Guy, what do you know about Foreign Diplomacy?) to fairly important posts.

A fairly high percentage of these people have been promoted way beyond their abilities and like Elvis' Memphis Mafia know that the only way to stay on board the gravy train is to keep the boss happy. Possibly the main difference between Trump and Bide is that as a career politician Biden will be surrounded by people who know how government works and will behave accordingly.

Always thought this was bizarre and assumes the POTUS was both sane and not corrupt. Whoops...

It's not entirely different to our own. Just in Britain you have to be ennobled before the Prime Minister can appoint you. I am not sure if that the case legally or a consequence of longstanding precedence. I suppose the idea is that if you are deemed fit to be President by the people then you are fit to choose your own cabinet. I think it's unlikely that those who wrote the constitution would have recommended democracy at all if they knew that it would end up with someone like Trump in power.

Yeah. Been some recent shenanigans around that, too.

[JuliusHMarx]

He's a megalomaniac, wannabe Dictator, probable racist, possible r***ist, narcissistic lunatic - and he's getting worse.  

Hence his popularity among some folks.

[123456789.]

Boris Johnson suffers from the same problem that has blighted insecure leaders throughout history, generally speaking he doesn't promote the talented people because ultimately they might replace him. If you don't agree with that, that's okay, but ask yourself where all his leadership contenders are now. Rishi Sunak seems to be the exception from that. That means I frequently find myself despairing of the state of our politics when Dominic Raab discovers that the Channel is wet or Priti Patel just announces the biggest number she knows just to show off. However, there is always the sweet release when you wake up in the morning that the most powerful man, not just in America nor even the world but, in fact, the most powerful organism in the known universe has all the mental faculties of a concussed goldfish.

True. I don't disagree, but Sunak is in arguably the second most powerful office - is that where you'd put a serious rival for the future? Think Johnson actually probably feels quite secure w/ his majority, but we'll see where he is whenever this pandemic 'ends'. Patel is awful, I agree.

I am not sure the appointment of Sunak was a particularly planned move. Sajid Javid had shown himself to be either "politically flexible" or lacking in backbone depending on the way you see it. I suspect the expectation was that he would acquiesce to Johnson/Cummings' demands. Sunak was the next cab off the rank. He was also a relative unknown prior to his appointment. I looked on Yougov's approval rating website - in February 2020 one in five people had heard of him. 5% of people had a positive opinion. 7% a negative opinion and 8% fairly ambivalent. He was the 85th most famous Tory. The most common word to describe him was cute. I think it's likely that has changed almost entirely now.
The fact of the matter is that this crisis has meant that politicians beyond the Prime Minister have taken more of a frontline, partly because of the sheer numbers of people wanting to ask questions and also because Johnson fell ill. That means people are becoming more acquainted with Ministers than usual. Sunak has given a very good impression to most people that has elevated him to leadership material rapidly. He was on that 'Big Night In' last night and managed that rarest of things for a multi-millionaire Conservative party MP in that he appeared as a normal person. In a way that BJ never could because he isn't.
I'd agree that Boris Johnson was probably as secure as any Tory has been for decades prior to the Pandemic. He had an enormous majority. Jeremy Corbyn has always been useless. But by then he was a useless, defeated lame duck. The Tory party is ruthless and there will be those remaining in the parliamentary party biding their time to act against him. I think it was William Hague who said that the Tory party is unfailingly loyal to it's leader - until it isn't. Johnson wouldn't be the first or last to remove any alternative power bases quickly. However, this pandemic has ended the honeymoon period overnight. It will overshadow his Premiership. I suspect the next round of elections across the democratic world will amount to referenda on the incumbent's handling of the Pandemic. When it appeared Thatcher had outstayed her usefulness she was dispatched. When this is over and I hope to God it is relatively soon. There will be the Mother of all inquiries. Into preparedness, PPE, lockdowns, COBR meetings, working holidays, procurement etc. etc. Then there will be an unedifying spin war between the two parties. The dust will settle. If Johnson is seen as to blame for all the failings then I suspect he won't be long for the job.

Pretty good overview. Re. the bolded bit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52406261

Damn! Possibly. More needs doing to solidify what this means.

Yeah it's pretty disappointing. It seems the Chinese trial wasn't brilliant anyway because it finished early but it certainly puts the brakes on the flurry of good news that came out surrounding it in the last few weeks. I suspect it may turn out to be a treatment but not the treatment. In that it may save some lives but it won't allow us all to return to normal.

[MrInvisible]

So how well do folks feel people have been observing the lockdown in their area now that a month has passed?

My impression was that things were definitely v quiet in the first two weeks - deserted streets, traffic massively reduced and people strictly keeping to the social distancing, and not just in the supermarkets and pharmacies.

However, from my observations, things have got a lot more lax progressively since the Easter weekend. Traffic is back up closer to normal levels, and people have been gathering in groups again e.g. seen the local street drinkers gathering back in their usual hangouts and a group of around ten guys in early 20s hanging out, smoking weed. Seen neighbours with lots of (non essential) repeated visits from friends and family, including large picnic-type gatherings on the grass. Have ended up avoiding the usual shopping area we go to as the pavements have just been too busy and crowded - resembling more the run up to Christmas than a lockdown.

The context for my complaining above is that we live in a hotspot area for the virus. The hospital up the road has seen over 100 patients dying to the virus, a work colleague (aged 52) has contracted the virus and died, as have a play assistant (in her 70s) from the after-school scheme where our kids usually go to, and a teaching assistant (only 45) from our kids' school has also died. It really does feel as if its been hitting close to home, and the restrictions we are facing under lockdown (more relaxed than the likes of France, Italy and Spain) are a small price to pay (which this week's statistics show have been effective) to control spread of the virus.

[123456789.]

It is difficult for me to say exactly, my parents moved a few months back to a different part of the country. They moved again the weekend of the lockdown and I was staying with them to help them move anyway and decided it made more sense for me to stay with them to carry on helping with the move rather than head back to stay on my own. I've gone from never being to the place in my life to being literally nowhere else. It does seem that people are respecting the lockdown, out walking people maintain their distance (that may be the lockdown tash that I have been cultivating) and the pubs are pretty firmly shut. It may be that it is always pretty quiet around her but I wouldn't know. That being said it doesn't seem that people are meeting regularly. It's a new street that they've moved to so and they've done some 'lockdown drinks' where people have sat outside their respective homes.

On the flipside I'm still in close contact with people in the village I grew up in. It's been hit pretty badly and almost everyone I know who still lives there has had it or someone in their household has had it. The frustration from these people is fairly tangible. They say the roads are as busy as ever. People are having drinks in their gardens with people standing roughly two metres from one another.

It's a very difficult one. Generally speaking we are a pretty law abiding country and policing by consent is normally successful. In my experience people are generally pretty accepting of the police and stricter rules may harm that. There, in my opinion, needs to be some give in the restrictions in the case of emergencies or special circumstances. In fact I believe that those of us who can afford to maintain the strictest of restrictions should do so to enable those who can't to do so with the minimum of risk. Unfortunately policing by consent means some people decide they are the exception to the general rules. I spoke to an old school friend who decided to stay in his own flat. He has subsequently decided lockdown doesn't really apply to him and gets annoyed at the idea he should. I suspect the government rhetoric may return to the comply or we'll make it worse mantra soon enough.

[MrInvisible]

@Numbers: I wonder if there is a rural v urban split - I live in an inner city area, and its pretty obvious a substantial part of the population here is openly flouting the lockdown. To be fair many people round here do not have gardens, but still, no excuse for behaving selfishly. I did feel there was some good compliance in first couple of weeks of the lockdown, but progressively this has got worse. Meanwhile I do see a number of older folk wearing masks and looking scared, and I make a big effort to give them as much distance as possible (I've been walking in the road a lot, even on the main road).

[123456789.]

Possibly, although I have heard that Glasgow is pretty dead certainly in the centre. People I know in London have said similar things. The place I grew up in was pretty rural and they haven't followed it all too well. It's hard to see a trend. I suspect in years to come there'll be all forms of sociological papers on likelihood to follow the instructions relative to age, socio-economics and voting patterns. All I can say is the place I grew up was fairly 'anti-expert' driven; there's a fairly tangible belief that the people who run the country, generally speaking, are talkers rather than doers and have little to no idea what they were doing. When a lot of the people vs parliament stuff came out in the last few years it wasn't remotely a surprise to me and reflected what I'd been hearing for years. It did not surprise me when I heard that people had decided to put their own variants on the political advice.

[jimbopip]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/revealed-uk-ministers-were-warned-last-year-of-risks-of-coronavirus-pandemic

The Guardian is reporting that the government were warned LAST YEAR that a global pandemic was on its way. It's quite a long article, but I would say it's pretty damning. A lot of people have been of the "well no-one could have foreseen this and the government are doing their best in pretty unimaginably awful circumstances" opinion. However, I would suggest that they (the government) can't hide behind that for too much longer.

Among the predictions the report made is

The document said:

• A pandemic would play out in up to “three waves”, with each wave expected to last 15 weeks … “with the peak weeks occurring at weeks 6 and 7 in each wave”. I think they have been pretty accurate about the peak being around the 6-7 week mark. So, that may well mean we are about midway through the first wave.

• 50% of the population would be infected and experience symptoms of pandemic influenza during the one or more waves. The actual number of people infected would be higher than this, as there would be a number of asymptomatic cases.

• A pandemic of moderate virulence could lead to 65,600 deaths.Sadly, tragically, we are already over 20 000 deaths if you include those who died outside hospitals. We're not even at the end of the first wave. So, the report may well be accurate here as well.

• The potential cost to the UK could be £2.35tn.

• Even after the end of the pandemic, it is likely that it would take months or even years for health and social care services to recover.

• There would be significant public outrage over any perceived poor handling of the government’s preparations and response to the emergency You have to hand it to Whitehall, they have managed to avoid this so far. The public have been very well managed.

The only silver lining I can see is that I read this early in the morning. If I had read it late at night I would have dived head first into the first bottle of strong liquor my hand reached. As it is I will spare MrsPip nad young Pipetto the sight of me drowning my fears at breakfast.

[123456789.]

Playing Devil's Advocate a tad here. I suspect experts from every field under the sun tell the government every year that a disaster is coming.
David Tennant did an interview with Gordon Brown for his Podcast a few months ago, perhaps even longer than that. Gordon Brown basically said that Downing Street has been falling down for decades but no one wants to be the Prime Minister who doesn't get to live behind the black-door and no one wants to be the Prime Minister who uses vast amounts of public funds to do up their home. So terms come and go, Prime Minister's hedge their bets that the building won't fall down during their tenure. All the while costs go up and up for when it actually needs to be done.
I suspect that same thought process is followed in all sorts of areas. Experts in International Relations will come in and say that we need to spend more on our armed services because war with China or Russia is possible, experts on climate change will come and say we need to prepare better for the looming disaster and, amongst others, they will have had experts in science and medicine coming to demand more spending on pandemic preparation. All the while people demand lower taxes and better public services. So the government gambles that whilst a future conflict is inevitable, a pandemic is inevitable and climate change will keep getting worse the time for significant outlay won't come when they are in power. The flip-side of this is that if one of these things comes in their time in power they will be hammered by the Press. The classic example being that Chamberlain was very popular, the public favoured his strategy of peace and supported the reduced funding on the armed services. When war came and we were underprepared he was finished and his reputation has been tarnished eternally.
When all this is done there will be the most almighty spin war, Cummings will be at his absolute worst. The Labour party will look to argue that the foot soldiers were betrayed by their leaders and sent in unprepared. The Tories will look to wrap Johnson up in the NHS as the courageous war leader who nearly gave his life to the cause. I think Cummings will win. I think the response has been scandalous but ultimately 43% of people voted for the Tories at the last election. Large swathes of those people will have been Team Boris for nigh on four years at that point. It would take an enormous degree of introspection to determine that the choice the country took three or four months ago has led to a government so incompetent that thousands have people have died that shouldn't have. If Cummings comes up with a convincing enough story then people will go with it.

[MrInvisible]

@Numbers: I agree with quite a bit of that analysis, though I'm not sure even Cummings will be able to spin this one, and unlike on Brexit there are signs that the normally right-wing press have been more critical and less supportive of the government this time.  

Its still early stages of the pandemic, but by the time we get a vaccine many of us will have lost a relative, work colleague or friend from the virus, and it will therefore have hit closer to home to more of us than other types of crisis.   I'm sure there'll be plenty of rewriting of narratives going on to protect the government in due course, but if you have personally lost someone who did not have the PPE, or who perished in a vulnerable care home you may have a different personal perspective at odds of what Cummings and his pals will be spinning.

That said, looking into my crystal ball, I can foresee the general public giving the benefit of doubt more on the government's handling of the health aspects of the pandemic, and being harsher on the economic aspects of the pandemic, despite them (in my opinion) doing a semi-decent job on the latter, and being woeful on the former.

A lot of people all over the world are going to be poorer over the coming months and years, and, like the 2008 financial crisis, lots of governments will get punished for this, regardless of how well they have done in managing it.  I think Sunak has generally been v competent so far, but further down the road, when the tough decisions have to be made on how the bills have to be paid in the coming financial hangover, he'll have to choose between cuts or higher taxes to take most of the burden - raising taxes goes against the natural instincts of most traditional conservatives in this country, but are they prepared to push further tough austerity on those who will be at breaking point already in the coming months?

Of course, if we do go ahead with a no deal Brexit or other form of Brexit with UK outside Single Market and Customs Union next year the fallout will be even greater.

[123456789.]

For those of you who don't have access to the Times they've launched another big attack on the government, firstly in response to last weeks' Insight and then in their leading article.

Coronavirus: how the government tried to dismiss Sunday Times investigation
Senior scientists, a former civil service chief and Tory ex-ministers criticise the official response to our report

The government’s defence of Boris Johnson over his failure to attend five successive meetings of the Cobra national crisis committee on the coronavirus has been dismissed by former Whitehall officials and senior politicians.

A former head of the civil service, three Conservative ex-ministers and a former Downing Street chief of staff said it was usual for the prime minister to attend Cobra if he was in easy reach of London.

They spoke out after the government issued a 14-point response in a 2,100-word blog to The Sunday Times’s account of the five weeks from late January, detailing how government inaction compromised attempts to tackle the virus.

The government’s most senior ministers — including Dominic Raab, Michael Gove and Matt Hancock — leapt to the prime minister’s defence and tweeted copies of the blog, which claimed that the Insight team’s report contained a “series of falsehoods and errors”.

Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, said on the BBC last week that “most Cobra meetings don’t have the prime minister attending them”.

The government’s spin doctors were accused of misrepresentation by a doctor and a scientist who were quoted in the official response as suggesting that the severity of the threat from the coronavirus was not fully appreciated when Johnson missed the first Cobra meeting.

The doctor, Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, accused the government of “Kremlinesque” manipulation of his words.

The scientist, Martin Hibberd, professor of emerging infectious disease at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the government’s response used his words out of context, cutting out a sentence calling for urgent action to gather evidence in preparation for a possible pandemic.

The Sunday Times article revealed that Johnson did not attend his first Cobra meeting on the virus until March 2. He skipped the January and February Cobra meetings despite being in Westminster on four of the days that they were held and an hour’s drive away in Kent on the other.

An analysis of more than 40 Cobra meetings on major emergencies that have been published in the decade since the Conservatives came to power shows that prime ministers usually chaired them — unless they were too far away from London to get to the committee on time. Only three were chaired by a secretary of state when the prime minister was in Westminster.

Lord Kerslake, the head of the civil service between 2012 and 2014, said the prime minister typically chaired three-quarters of the Cobra meetings and the main reason for non-attendance was that they were away from London.

He said: “[Cobra] is there for a national emergency and you don’t call it unless there’s something pretty serious. And if there’s something pretty serious, you would expect the prime minister to chair it.”

His views were supported by three Conservative former ministers who were familiar with the workings of Cobra and by Jonathan Powell, Downing Street chief of staff under Tony Blair, who said he was not aware of an occasion when Blair had missed a Cobra meeting while he was at Westminster.

Powell said: “It’s not impossible for the prime minister to miss Cobra meetings if something is happening in the world that’s more important or he’s out of the country. But the point of missing five is it’s a sign that we’re not taking the problem seriously enough.”

In Johnson’s defence, the government’s “blog” gave three examples of times when a minister had chaired Cobra instead of the prime minister over the past 11 years. In two of these examples, it has emerged that the prime minister was unable to attend because he was abroad. One occasion was when Gordon Brown was in Poland — and yet he still phoned in to take part in Cobra. The other was when Johnson’s plane had just touched down in New York.

The third example given by the government said Gove chaired Cobra over preparations for a no-deal Brexit. This meeting had never previously been acknowledged in public and this weekend Downing Street declined to say when it took place.

Yesterday, Downing Street responded to our inquiries by sending a short paragraph taken from the 2011 cabinet manual, which states: “In general the chair [of Cobra] will be taken by the secretary of state of the government department with lead responsibility for the particular issue being considered.”

However, a 2013 government document gives a fuller description of Cobra’s role. It says Cobra is mostly convened for “level 2” international emergencies — using the example of the swine flu threat — and says these meetings are controlled by the “Strategy Group”, which is chaired by the prime minister, home secretary or foreign secretary.

Kerslake said it was customary for the prime minister to chair the strategy group.

“Under the emergency planning guidance you would expect the prime minister to attend Cobra over the coronavirus crisis because it is clearly at least a level 2 emergency. Given its seriousness, I would be surprised if it was classified [as] any different from this.”

Here we reproduce each section of the government’s statement and The Sunday Times’s replies.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – On the third Friday in January Coronavirus was already spreading around the world but the government ‘brushed aside’ the threat in an hour-long COBR meeting and said the risk to the UK public was ‘low’.

Response [by the government] – At a very basic level, this is wrong. The meeting was on the fourth Friday in January. The article also misrepresents the Government’s awareness of Covid 19, and the action we took before this point. Health Secretary Matt Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team.

He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January. The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Mr Hancock instituted daily coronavirus meetings. He updated Parliament as soon as possible, on January 23rd.

The risk level was set to “Low” because at the time our scientific advice was that the risk level to the UK public at that point was low. The first UK case was not until 31 January. The specific meaning of “public health risk” refers to the risk there is to the public at precisely that point. The risk was also higher than it had been before — two days earlier it had been increased “Very Low” to “Low” in line with clinical guidance from the Chief Medical Officer.

The WHO did not formally declare that coronavirus was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) until 30 January, and only characterised it as a global pandemic more than a month later, on 11 March. The UK was taking action and working to improve its preparedness from early January.

Sunday Times reply:
It was indeed the fourth Friday in January, but the date (January 24) was correct. We regret the error. The article does not misrepresent “the government’s awareness of Covid-19” before January 24. The article begins its narrative on January 24 and does not comment on what actions were taken before that date. The rest of this section challenges nothing that was reported in the article.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] –‘This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.’

Response [by the government] – The editor of the Lancet, on exactly the same day – 24 January - called for “caution” and accused the media of ‘escalating anxiety by talking of a ‘killer virus’ and ‘growing fears’. He wrote: ‘In truth, from what we currently know, 2019-nCoV has moderate transmissibility and relatively low pathogenicity. There is no reason to foster panic with exaggerated language.’ The Sunday Times is suggesting that there was a scientific consensus around the fact that this was going to be a pandemic – that is plainly untrue.

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1220606842449072128?s=19

Sunday Times reply:
This is misrepresentation. Mr Horton issued his tweet at 7.18am and the alarming new Chinese study came in later the same day and was published straight away by The Lancet, which is confirmed by a tweet by Mr Horton at 3.05pm. Next day Mr Horton tweeted: “The challenge of 2019-nCoV is not only the public health response. It is clinical capacity. A third of patients so far have required admission to ICU. 29% developed ARDS. Few countries have the clinical capacity to handle this volume of acutely ill patients. Yet no discussion.” Two months later (March 27), Mr Horton said on BBC Question Time: “Honestly, sorry to say this, but it’s a national scandal. We shouldn’t be in this position. We knew in the last week of January that this was coming. The message from China was absolutely clear that a new virus with pandemic potential was hitting cities. People were being admitted to hospital, admitted to intensive care units and dying and the mortality was growing. We knew that 11 weeks ago, and then we wasted February when we could have acted. Time when we could have ramped up testing time when we could have got personal protective equipment ready and disseminated. We didn’t do it.”

After the government cited Horton in its statement on Sunday night, Mr Horton tweeted on Monday: “Just for the record: the UK government is deliberately rewriting history in its ongoing COVID-19 disinformation campaign. My Jan 24 tweet called for caution in UK media reporting. It was followed by a series of tweets drawing attention to the dangers of this new disease.” On Tuesday Mr Horton told The Sunday Times that the government’s use of his tweet in their response to the article was “redolent of Kremlin-esque manipulation of evidence”. He added: “I find it very funny that Matt Hancock was asked a question about disinformation and he said, ‘we take it very seriously and we need to correct disinformation’. They really are scared that the verdict of history is going to condemn them for contributing to the deaths of tens of thousands of British citizens. And because they know they wasted a minimum of five weeks through February and early March they are desperately trying to rewrite the timeline of what happened. And we must not let them do that.”

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – It was unusual for the Prime Minister to be absent from COBR and is normally chaired by the Prime Minister.

Response [by the government] – This is wrong. It is entirely normal and proper for COBR to be chaired by the relevant Secretary of State. Then Health Secretary Alan Johnson chaired COBR in 2009 during H1N1. Michael Gove chaired COBR as part of No Deal planning. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps chaired COBR during the collapse of Thomas Cook. Mr Hancock was in constant communication with the PM throughout this period.

At this point the World Health Organisation had not declared COVID19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and only did so only 30 January. Indeed, they chose not to declare a PHEIC the day after the COBR meeting.

Examples of scientific commentary from the time:

Prof Martin Hibberd, Professor of Emerging Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:

“This announcement is not surprising as more evidence may be needed to make the case of announcing a PHEIC. WHO were criticised after announcing the pandemic strain of novel H1N1_2009, when the virus was eventually realised to have similar characteristics to seasonal influenza and is perhaps trying to avoid making the same mistake here with this novel coronavirus. To estimate the true severity of this new disease requires identifying mild or asymptomatic cases, if there are any, while determining the human to human transmission rate might require more evidence.”

Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, Senior Lecturer in International Security Studies, University of Sydney, said: “Based on the information we have to date, the WHO Director-General’s decision to not declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is not especially surprising. While we have seen international spread of the virus, which is one of the criteria for declaring a PHEIC, the cases in those countries do not appear to have seeded further local outbreaks. If that was to start to occur, it would constitute a greater concern but at the moment the outbreak is largely contained within China.”

Sunday Times reply:
It is unusual for the prime minister not to chair Cobra, although, at times, ministers can stand in for the prime minister, especially when he or she is away. Boris Johnson was in Westminster for four of the five Cobra meetings and was a one-hour drive away in Kent for the other, yet he did not attend any of them. Alan Johnson chaired a meeting of Cobra during H1N1 because Gordon Brown, the prime minister, was in Poland (and phoned in from there). Mr Shapps chaired the Thomas Cook Cobra because Boris Johnson was in New York. Mr Gove chaired a daily “operations committee” known as XO in the Cabinet Office’s Cobra room while in charge of no-deal planning in 2019, but these were not Cobra meetings.

The use of the two experts for the scientific commentary is selective quotation and misrepresentation. These two quotes are taken from six opinions published on January 24 by the Science Media Centre (SMC), a not-for-profit organisation that provides expert information for journalists. They were issued in response to the decision by the World Health Organisation not to declare the China coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern.

It is notable that the government statement did not include Professor Hibberd’s final sentence, which says: “However, all this new evidence needs to be rapidly obtained over the next few days if the world is to be as prepared as possible, so WHO should issue a different type of alert to mobilise a full investigation.”

Last week Hibberd told The Sunday Times that the government had taken his comment out of context and scientists’ warnings proposing caution and preparedness did not appear to have been acted on sufficiently by the government. He added: “I think all of the comments made on the 24th January in response to the WHO response, including my own full comment, reflected the need to prepare as much as possible for this new virus. While we were still seeking to learn what its full impact might be, we also expected our preparedness plans to be in place and in action, so that we could remain in control of this outbreak as much as possible. This was certainly done by other governments at the time, such as Singapore. We should not be caught unaware, even if we were unsure of the true severity.”

The government also ignored another of the opinions published by the SMC that day, which amounted to a warning that the situation was very serious. It was by Dr Jeremy Farrar, the director of the Wellcome Trust, who unlike Hibberd and Kamradt-Scott is on the government’s key Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) committee. He said: “This virus has crossed from animals into people. That does not happen often, and it is, without doubt, very serious. People are scarred by the memory of Sars, and a global outbreak of a novel respiratory virus like this, is something experts have warned about for many years.”

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – ‘Imperial’s [Professor Neil] Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.’

Response [by the government] – Infectivity on its own simply reveals how quickly a disease spreads, and not its health impact. For that, it is necessary to know about data such as associated mortality/morbidity. It is sloppy and unscientific to use this number alone to compare to Spanish flu.

Sunday Times reply:
The article made clear that what made the virus frightening in late January was the combination of the infectivity rate and the high rate of people dying and needing intensive care in the early study by the Chinese scientists.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – No 10 “played down the looming threat” from coronavirus and displayed an “almost nonchalant attitude … for more than a month”.

Response [by the government] – The suggestion that the government’s attitude was nonchalant is wrong. Extensive and detailed work was going on in government because of coronavirus, as shown above.

Sunday Times reply:
There are no examples given “above” of the government’s “extensive and detailed work”. Whether the government was nonchalant is a matter of opinion. The Sunday Times reported the facts.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – By the time the Prime Minister chaired a COBR meeting on March 2 “the virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.”

Response [by the government] – This virus has hit countries across the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that coronavirus only reached the UK because the health secretary and not the PM chaired a COBR meeting.

Sunday Times reply:
The article did not say this.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – “Failure of leadership“ by [the prime minister, according to an] anonymous senior advisor to Downing Street.

Response [by the government] – The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the Government response to Covid 19, providing the leadership to steer his Ministerial team through a hugely challenging period for the whole nation. This anonymous source is variously described as a ‘senior adviser to Downing Street’ and a ‘senior Downing Street adviser’. The two things are not the same. One suggests an adviser employed by the government in No10. The other someone who provides ad hoc advice. Which is it?

Sunday Times reply:
The source was in a position to observe the prime minister’s leadership style. It is notable that no attempt has been made to deny the prime minister’s absence from key meetings and from Downing Street itself. Michael Gove has confirmed the prime minister missed five coronavirus Cobra meetings.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – The government sent 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.

Response [by the government] – The equipment was not from the pandemic stockpile. We provided this equipment to China at the height of their need and China has since reciprocated our donation many times over. Between April 2-April 15 we have received over 12 million pieces of PPE in the UK from China.

Sunday Times reply:
Downing Street told The Sunday Times before publication of the article that the 12 million pieces of PPE from China was a commercial deal. It was not reciprocation for generosity.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – Little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis in this period.

Response [by the government] – This is wrong. The NHS has responded well to Coronavirus, and has provided treatment to everyone in critical need. We have constructed the new Nightingale hospitals and extended intensive care capacity in other hospitals.

Sunday Times reply:
The Nightingale hospital programme was announced in late March, long after the period in question, and was acknowledged in the article.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.

Response [by the government] – The Department for Health began work on boosting PPE stocks in January, before the first confirmed UK case.

- Discussions on PPE supply for COVID-19 began w/c 27 January (as part of Medical Devices and Clinical Consumables), with the first supply chain kick-off meeting on 31 January. The first additional orders of PPE was placed on 30 January via NHS Supply Chain’s ‘just-in-time contracts’. BAU orders of PPE were ramped up around the same date.

- Friday, 7 February, the department held a webinar for suppliers trading from or via China and the European Union. Over 700 delegates joined and heard the Department’s requests to carry out full supply chain risk assessments and hold onto EU exit stockpiles where they had been retained.

- Monday, 10 February, the department spoke with the major patient groups and charities to update them on the situation regarding the outbreak and to update them on the steps it was taking to protect supplies.

- Tuesday, 11 February, the department wrote to all suppliers in scope of the Covid 19 supply response work – those trading from or via China or the EU – repeating the messages from the webinar and updating suppliers on the current situation relating to novel coronavirus. The NHS has spare ventilator capacity and we are investing in further capacity.

Sunday Times reply:
The article reported that the department had placed orders under “just-in-time contracts” on January 30. However, it pointed out that the source said these ran into difficulties because they were with manufacturers in China, which desperately needed its own PPE supplies at the time. Downing Street and the Department of Health confirmed to The Sunday Times that the “just-in-time contracts” were proving difficult. In contrast to what the government is claiming to be “detailed and extensive” activity, it presents no evidence of any further activity on PPE acquisition between February 11 and the beginning of March or any activity before the week beginning January 27. Its failure to point to a single delivery of PPE, testing equipment or ventilators during this period suggests a level of achievement even lower than the article reported.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – Suggestion that “lack of grip” had the knock-on effect of the national lockdown being introduced days or even weeks too late, causing many thousands more unnecessary deaths.

Response [by the government] – The government started to act as soon as it was alerted to a potential outbreak. Mr Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team. He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January. The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Hancock instituted daily meetings to grip the emerging threat. We have taken the right steps at the right time guided by the scientific evidence.

Sunday Times reply:
The government response does not address whether the lockdown was too late.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear and one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.

Response [by the government] – The government followed scientific advice at all times. The WHO only determined that COVID 19 would be a global pandemic on 11 March. Claiming that there was scientific consensus on this is just wrong. Sage met on January 22 but the first NERVTAG meeting was held on 13 January (NERVTAG is the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group – see here https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/new-and-emerging-respiratory-virus-threats-advisory-group).

Sunday Times reply:
These statements of fact contradict nothing in the article.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

Response [by the government] – The Government has been extremely proactive in implementing lessons learnt around pandemic preparedness, including from Exercise Cygnus. This includes being ready with legislative proposals that could rapidly be tailored to what became the Coronavirus Act, plans to strengthen excess death planning, planning for recruitment and deployment of retired staff and volunteers, and guidance for stakeholders and sectors across government.

Sunday Times reply:
The Coronavirus Act received royal assent on March 25 of this year, so any measures brought in under the law were put in place after the virus had seriously taken hold in Britain and almost four years after the exercise itself.

● Government statement:

Claim [by The Sunday Times] – By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless NERVTAG, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.

Response [by the government] – This is a misrepresentation of what the threat level is. This is about the current public health danger – and on February 21, when the UK had about a dozen confirmed cases, out of a population of over 66 million, the actual threat to individuals was moderate. In terms of the potential threat, the government was clear – on 10 February the Secretary of State declared that “the incidence or transmission of novel Coronavirus constituted a serious and imminent threat to public health”.

Sunday Times reply:
If on February 10 the virus was considered — even potentially — a serious and imminent threat to public health, why did the prime minister not attend a Cobra meeting until March 2?

[123456789.]

This is the Leading article:

If the press doesn’t ask hard questions, who will?


Last weekend The Sunday Times published an important investigation highlighting the delays and missteps in the government’s early response to the coronavirus crisis. It was widely read and set the agenda. It was a fine and necessary investigation and we stand fully behind it.

We would not claim to get everything right and we made a small error when we identified January 24 as the third Friday of the month, rather than the fourth. But, in common with investigations by our respected Insight team over many decades, it was impeccably researched and told an essential story. Good journalism is doing its job when it uncovers and brings clarity to stories that people do not want to be told, as this investigation did.

The government rushed out a 2,000-word response, using the full machinery of Whitehall, including an official website, that was both unprecedented and feeble, failing properly to address the central points made by our investigation.

To take one example, it claimed that prime ministers do not routinely attend Cobra meetings. As our story today makes clear, it is unusual for a prime minister to miss a Cobra meeting, let alone five in succession, especially when it is to address an event, such as the unfolding of a global pandemic, that is near the top of the national risk register. Furthermore, two scientists quoted by the government in its response say their words were taken out of context.

We know that at this time the media are not winning any popularity contests. People pull together in support of the government during national emergencies. When journalists ask difficult questions, people mistakenly believe them to be unpatriotic or politically driven. This is nonsense. There was nothing about our investigation that was unpatriotic or politically driven. But people need to know whether their government is doing the right thing, now more than ever.

The government, meanwhile, needs to be very careful about picking a fight with the media and going down the Donald Trump route. This weekend, in response to a story in another newspaper, the prime minister’s spokesman chose to say that “public confidence in the media has collapsed”. This is dangerous territory, not least from a government led by a prime minister who made his career as a journalist.

[lostinwales]

Thanks.

Re: post virus enquiry. It will most likely take years and depending on who is in power there may be major issues in getting the results published. The government is still committed to Brexit on time without apparently doing any research on the likely impacts.

We are still waiting to see the results of the enquiry on potential Russian interference in our elections. I hate to say no smoke without fire or to get the old tin foil hat on but you would have thought if our government had a clean bill of health on this then they would have been happy to publish it.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Very little Johnson does is ever clean, from his constant straying from the marital path, to the refusal to recognise children begat during these affairs, his cronyism and using the public purse to finance his friends and probable mistresses' businesses, spending £40M on a bridge that never got even to design stage (I have worked in the construction industry all my life and worked on projects that started on the back of a fag packet idea seeing them through to £100M schemes. I do not understand how you can spend a tenth of that before you even get to design stage). He cannot explain where the money went and there has been no enquiry (Sadiq, why not?). His perpetual mantra of "if you are not with me, you are against me, .....your sacked" and therefore surrounded by sycophantic followers, scared witless that if they have a good idea Johnson will see it as "not part of my plan", bye bye.

I am still very suspicious about how bad his illness was, I do not doubt he had Covid-19.just did it warrant a week in intensive care with a doctor assigned to him alone seeing no one else. He was never bad enough to need a ventilator, just oxygen, from my few memories of visiting hospitals, I believe oxygen is available at a lot of beds outside of an ICU. Now when the death rate is coming down (until today, he might have mistimed this) he is making a re-appearance to start dishing out all the good news about possible relaxation of the lock down. Whats the betting on a relapse if we get a second spike.

With all the lies and falsehoods currently being issued, plus the facts that they have really cocked it up early days, I mean, the PM missing five COBRA meetings and ignoring advice, doctoring statements from specialists and publishing them as "the advice". They are beginning to become more like Trump everyday and we know what the world thinks of him.

The Tory party has always relied on the press with rags like the Sun and the Mail energising the hope and fears of the significant part of the population that struggles to use what is between it's ears. It won't lose there support as no one that is capable of thinking anything would buy them, but if they lost the Times and possibly even the Express and Sir Kier Starmer starts to make the Labour Party sound electable, they might have a long standing problem. The Independent and the Guardian are currently very anti, if the BBC smells blood after the way they have been treat, Johnson may be making a very large rod for his own back.

[123456789.]

I think they’ll hedge their bets on the fact the media is not very popular currently. They’ve shown hints they’ll go down the Trump route if need be.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I just hope that middle England is a lot smarter than middle America then (Scots, Welsh and N. Irish are excused, they have already shown they are not amused by Johnson)

[Duty281]

The Tory party has always relied on the press with rags like the Sun and the Mail energising the hope and fears of the significant part of the population that struggles to use what is between it's ears. It won't lose there support as no one that is capable of thinking anything would buy them.

We can all do without this tedious prejudice, particularly when your own post is littered with more grammatical errors than a copy of any of these papers.

[123456789.]

For what it's worth Piers Morgan has been using his Daily Mail column to attack Boris Johnson and Trump over this for weeks becoming the unlikely champion of the Left during this process. Equally readers of the Sun and the Mail tend to be pretty bloody old and therefore not overwhelmingly likely to back Cummings 'let the pensioners die, save the economy' approach that he seemed to favour at the beginning.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Duty, for what it is worth, I have never pretended to be able to communicate in perfect English, either written or verbal. That does not stop me from understanding that rags like the Mail and Sun, spout what is just legally short of hate crime and have a very right wing bias, not because they actually believe it, but  because people who can get passed their own fears and prejudices read it and therefore buy the Poopie.

I was educated, if you call it that at one of the first really big comprehensives, 1500 kids in 4 year groups, plus one class did 5th form. We were designed to be fodder for the factories and leave at 15. Woodwork and metal work took precedence over anything academic. I freely admit, my grammar and spelling are not up to scratch, but try and sort out a contractual problem I am your man, being able to write it and being able to understand it are two different things.

Please tell me that the Sun and the Mail are not aimed at the people that are socially challenged and are not designed to prey upon their prejudices.

Also tell me that they do not have a right wing bias, Murdoch is just slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

So apart from the grammatical errors, what did I get wrong?

[Pr4wn]

[Pal Joey]

Please tell me that the Sun and the Mail are not aimed at the people that are socially challenged and are not designed to prey upon their prejudices.

Also tell me that they do not have a right wing bias, Murdoch is just slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

I didn't know Atilla the Hun was so right wing, Well Past It. I always thought he was more about a more equal distribution of wealth and land amongst those he conquered. One could argue that he was a true internationalist, pro mass migration and open borders whilst seeking to reform the strict authoritarianism practices of Roman Law which required occupational licensing and the suppression of individual's rights to freedom.

According to Priscus of Panium, a 5th-century Roman diplomat and Greek historian and rhetorician:

He was a man born into the world to shake the nations, the scourge of all lands, who in some way terrified all mankind by the dreadful rumours noised abroad concerning him. He was haughty in his walk, rolling his eyes hither and thither, so that the power of his proud spirit appeared in the movement of his body.

OK, so a bit of Rupert Murdoch there.

He was indeed a lover of war, yet restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants and lenient to those who were once received into his protection.

But more democratic here. You'd have to be; to keep all those aggregated hordes happy in their yurts every night.

Not too sure what his views on contemporary issues such as global warming and the underlying motivations of Neo-liberalism would be though.



Apologies for the digression - I hope everyone is doing well and looking after themselves and those immediately around you.

It feels like some restrictions may be eased here with schools to partially re-open with face-to-face learning in a couple of weeks and some shops re-opening with safe distancing in place.

Australia has been very lucky indeed, thus far. It helps that we are a more isolated island continent and were able to stop flights into the country as well as enacting the restrictions quite early on. The Government has also been on top of things by and large; yet it is annoying to see some folks still openly flaunting the rules and behaving selfishly in certain instances.

Contrary to what some people may believe about the apparent 'knockabout, casual and larrikin culture' of Australians who show an apparent disregard for social and political conventions - I think we are actually more responsive to the current global crisis than what we are given credit for.

Sure, some people do admit to a rebellious streak in them but a lot of it is more talk rather than action. I also think we had a head start on the social restrictions with the horrific bushfire season - it prepared us for an emergency situation where things weren't as normal and whether we liked it or not; our behaviour had to adapt to new conditions. It also brings out the best in people as we are forced to deal with some unplanned-for natural and biological events. It also shows that we are more resilient and co-operative when we are faced with life-threatening situations.

Quite odd really; that these two events happened so close together and gave our social consciences an almighty jolt. It's a good thing in that respect.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Pal Joey, I will bow to your greater knowledge of Central/Eastern European history. My memories of what little I was taught on the subject were that he was responsible for killing millions people, his mantra was bow down to me or die and if a town of city defied him, every man woman and and child was killed as an example to the next town.

"I always thought he was more about a more equal distribution of wealth and land amongst those he conquered"

Sounds more like something out of Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto", or an ideal of Stalin.

Not as vicious as Genghis Khan, 800 years later, who killed up to 40 million people is a relatively sparsely populated world.

The Huns had no written language and all the written accounts are from the people he conquered and therefore are not exactly impartial, he may well therefore have been as benign as you say, but then you have been looking at Wiki, just like me.

"Contrary to what some people may believe about the apparent 'knockabout, casual and larrikin culture' of Australians who show an apparent disregard for social and political conventions - I think we are actually more responsive to the current global crisis than what we are given credit for."

You have just spoiled the whole image of Mick Dundee, I will never be able to watch Croc.... again.

Glad things are going better in Australia than here, two tragedies in the same year would be just too much, having said that we appear to have had two over here, CV and Boris (although that is still waiting to happen)

[Pal Joey]

That's OK mate. No bowing to anyone necessary.

I was being a little tongue in cheek of course. He was, no doubt, a very violent and fiery character on the rampage for most of the time.

I'm following your news over there regarding Boris. The others filling in for him appear to be doing their best. however, there is that unavoidable feeling that someone else now makes a wrong step and they'll be scrambling to defend their actions in Boris' absence. Difficult times to be leading a country for sure.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Boris must be sure things are on the turn or he would still be convalescing, he doesn't like to be the bearer of bad tidings.

[tigertattie]

For me the biggest issue the government has had is enforcement of lockdown.

Italy and France have gone full lockdown, almost a curfew has been put in place and its been widely reported that anyone flouting the guidelines has been fined and then the rest of the populous falls into line.

In the UK we're still closer to the Americans than the rest of Europe in that "A Man's home is his castle" and we feel that as long as we're following the laws of the land, we can pretty much do as we please. This is where the problems lay as we haven’t really enshrined in law the penalties for what is really more a guideline by the UK government.

To put it into a rugby context, the UK public has been like the New Zealand rugby team and we're pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and often crossing the line and we're ok with it as long as we don’t get caught.

As an example, the Scottish Chief Medical Officer was, more than once, found at her country retreat, yet she wasn’t fined. You see on the news where the police are having to move people on who were laying sunbathing in the parks. Move them on? Why were the idiots not fined?

As I get older I find myself getting more and more like Victor Meldrew and feel the youngsters need a good smack about the head and told to shape up. But it’s not just the youngsters. As time has been going by, people are either getting bored of lockdown or complacent towards the risks and are taking more and more "chances" out there. yesterday and today one of my neighbours have had their adult son inside the house. He's not gone in with essential shopping, he’s not gone in with tools to fix a burst pipe, he's just been in for a couple of hours for a visit. I know this has they've been sat in the back garden having a chat (and not at 2m distance). I’ve got acquaintances on Facebook asking where they can go to get paint for their fence. I’ve seen folk posting their Strava or Nike Run app stats where they’ve been out walking or running for way more than the 1 hour of essential exercise. I’ve seen folk getting the window cleaners in, I’ve seen folk get the gardeners in. I’ve seen a “personality” ask who can do a clandestine car valet service and then actively promote the service of said car valet for managing to get the car done without being “busted”. Are all these “essential” services?

The best example I can give you is a local paramedic who took to facebook. He said “Don’t have the cheek to stand and clap for me at 8pm on a Thursday when you were parked in B&Q or the Range at the weekend”. The Lockdown is an initiative to protect the public health, it is not an opportunity for you to do all the odd jobs in your house that you’ve not had time to do. By All means, if you have paint in your house and you are bored, give your living room a touch up, but for goodness sake, there’s no need to go to B&Q and wait in line to buy some paint.

So yeah, the public have mostly been heeding the government’s request but there are a few, and quite a few at that, who are pushing their luck at best, risking others at worst.

[Samo]

I have to say I think Boris said all the right things in his return speech.

[123456789.]

I haven't watched the speech personally. I am finding the great return narrative nauseating enough as it is. I will try to force myself to watch it later. This is a guy whose bungles cost us millions upon millions of pounds before he became Prime Minister and now they've cost thousands of lives. I'm glad he's still alive, but thousands of people aren't because of his decisions, so I won't be celebrating.

In New Zealand they've almost eradicated the virus now. Again there's a huge number of caveats; smaller, sparser population and a relatively isolated country. Still it's depressing to see the success of the most proactive countries like Germany and Ireland as well compared to the reactive ones.

[rodders]

I have to say I think Boris said all the right things in his return speech.

Just a pity then that he tends to do the exact opposite of what he says.

[Samo]

I haven't watched the speech personally. I am finding the great return narrative nauseating enough as it is. I will try to force myself to watch it later. This is a guy whose bungles cost us millions upon millions of pounds before he became Prime Minister and now they've cost thousands of lives. I'm glad he's still alive, but thousands of people aren't because of his decisions, so I won't be celebrating.

In New Zealand they've almost eradicated the virus now. Again there's a huge number of caveats; smaller, sparser population and a relatively isolated country. Still it's depressing to see the success of the most proactive countries like Germany and Ireland as well compared to the reactive ones.

You're right, but Im trying to give credit where credit is due. Dont let it be said Im not impartial.

[rodders]

I haven't watched the speech personally. I am finding the great return narrative nauseating enough as it is. I will try to force myself to watch it later. This is a guy whose bungles cost us millions upon millions of pounds before he became Prime Minister and now they've cost thousands of lives. I'm glad he's still alive, but thousands of people aren't because of his decisions, so I won't be celebrating.

In New Zealand they've almost eradicated the virus now. Again there's a huge number of caveats; smaller, sparser population and a relatively isolated country. Still it's depressing to see the success of the most proactive countries like Germany and Ireland as well compared to the reactive ones.

Or another way to put it is countries that follow WHO advice and countries who ignore it.

[tigertattie]

I haven't watched the speech personally. I am finding the great return narrative nauseating enough as it is. I will try to force myself to watch it later. This is a guy whose bungles cost us millions upon millions of pounds before he became Prime Minister and now they've cost thousands of lives. I'm glad he's still alive, but thousands of people aren't because of his decisions, so I won't be celebrating.

In New Zealand they've almost eradicated the virus now. Again there's a huge number of caveats; smaller, sparser population and a relatively isolated country. Still it's depressing to see the success of the most proactive countries like Germany and Ireland as well compared to the reactive ones.

Or another way to put it is countries that follow WHO advice and countries who ignore it.  

Cant argue with that Rodders.

The WHO said "Test, Test and Test again"

Countries who Test, Test and Test again - Germany, South Korea
Countries who have been horrendously slow to test - UK, USA

[MrInvisible]

I'm finding that presentation of the statistics by media here in UK at least has been a bit misleading.  Given the issues over weekend reporting, the Monday figure is a bit misleading compared to previous day's totals.

I just had a look here to compare the figures over past few weeks: https://covid19-uk.co.uk/

Today's UK death total (in hospitals) of 413 isn't drastically below last Monday's figure of 449, but its still good news and a welcome reduction.

The totals for last 7 days are: 449+828+763+638+768+813+449 (4708 total, an average of 673 a day)
Previous 7 days were: 717+778+761+861+847+888+596 (5448 total, an average of 778 a day, 13.5% down on previous 7 days)

Given the delays in reporting deaths (e.g. each day's recorded figure is based from a number of days when the deaths took place), the 7 day average is a more meaningful figure than the daily one, and the above shows we have passed the peak and are in a decline, but it is pretty gradual.  The above link also has detail on positive cases but not done any number crunching on the 7 day figures there (I have some time on my hands but not that much!).

[Crimey]

The daily stats are always misleading and only become clearer once more time has passed. I wonder when we stop reporting daily deaths? There's every chance we will see deaths for Covid-19 for a long time, so I wonder when we will stop reporting daily deaths.

[hampo17]

They're even more misleading when they don't include care homes which the BBC are reporting there were 2000 deaths in care homes the week ending the 17th, double compared to the previous week.

[Soul Requiem]

They're even more misleading when they don't include care homes which the BBC are reporting there were 2000 deaths in care homes the week ending the 17th, double compared to the previous week.

Misleading by clearly stating it's the figures for hospitals only with ONS releasing weekly figures outside of that every week?

[hampo17]

I was referring to MrInvisbles post being slightly misleading however care home deaths are not as readily available as hospital deaths as the government doesn't announce these in daily briefings. Speaking to people from work earlier today and they're all talking about how numbers are going down etc then you mention the care home deaths and they don't have a clue.

However I'm not surprised, if this has shown me one thing it's that each individual government is moving in different directions from each other. For example I live in North Wales, if I watch the PMs briefing then I get to hear what England is doing. I then have to go online and find out what measures the Welsh Government is putting in place as these are different from what is in place for England.

[BamBam]

https://twitter.com/chrisgiles_/status/1255055939280998400?s=21

The new ONS figures state that by April 13, 27k people in the UK had died due to coronavirus. The number announced on that day for deaths in hospitals was 13.5k

[Sponsored content]