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

[123456789.]

Eton is a private school so I suspect its holidays begin in early June anyway, I think it's an admin decision rather than a safety one. I know of a couple of private schools that are looking at having to close everywhere. This is going to be rubbish and everyone is going to suffer. Like all things, those who have the least will suffer the most because they don't have a buffer zone. I think we need to steer clear of looking for conspiracy when it isn't there. Anyone who's read any of my reasoned and well thought out points (rants) on here will know that I am no fan of this government and its decisions. I do think, for the most part, Hanlon's razor applies though.

[Pr4wn]

There's no conspiracy, that's what I'm saying. The cabinet, at least, just don't care.

What I'm saying is that I highly doubt any of them send their kids to comprehensives. It's not them or their kids who will be in danger, so they don't care. The same can be said with re-opening the economy in such a rush.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[guildfordbat]

The failure to set up a Zoom call for yesterday's press briefing didn't exactly fill me with confidence concerning the Government's plans and capabilities.

[lostinwales]

There's no conspiracy, that's what I'm saying. The cabinet, at least, just don't care.

What I'm saying is that I highly doubt any of them send their kids to comprehensives. It's not them or their kids who will be in danger, so they don't care. The same can be said with re-opening the economy in such a rush.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I just go with the general incompetence model. Ever greater disasters requiring ever greater efforts to be seen to be doing something, and lots of panicky short term decisions with very little joined up thinking. The vaccine for September is the latest attempt at distraction.

There was a very interesting thread on Twitter talking about our pandemic planning procedure, in particular a report that was produced back in 2011. It was the kind of document on which our high rating of 'disaster preparedness' was based. Full of all kinds of suggestions like looking to see how other governments are coping and proper 'surveillance' (i.e. track and trace) It would appear that the government never bothered to look to see if we had such a document and made everything up on the fly.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but failure to grasp the nettle firmly means that the virus problems are going to run and run. 2-3 weeks time there will be a spike of cases because of the current mess over ending lockdown, and there will be a huge conflict over reintroducing a stronger lockdown and continuing to try to open up the economy. The stress on the government will just go up and up, and at some point it will rip itself apart. What happens then I have no idea. The Conservative government still has a massive and clear majority that won't go away until there is another election and that won't happen for years. It has also managed to ditch the kind of quality politicians who might have been able to come in and make a difference. It's close to a personality cult for a man who apart from his personality is an empty shell.

[guildfordbat]

There's no conspiracy, that's what I'm saying. The cabinet, at least, just don't care.

What I'm saying is that I highly doubt any of them send their kids to comprehensives. It's not them or their kids who will be in danger, so they don't care. The same can be said with re-opening the economy in such a rush.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

I just go with the general incompetence model. Ever greater disasters requiring ever greater efforts to be seen to be doing something, and lots of panicky short term decisions with very little joined up thinking. The vaccine for September is the latest attempt at distraction.

There was a very interesting thread on Twitter talking about our pandemic planning procedure, in particular a report that was produced back in 2011. It was the kind of document on which our high rating of 'disaster preparedness' was based. Full of all kinds of suggestions like looking to see how other governments are coping and proper 'surveillance' (i.e. track and trace) It would appear that the government never bothered to look to see if we had such a document and made everything up on the fly.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but failure to grasp the nettle firmly means that the virus problems are going to run and run. 2-3 weeks time there will be a spike of cases because of the current mess over ending lockdown, and there will be a huge conflict over reintroducing a stronger lockdown and continuing to try to open up the economy. The stress on the government will just go up and up, and at some point it will rip itself apart. What happens then I have no idea. The Conservative government still has a massive and clear majority that won't go away until there is another election and that won't happen for years. It has also managed to ditch the kind of quality politicians who might have been able to come in and make a difference. It's close to a personality cult for a man who apart from his personality is an empty shell.

Hi lostinwales - I agree with your general tone and certainly the Government (Sunak apart) are belatedly serving up a dog's breakfast whilst claiming it's a banquet. However, I'm struggling to think of ditched quality Tory politicians who would have made a welcome difference. Who do you have in mind? Cheers.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

As much as I hate to say it, Theresa May. She has a mind for detail that the others do not have, also Hammond was a couple of classes above what we have now.

[BamBam]

Gauke, Grieve, Letwin, Stewart etc spring to mind. Sajid Javid was thrown out for not toeing the Cummings line but he's far more capable than the rest of the senior ministers, despite how well Sunak appears to come across

Basically anyone who isn't a Brexit sycophant only in the job to make Johnson look good would have been an improvement

[lostinwales]

Gauke, Grieve, Letwin, Stewart etc spring to mind. Sajid Javid was thrown out for not toeing the Cummings line but he's far more capable than the rest of the senior ministers, despite how well Sunak appears to come across

Basically anyone who isn't a Brexit sycophant only in the job to make Johnson look good would have been an improvement

Can't answer better than that. I have also seen suggestions about bringing in some old heads in advisory roles. Can't help feeling the likes of Clarke and Heseltine are past it but Major is not.

[123456789.]

I think Major is older than he seems, I suspect that all three of them will be holed up pretty tightly given their ages.
Major and Heseltine actively campaigned against the government prior to the election, Clarke advocated people voting for Gauke, Grieve and Soubry. Clarke basically called Johnson a joke in the house of commons. I think even the most magnanimous person would struggle to overlook that, Boris Johnson is, by all accounts, a particularly petty and vindictive individual.
Nonetheless, there's no doubt this is a Brexit cabinet meant to bolster Johnson. That, in itself, is not a particularly unique thing in itself. The election in 2019 was a pretty personal victory for Johnson. I know plenty people who would normally vote for the Tory party but didn't because of Johnson, and plenty who normally would not but did because of Johnson. Of the Tory Leadership candidates, Rory Stewart and Sam Gyimah were jettisoned from the party in a matter of months. Many more of them have lost their cabinet positions. He has effectively restyled the party in his own image, those who are loyal to him are promoted whilst those who stand against are punished. It doesn't, as a policy, lend itself to effective management. The fact that two of the great offices of state are held by Raab and Patel during an incredibly severe crisis tells you everything you need to know.
In defence of the current bunch, we don't know what conversations are going on behind the scenes and how critical they have been there. It would be quite unedifying for cabinet ministers to come out and slag off the Prime Minister publicly. If they did they would be accused of making political capital. I suspect this will all come out in the Mother of all Enquiries. Although the cynic in me suspects the fall guys will be a collective of back room scientists and health officials. It suits the narrative Cummings is trying to project. This notion of a university educated elite that are stifling progress in Whitehall. Personally when as much has gone wrong as it has I don't think an honourable man would have any choice but to resign as Prime Minister. Which probably means we're stuck with the indomitable snowman for another decade.

[jimbopip]

As ever, numbers, a very articulate and perspecatious analysis. Keep it up.
Now can you nip over to the Culture Cup and vote sensibly to thwart Tigertattie?

[JDizzle]

BJ: "Who is in charge of implementing this delivery plan?" The response? "There was just silence. He looked over at Sedwill and said, 'Is it you?' Sedwill said, 'No, I think it's you, prime minister.'"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-boris-johnson-and-civil-service-chief-sir-mark-sedwill-clash-over-action-plan-g05tx5256

[123456789.]

As ever, numbers, a very articulate and perspecatious analysis.  Keep it up.
Now can you nip over to the Culture Cup and vote sensibly to thwart Tigertattie?

That would be my pleasure

[123456789.]

BJ: "Who is in charge of implementing this delivery plan?" The response? "There was just silence. He looked over at Sedwill and said, 'Is it you?' Sedwill said, 'No, I think it's you, prime minister.'"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-boris-johnson-and-civil-service-chief-sir-mark-sedwill-clash-over-action-plan-g05tx5256

In his defence, it is probably the consequence of his months of being in Dominic Cummings' torture chamber.

DC "Who is in charge of this country?" BJ: "That would be me, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the first Lord of the Treasury, the Minister for Union and Leader of the Conservative party" DC: "Rack Him Gover, turn the screw... Now Boris, who is in charge of this country" BJ: That would be me the Prime..." DC: "pull out his toenails Gover... now who is in charge of this country Alex". BJ "That's me I am the Prime Minister of..." DC: "Cut his balls off Gover" BJ: "You're in charge Dominic, you are. Sorry". DC: "Thank You Alex, what is your name?". BJ: "My name is Reek".

Must have been a shock to the system when someone actually let him do something

[WELL-PAST-IT]

If only that didn't sound like it has a grain of truth in it.

[Pr4wn]

"No" would have sufficed.

Anyway.

Trump's search for a scapegoat continues as he's now threatening a complete withdrawal from the WHO.

[Samo]

Trump's search for a scapegoat continues as he's now threatening a complete withdrawal from the WHO.

I wonder how many more people he's endangered since he claims he's taking hydroxychloroquine daily. You'd like to think he'd have a trusted advisor in his ear telling him not to say stupid Poopie like this.

[123456789.]

Ooo, be still my aching sides. Enjoying the echos?

Enjoying the accumulated sweaty muck between Johnson's toes?

As expected. Anyone disagrees w/ your nonsense and they're a Johnson fan? Wouldn't expect you to understand really. You've found yourself in the shallow end of the thinking pool again I see....

This isn't a 'Covid-19 serious chat thread'; it's just another virtue-signalling load of bollox where anyone who dissents from the left-leaning views of you and your ilk are either made to feel completely unwelcome or are simply shouted down.

This is utter rubbish. Firstly it seems completely unnecessary to engage in personal insults to anybody. For your information I don't have particularly left-leaning views, nor particularly right-leaning views. One of the more nauseating parts of the debates of the last few years is the way politics seems to have devolved into a team sport watched for entertainment. You'll notice on the rugby boards, that if Owen Farrell makes a tackle with his arms then the Welsh, Scottish and Irish fans will say there were no arms involved and that he should be yellow carded. The same applies in the opposite direction, if Owen Farrell flies in from the top of East Stand and ploughs his shoulder into the chest of his opponent leaving his arms elsewhere, the English fans will claim it was a completely legitimate tackle. That's the beauty of supporting a sports team. It should not really apply in politics.
Yet for some reason, you seem to think outrage at the current situation is some left-wing conspiracy. For the sake of clarity, I voted for the Conservative party in 2015, I was living in Scotland at the time of the Scottish Elections in 2016 and voted Tory again then. Both times primarily because my family live across the length and breadth of the UK and I remain pretty opposed to Scottish independence. At the time the Tory party seemed the surest bet to avoid that. I voted remain in the European referendum. I was back in England by 2017 and voted for some local nutjob party because I was so disgruntled at the three main parties. I think it is essential to vote but I wasn't going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, I was discomfited by a lot of Theresa May's rhetoric and I wasn't convinced it was appropriate for the Lib Dems to call for a second referendum. I didn't do my proper research on this local party and picked them at random. It turned out they were fundamentally racist and actually quite dangerous so I was one of about 80 people who actually voted for them. In 2019, I had come round to the position that Brexit was an utter disaster being carried in an increasingly racist direction. So I voted for the Liberal Democrats. The point there being that I am not some rabid Corbynite rubbing my hands and watching Johnson fail. Nor do I believe anybody here is enjoying this and simply digging at Boris Johnson for the sake of it. Frankly it's offensive to say they are.
What's more the countries that people are advocating we followed on this are often Centrist parties that traditionally were not far from where the British Conservative party stands. Merkel is head of a centre-Right party, Jacinda Ardern is a card carrying Blairite and the South Korean leader is the head of a centrist party. As has been said many, many times the question is not Left against Right. Or good against bad. It's competence versus incompetence. People living through this or dying. Both my Grandmothers are still alive and very, very elderly. For the time being they seem, Godwilling, to have avoided Covid-19 and are in good spirits. Nonetheless it puts things into perspective that I may never see them again as a consequence of policies pursued by this government. Other countries have done better, that is undoubted. We have a right to ask why other countries have done better. I am of the opinion that myself and many others have put the case across as to why the buck ought to stop with the government. I see little reason to go over the testing, quarantining, late lockdown, Boris Johnson's skiving of meetings etc. because it's been done many many times. Each time you simply accuse us of occupying an echo chamber without providing any reasoning why we could we may be wrong. Again, I, and others, have pointed the statistics as to how the countries that have done more on testing, tracing, earlier lockdowns, effective travel restrictions have had fewer people dying. Let's be clear on this, people ought to be questioning why more people have died in their country than elsewhere. Therese Coffey, has blamed "wrong advice and wrong science". There's a tacit recognition from the government that specific things have gone wrong which has not been accepted by any of the pro-government clique that operates on here. Now we all want the government to follow advice from experts. However there is the reason that we have a government elected by the people rather than a collection of experts. They have to listen to all forms of advice and choose the best advice in a given moment. It is their ability to choose the right advice that determines whether or not they are effective governors. Other countries chose different advice and have not suffered the way our country has. No one is claiming that all of this is entirely the fault of the government. Merely that in the sixth richest country in the world, with the second highest level of pandemic preparedness in the world it is reasonable to expect a slightly better result than the worst death toll in Europe, if that makes me Ché Guevara then hoist the red flag.
If you think the government is doing well on this then please explain why. Earlier discussions when you did that were far more interesting. Now it seems you merely pop up to bemoan the fact that everyone else is biased and everyone else is wrong. I see no reason why this discussion can't be civil and informative, it will spill over into politics at times. Ultimately it's a discussion of political decisions. Perhaps if you offered reasons why they are good decisions, or even not dreadful ones, it would function better.
As for Soul, there's been plenty people on here stating they have suffered financial problems on account of this disaster. Perhaps making glib remarks about how much money you have is a bit inappropriate. Call me a snowflake if you like, but I am not the one who throws a hissy fit every time somebody criticises Boris Johnson.

[123456789.]

As for Soul, there's been plenty people on here stating they have suffered financial problems on account of this disaster. Perhaps making glib remarks about how much money you have is a bit inappropriate. Call me a snowflake if you like, but I am not the one who throws a hissy fit every time somebody criticises Boris Johnson.

I'm sure i'll cope knowing you're offended by that.

I am not offended, but I do think it's a pretty distasteful thing to say. Now you're here. Why don't you explain why it is you feel the government has done a good job on this?

[lostinwales]

Oh look, tweedle dee has joined

Do you ever argue about who gets which toe or have you agreed a rota?

As a cliched Tory i'm too busy counting my money for such frivolous delights. It sounds like my kind of evening though.

Note that taking time counting one's money may mean there is a lot to count, or that counting takes a lot of time

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Just watching useless Eustace on the update. British workers will have to pick the crops this year.

From my scant knowledge of Eastern European workers coming over here to carry out this work, they stay in temporary accommodation only a little better then a sardine tin. Where are all these workers to come from and where are they going to stay when working? The rural areas where the crops are grown have low density populations.

It will be interesting to see how they stay 2m apart or are they supposed to work 24/7 so that social distancing can be maintained.

Asked to answer a question regarding anything he just went into spouting rhetoric about how much money the Chancellor was spending, completely ignoring the question, no right of reply to an email question.

[lostinwales]

Personally I am also one of the evil centrists. Never voted tory and probably never will, but acutely aware that our political system needs at least two functioning parties to work. We don't have that. Labour has shown some signs of recovery but have a long path to travel. The conservative party have turned into a UKIP/ERG hybrid. Corbyn made me truly despair of Labour and the current government depresses the hell out of me, being totally devoid of talent, imagination or just simply basic competence.

I have tried giving them the benefit of the doubt over their handling of CV19, I really have. That particular experiment lasted days at most.

[MrInvisible]

I quite like it when people state their political beliefs and motivations rather than hiding behind mockery of other's views, whatever they happen to be. Entering into the spirit of things, I am a left-leaning voter, who typically alternates between Labour, Green and Lib Dem depending on the circumstances and political system - 1997 general election - Labour, 2001 & 2005 - Lib Dem (they were arguably to the left of Labour at this point), 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019 - Labour. Local and EU elections (when we had them) - Green. I'm a fan of Corbyn and agreed with 90% of what he stood for (the other 10% being his approach to Brexit) though also give Blair/Brown credit for what they achieved - feel Brown was a tad overrated as chancellor though (PFI left a costly legacy for NHS trusts) and somewhat underrated as PM - he was good in a crisis, which is sorely missed now.

Onto the current situation and comparing various countries' responses I agree with Numbers that there isn't really a clear left-right pattern, other than the alt-right type populists have been faring very poorly - Trump, Erdogan, Johnson, Bolsanaro, Putin. This type of politician's appeal is based on emotional appeal and simple digested soundbites and easy scapegoating (typically against foreigners)- experts and cold analysis are not favoured. Elsewhere there is no real pattern - the left-wing Portugese government have dealt well with the crisis, whilst the Socialist-led Spanish government have performed more poorly. The new conservative government in Greece have been very impressive with their early lockdown whilst the centre-right Dutch government have not fared so well.

One of the few positive aspects of this horrendous situation is that we have lots of countries to learn from, and this makes it all the more frustrating to see the repeated mistakes being made. Even now, I am concerned our government is more interested in their pet hobby of Brexit, and of helping their favoured private suppliers benefit from the crisis (e.g. look at the contracts for PPE, testing and logistics) rather than learning from what has worked best overseas.

[BamBam]

Happy to lay my political cards out.

My first time voting was the 2010 GE, I was at the end of an economics degree at a decent university and at the time based on everything I saw I couldn't see beyond Gordon Brown as the best man to continue to lead us out of the financial crisis.

Fast forward 5 years, I'd been working for a global consultancy firm and I struggled massively between voting with my self economic interest, or voting for a fairer society, and the Lib Dems were never getting my vote at this point. I wrestled with the decision right up until I put an X in the Labour box and over the next few years didn't regret my decision.

Since the EU referendum I have consistently voted for the party I felt had the strongest anti Brexit position, because I'm not a fcukwit, regardless of how those individual parties would have taxed me personally

Unfortunately my home constituency is a 65% leave voting blot on the landscape, so my vote has had little impact

We're seeing a government who is solely in power because of their hard Brexit position, not because of their competence. 60k deaths is just the first indicator of the "success" that Johnson will make of his time in power. A no deal Brexit will be next

Luckily for Johnson, his house is about to burn down just as he was going to have to explain the Brexit economic ruin dead body in his attic

[navyblueshorts]

Last comment from me for foreseeable future on here.

If the personal insults (and I'm also guilty) continue, it'll be shut down. Have a good day.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I am someone with a lot more years on the clock than the previous two posters, my family comes from the pit villages in the North East, mostly from down the mines, so you can guess their political persuasion; Arthur for King!

My father was one of the first to break away from the coal industry having joined the navy and worked his way up to a Chief Engineer during WW2. He came South initially to London and then to Crawley, one of the first "New Towns" built in the 50s. His political persuasions mirrored the rest of the family and he became a shop steward, however he began to see the politicisation of the unions with the far left taking over was not his cup of tea and he dropped out.

I therefore have had a fairly left wing if not far left wing upbringing, as my father put it, true socialism not Scargilism which was not far away from the far right in it's political views, central control over everything.

My first vote would have been in the 1974 election that put Harold Wilson into power, not quite the union puppet he was made out to be but strongly to the left. Over the years I have eased my initial position and am now probably just left of centre politically, I had great respect for James Callaghan who stood up to the unions, even though they were the major funders of the Labour Party. The three day week cost him the election and let in Thatcher; didn't the unions like that!

I would consider myself a Blairite by nature, we have not had a decent Labour leader now for a generation, John Smith was in my opinion the greatest PM we never had. Since Blair / Brown we have had a series of leaders that could never inspire the public to vote for them, the fiddle to get Ed Miliband into power destroyed what faith most centrists had in the Labour party, he allowed the far left to take over and make sure that they stayed there. Since then Corbyn has merely consolidated their position. I mean Dianne Abbot as shadow Home Secretary, Pritti Patel is a genius compered to her and she is terrible. Bojo has simply followed him in getting rid of anyone that could potentially mount as serious challenge to him and therefore has a cabinet of shall we say politicians that are of limited ability.

It will be interesting to see how Kier Starmer handles the still very leftist NEC and if he will be able to change the rules to make it something fit for purpose and not a body that will use him to get labour into power before ditching him and appointing Dianne Abbott as PM.

I have had to suffer Johnson for 10 years plus, as Mayor of London, my local MP and now PM, he does not get any better and like Trump wants everyone to believe that everything he says is correct even when it is obviously a lie. Unfortunately there are still a lot who think of him as their saviour, mainly the blue rinse brigade that have a lot of votes in the Conservative Party, and the brexiteers that believe that anyone from abroad are "taking our jobs" or that they are destroying the "English" way of life, whatever that is because it has changed an awful lot in my 60+years and it it is to do with technology, not immigration.

It would appear that BoJo leaving all of those mainly Tory voting old people in care homes to rot with no tests, protection for the staff or any other form of help until 10s of thousands were dead is actually making them and other think again. Kier Starmer takes him to pieces every time they are face to face. I cannot see that changing.

[Duty281]

I don't really go in for terms like left wing or right wing, so I wouldn't really know how to place myself. Political spectrum tests that I've done tend to place me somewhere in the middle/centre right. The Prime Minister I admire the most is Thatcher. Don't think much of the recent lot. May was hopelessly out of her depth. Cameron was useless and failed at his main targets, bar 'winning' the Scottish Independence referendum. Have never liked the charlatan and liar Alex Johnson, probably never will, but I hope he's a success as Prime Minister. And hope may be all it is.

In terms of voting history, I voted UKIP in 2014 for the European Elections and in 2015 for the General Election. I (obviously!) voted Leave and campaigned for many, many months in my local region for Leave. Spoilt the ballot in the 2017 General Election. Voted for the Brexit Party in both the European and General Elections of 2019, more as a protest than any sense of conviction. Have voted for the Greens in the last few local elections. Have stood in a couple of local elections myself.

For the political situation to improve in this country, I think the tired old Lib/Lab/Con parties need to be discarded. Of course that won't happen until either a major split happens in any of them, or if a form of PR gets introduced to replace FPTP (which won't happen as the legacy parties know it'll be the beginning of the end for them). As well as PR, I'd also like to see the abolition of the House of Lords, a cut in the number of MPs (as much as a 50% reduction), and more direct democracy on certain issues (e.g. HS2).

But for now I think the political situation, mechanisms and landscape will remain frozen. Can't see the Tories exiting number ten until sometime in the 2030s, as Labour are a truly hopeless opposition in every sense and there's no strong third party in the wings keeping the main two on their toes.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I don't really go in for terms like left wing or right wing, so I wouldn't really know how to place myself. Political spectrum tests that I've done tend to place me somewhere in the middle/centre right. The Prime Minister I admire the most is Thatcher. Don't think much of the recent lot. May was hopelessly out of her depth. Cameron was useless and failed at his main targets, bar 'winning' the Scottish Independence referendum. Have never liked the charlatan and liar Alex Johnson, probably never will, but I hope he's a success as Prime Minister. And hope may be all it is.

In terms of voting history, I voted UKIP in 2014 for the European Elections and in 2015 for the General Election. I (obviously!) voted Leave and campaigned for many, many months in my local region for Leave. Spoilt the ballot in the 2017 General Election. Voted for the Brexit Party in both the European and General Elections of 2019, more as a protest than any sense of conviction. Have voted for the Greens in the last few local elections. Have stood in a couple of local elections myself.

For the political situation to improve in this country, I think the tired old Lib/Lab/Con parties need to be discarded. Of course that won't happen until either a major split happens in any of them, or if a form of PR gets introduced to replace FPTP (which won't happen as the legacy parties know it'll be the beginning of the end for them). As well as PR, I'd also like to see the abolition of the House of Lords, a cut in the number of MPs (as much as a 50% reduction), and more direct democracy on certain issues (e.g. HS2).

But for now I think the political situation, mechanisms and landscape will remain frozen. Can't see the Tories exiting number ten until sometime in the 2030s, as Labour are a truly hopeless opposition in every sense and there's no strong third party in the wings keeping the main two on their toes.

You will confuse the hell out of a lot of people with the "Alex" tag.

I agree about the direct democracy, i.e. major population centres having their own mayor with serious powers. It won't happen under this government as the cities tend to be of a different colour to blue, however, major national projects like HS2 cannot be put in the hands of local government, it would just be a mess with everyone wanting different things, and therefore getting nothing.

Kier Starmer is a fresh face and probably the cleverest LotO for a very long time, if he can get the Labour NEC back into a sensible policy making body, he might do very well. Working class boy made good, record in human rights, became a QC and head of Chambers, all that can be spun into a very powerful persona, especially if he continues to put Boris to the sword on things outside of the current pandemic.

[jimbopip]

Duty281, I know there's an unspoken agreement on here that usernames are usually accepted without comment but I wonder if you could humour me and explain how you came about choosing yours, please.

Political spectrum tests that I've done tend to place me somewhere in the middle/centre right. The Prime Minister I admire the most is Thatcher.

I don't think Margaret Thatcher could ever be described as "middle/centre right". Anyone who says it is her mission "to eradicate socialism " or "there is no such thing as society" has pretty much left the centre ground.

And while, like everyone else in this country, you have the right to vote for who ever you like I'm not sure UKIP count as middle/centre anything.

Spoilt the ballot in the 2017 General Election. Voted …. 2019,..... more as a protest than any sense of conviction.
This doesn't sound like someone who is committed to Parliamentary democracy more like someone who is feeling excluded by the whole process.

the reason I asked about your user name is that a few years ago there was a BNP/NF splinter group which called itself Action 18 , or something like that. The choice of 18 was A and H are the first and eighth letters of the alphabet and Hitler's initials. Oh those fascists love a jolly jape!
Unfortunately your user name can be read as Duty to H A.
if that's not why you chose it I can only apologise profusely.

[123456789.]

I am not sure that PMQs is as important as people think. As Shorts likes to point out people occupy an echo chamber. It is evident that vast swathes of the country detest Johnson, but a similar amount love him. I doubt anyone who is interested enough in politics to watch PMQs is on the fence on Johnson. If Johnson is getting mauled each week then those who love him will refuse to acknowledge it or simply not watch it at all. If all things are equal then in four or five years time Johnson will go up against Starmer in an election. Put simply, if Starmer has routinely outperformed Johnson, the Prime Minister will outright refuse to debate Starmer. We saw it last time, Johnson, rather deftly, avoided Andrew Neil after watching him maul every other leader. The Tories were probably the weakest on Climate change, they simply did not attend the Climate change debate.

If there's one thing I've learnt over the last few years for every person who dislikes Boris Johnson as much as I do, there's somebody who loves him. I can think of several reasons that I wouldn't vote for him that cross over from his private life to his performance in the jobs he'd held. Yet for some people he holds an allure that is completely unfathomable to those who are immune to it. It's very easy at any point to think it would do for him but it never ever does. Very few politicians survive a scandal. Andrew Mitchell's career was ruined when he reportedly called a Policeman a pleb, turns out he never did. Boris Johnson has a litany of scandals and mess ups on his record. There's a woman stuck in Iran, in part because he could not keep his trap shut. But it does not stick on Johnson. He is the ultimate Teflon man. It may be that his mess-ups here do for him. I wouldn't bet on it.

[tigertattie]

My issue with Johnson and his band of merry men is that if they were in employ, they would be given thier books pronto but they jsut carry on getting away with things.

In my work, if there was a meeting and I didnt turn up because I was frightened of either getting more work to do or I was having to defend earlier actions, I'dbe out on my backside pronto.

Johnson and co jsut swan about and if someone questions them, the subject is changed or they hide in a freezer (or dont rock up at all)

Its shambolic. The reaosn they get away with it though is becuase the oppoistion has been even more incompetent over the years. Labour need to get a Delorian and go back to when Ed knifed his brother in the back and stop that from happening.

But back to Covid. The UK government has been next to hopeless and down right negligent in its handling of this. Now dont go getting me confused with a Boris basher as the Scottish Goverment have been equally as bad.

We just need to accept that our standard of politician/leader in the UK is woeful and we'll continue on as such until things are made to change.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

I am not sure that PMQs is as important as people think. As Shorts likes to point out people occupy an echo chamber. It is evident that vast swathes of the country detest Johnson, but a similar amount love him. I doubt anyone who is interested enough in politics to watch PMQs is on the fence on Johnson. If Johnson is getting mauled each week then those who love him will refuse to acknowledge it or simply not watch it at all.

On this, there was a very good thread on Twitter this afternoon by Tom Hamilton (@thhamilton). This is it, verbatim:

The tendency to cover PMQ as a straight who won / who lost contest is understandable, but it can understate its strategic value. Keir Starmer has done a decent job on the win / loss front, but he's also been able to *use* PMQs effectively.

That's partly using it to demonstrate that he can ask the right questions and respond well and look like he's in command of his brief and all that, which is useful in establishing himself as a leader. But PMQs can push politics and policy along too, because of what's said there.

So far I can think of three ways in which the Starmer-Johnson PMQs clash has had real-world consequences. On 6 May, Johnson committed to 200,000 tests a day by the end of May, which he is now accountable for.

Also on 6 May, Johnson claimed that the reason for his Sunday TV broadcast was so the measures could take effect on the Monday, which turned out to be untrue - a big part of the "end of lockdown" comms disaster which didn't become apparent until the next week.

And today, Johnson committed to having a test, track and trace operation in place by 1 June - further than ministers have previously gone. Again, he is now accountable for that promise, which will have an operational effect.

Both commitments may be reached or not, and sensible or not. But the Government is on the hook for them now. If they're reached, Starmer has helped to get the Government there. If not, he's got a stick to beat them with. And the Government can't say they're not sensible.

So the policy story outside PMQs has been changed in significant ways by what's happened in PMQs, regardless of whether Starmer or Johnson has been commanding or lawyerly or funny or forensic or whatever. And that's a useful test of whether Starmer is doing well or not.

For what it's worth, I think it's a while since PMQs has been used as a tool to move a story on as effectively as this. That's partly a function of the current crisis, but it reflects well on Starmer too - and less well on Johnson, since none of his moves seemed planned.

I thought it was interesting anyway!

[Duty281]

Duty281, I know there's an unspoken agreement on here that usernames are usually accepted without comment but I wonder if you could humour me and explain how you came about choosing yours, please.

Political spectrum tests that I've done tend to place me somewhere in the middle/centre right. The Prime Minister I admire the most is Thatcher.

I don't think Margaret Thatcher could ever be described as "middle/centre right". Anyone who says it is her mission "to eradicate socialism " or "there is no such thing as society" has pretty much left the centre ground.

And while, like everyone else in this country, you have the right to vote for who ever you like I'm not sure UKIP count as middle/centre anything.

Spoilt the ballot in the 2017 General Election. Voted …. 2019,..... more as a protest than any sense of conviction.
This doesn't sound like someone who is committed to Parliamentary democracy more like someone who is feeling excluded by the whole process.

the reason I asked about your user name is that a few years ago there was a BNP/NF splinter group which called itself Action 18 , or something like that. The choice of 18 was A and H are the first and eighth letters of the alphabet and Hitler's initials. Oh those fascists love a jolly jape!
Unfortunately your user name can be read as Duty to H A.
if that's not why you chose it I can only apologise profusely.

Well that is a fascinating coincidence, though it would surely be Duty218 if I were going for a Hitler homage. I think the 281 fell out of a random number generator, but the 'Duty' part is a reference to Lord Nelson's quote. Just to clarify, I despise authoritarian ideologies like Nazism/Fascism/Communism.

Political spectrum tests tend to put me in the middle/centre right, but I don't go in for the idea of being left-wing or right-wing or centrist, to be honest, as everyone holds some ideas that are considered left-wing and some ideas that are considered right-wing (and some ideas are neither right nor left like Brexit).

I do feel somewhat excluded from the current political process as I feel none of the major parties are any good, and none of the minor parties can make serious political traction owing to the FPTP system. Change does not look likely. The last time it did look likely was UKIP in 2014-2016, a party committed to the democratic overhauls I mentioned but, ironically enough, winning the 2016 EU referendum finished them off as viable contenders.

[Duty281]

I don't really go in for terms like left wing or right wing, so I wouldn't really know how to place myself. Political spectrum tests that I've done tend to place me somewhere in the middle/centre right. The Prime Minister I admire the most is Thatcher. Don't think much of the recent lot. May was hopelessly out of her depth. Cameron was useless and failed at his main targets, bar 'winning' the Scottish Independence referendum. Have never liked the charlatan and liar Alex Johnson, probably never will, but I hope he's a success as Prime Minister. And hope may be all it is.

In terms of voting history, I voted UKIP in 2014 for the European Elections and in 2015 for the General Election. I (obviously!) voted Leave and campaigned for many, many months in my local region for Leave. Spoilt the ballot in the 2017 General Election. Voted for the Brexit Party in both the European and General Elections of 2019, more as a protest than any sense of conviction. Have voted for the Greens in the last few local elections. Have stood in a couple of local elections myself.

For the political situation to improve in this country, I think the tired old Lib/Lab/Con parties need to be discarded. Of course that won't happen until either a major split happens in any of them, or if a form of PR gets introduced to replace FPTP (which won't happen as the legacy parties know it'll be the beginning of the end for them). As well as PR, I'd also like to see the abolition of the House of Lords, a cut in the number of MPs (as much as a 50% reduction), and more direct democracy on certain issues (e.g. HS2).

But for now I think the political situation, mechanisms and landscape will remain frozen. Can't see the Tories exiting number ten until sometime in the 2030s, as Labour are a truly hopeless opposition in every sense and there's no strong third party in the wings keeping the main two on their toes.

You will confuse the hell out of a lot of people with the "Alex" tag.

I agree about the direct democracy, i.e. major population centres having their own mayor with serious powers. It won't happen under this government as the cities tend to be of a different colour to blue, however, major national projects like HS2 cannot be put in the hands of local government, it would just be a mess with everyone wanting different things, and therefore getting nothing.

Kier Starmer is a fresh face and probably the cleverest LotO for a very long time, if he can get the Labour NEC back into a sensible policy making body, he might do very well. Working class boy made good, record in human rights, became a QC and head of Chambers, all that can be spun into a very powerful persona, especially if he continues to put Boris to the sword on things outside of the current pandemic.

I'm not sure I'd go in for more mayors and more politicians, to be honest. I'd just like more referenda on key issues.

Starmer might make a good leader of the opposition, but he's leader at the wrong time, like Hague in 1997. Labour are so far adrift that they are virtually powerless from making a telling impact at the next GE.

[Duty281]

I am not sure that PMQs is as important as people think.

No point to it at all. No one has ever won or lost an election based on how they did at PMQs. 99% of the population couldn't give a jot about the weekly farce. No one has ever learned anything new from PMQs.

And half of PMQs is just some Tory MP, that you've never heard of, asking the PM something along the lines of: "In my constituency, employment is up/crime is down/earnings are up (delete as applicable), so would my right honourable friend agree with me that this shows that the government are making fantastic progress on our promises to the British people?"

Pointless.

[123456789.]

My issue with Johnson and his band of merry men is that if they were in employ, they would be given thier books pronto but they jsut carry on getting away with things.

In my work, if there was a meeting and I didnt turn up because I was frightened of either getting more work to do or I was having to defend earlier actions, I'dbe out on my backside pronto.

Johnson and co jsut swan about and if someone questions them, the subject is changed or they hide in a freezer (or dont rock up at all)

Its shambolic. The reaosn they get away with it though is becuase the oppoistion has been even more incompetent over the years. Labour need to get a Delorian and go back to when Ed knifed his brother in the back and stop that from happening.

But back to Covid. The UK government has been next to hopeless and down right negligent in its handling of this. Now dont go getting me confused with a Boris basher as the Scottish Goverment have been equally as bad.

We just need to accept that our standard of politician/leader in the UK is woeful and we'll continue on as such until things are made to change.

Would fully agree on that, one of the more frustrating things of this is that because the SNP and Johnson were on different sides on the Brexit debates, people have placed them on different sides in all of this. In reality they've both been fairly similar throughout, in the early days they boasted repeatedly that they were all working together. Now they have diverged on slogans and little else. Yet most Pro-European people are still championing Sturgeon and most pro-Brexit people are slamming her, most pro-Brexit people are championing Johnson and slamming Sturgeon. It shows the full extent of the tribalism in British politics now and it is exasperating. The SNP are a left wing party and the Johnson Tories are fairly right wing in some areas. The one thing they have in common is Nationalism. Add in Trump and Bolsonaro, you begin to see a trend. In effect the whole purpose of Nationalist parties is to convince their supporters and their people that they are somehow different and better than other people.

One of the buzz phrases in this thread has been confirmation bias. We are all guilty of it. There's lot of experts with lots of different opinions. If an expert tells Johnson of a response that serves his libertarian instincts; let people attend events, keep the airports open, don't force people not to go to pubs, there's no surprise he took it. Equally it provided an opportunity to respond in a peculiarly British way, fulfilling our 'manifest destiny' to be the most free people in the world, diverging from the rest of Europe in the process holding our God given right to visit the pub sacrosanct. You see the confirmation bias in the Libertarian exultation of Sweden, they compare it to the model and claim that it's been successful. Rather than comparing it to empirical evidence in Norway or elsewhere. One thing I would say for Johnson is that this has thoroughly rejected the fairly spurious charge of fascism charged at him. Authoritarian leaders tend to use crisis situations to seize power over people's lives, Johnson avoided that. I think in the vast majority of cases that would actually be a positive thing. Just not in this one. He might be a bad husband, an awful PM but he's no Nazi.

Sturgeon, was similar. She followed the same line as Johnson until the dreaded second slogan, when she seized the opportunity to highlight differences between England and Scotland. You'll see SNP aficionados online advocating placing the Army on Hadrian's wall not to prevent the spread of disease but rather, presumably dogwalkers. Now I'm not advocating lawlessness but I do think the balance of probability suggests that most dogwalkers will be more likely to travel to the more sparsely populated areas of the country than to take their beloved pets to the more tightly packed parts of Glasgow to stretch their legs. It doesn't require the army to police it, just a bit of common sense. But the SuperNats know that. I'm sure there'll be plenty of people advocating a unilateral withdrawal of Scotland from the Union to fight the virus. The issue with ideologues is that they have the same response to every single issue. Independence funded by Scotland's rapidly depleting oil reserves is the answer to climate change. In 2014, the experts were wrong on Scottish independence, in 2016 they were spot on with Brexit. In 2014, an independent Scotland outside the EU was no problem, by 2019 being a part of a Britain outside the EU was Armageddon. Now Covid-19 is the latest reason for independence, even though Scotland's furloughed workers are on money from the UK govt.

The irony is that this is of course my own bias shining through. But, you know, I don't think it's too outlandish or ideological to suggest that nationalist populism may not be the best solution to an international health crisis. Who would have thought?


On PMQs I think it is still important in some respects just because it frightens the hell out of the Prime Minister. Blair used to panic about it every week. It's a relative rarity for political leaders to have an unrestricted grilling each week. Trump could do with it. It's practical purpose is fairly null. Some people watch it. Those who do take it upon themselves to act as spin doctors and announce that their champion has won. The parties themselves and the media on their side clip together highlight reels to present a certain view of the debate. People only follow the channels they like so they only see the side they like so there's little influence as a result of it. Still I think it's important for leaders to have as much scrutiny as possible. I suspect, as a fairly bizarre quirk, we are perhaps the only country in the world where our top prosecution interrogates the head of our government every week.

[MrInvisible]

One of my favourite clichés is 'a week is a long time in politics'.  On the Covid-19 crisis given we are still unfortunately just in the early stages it's very difficult predicting future election results and I would be wary about predicting a decade of Tory rule just based on the somewhat unusual election held back in December.  There is going to be a huge economic fallout from this, all over the world, and I suspect many incumbent governments, regardless of how well they have handled it, are going to be punished.  The UK economy hasn't been doing well for a little while now, but had been bumping along just enough to ensure the Tories have not been punished.  I think I said to Duty on another thread, that by next Spring Labour will be ahead in the polls, and I still stand by that.  I also think they are miscalculating the public mood on still 'getting Brexit done quickly' in the current circumstances when we are dealing with the worst global crisis for over a generation.  We are in a very different situation to 6 months ago.

On a different note, I saw headline figure of no new cases in London for 24 hours - if this is indeed correct its very welcome news indeed, and hopefully is the start of a longer lasting pattern.  Should the schools go back?  I'm pretty torn on this - I do feel the longer the break the worse the attainment gap will be and there are all sorts of wider social consequences of a prolonged break.  However, until we properly have widespread testing in place above and beyond NHS and social care (the former seems to be getting there but work still to be done on the latter) and a decent contact tracing system fully up and running it will still be premature.  This feels quite close to home as a member of staff at my kids' school died from Covid-19 (they were only 45).

Perhaps we could emulate the French approach of dividing the country up into different red, amber and green zones based on transmission rates, and have a phased easing of various lockdown measures depending on area. The public are used to getting this type of risk classification for terrorist threat levels, and I think it could be effective.  From what I have read the North East of England is a real concern in terms of number of cases and appears to be behind other areas in terms of its infection curve.  Equally there's no room for complacency in London despite the good news there, given the high population density and other risk factors.

[123456789.]

Yeah I'd agree with a lot of that. I suppose I am sceptical of the idea that people will leave the fairly entrenched tribes they've entered in the last few years. I think shaking people out of the political tribes they find themselves in takes a lot.



I spoke to my Father, who is a scientist, he has read a report that said that the people who know the things seem to think that there is a good chance that people with the antibodies for another form of Coronavirus may be immune from Covid-19. In effect, it means the threshold for herd immunity may well be much lower than we thought.

[guildfordbat]

I am not sure that PMQs is as important as people think. As Shorts likes to point out people occupy an echo chamber. It is evident that vast swathes of the country detest Johnson, but a similar amount love him. I doubt anyone who is interested enough in politics to watch PMQs is on the fence on Johnson. If Johnson is getting mauled each week then those who love him will refuse to acknowledge it or simply not watch it at all.

On this, there was a very good thread on Twitter this afternoon by Tom Hamilton (@thhamilton). This is it, verbatim:

The tendency to cover PMQ as a straight who won / who lost contest is understandable, but it can understate its strategic value. Keir Starmer has done a decent job on the win / loss front, but he's also been able to *use* PMQs effectively.

That's partly using it to demonstrate that he can ask the right questions and respond well and look like he's in command of his brief and all that, which is useful in establishing himself as a leader. But PMQs can push politics and policy along too, because of what's said there.

So far I can think of three ways in which the Starmer-Johnson PMQs clash has had real-world consequences. On 6 May, Johnson committed to 200,000 tests a day by the end of May, which he is now accountable for.

Also on 6 May, Johnson claimed that the reason for his Sunday TV broadcast was so the measures could take effect on the Monday, which turned out to be untrue - a big part of the "end of lockdown" comms disaster which didn't become apparent until the next week.

And today, Johnson committed to having a test, track and trace operation in place by 1 June - further than ministers have previously gone. Again, he is now accountable for that promise, which will have an operational effect.

Both commitments may be reached or not, and sensible or not. But the Government is on the hook for them now. If they're reached, Starmer has helped to get the Government there. If not, he's got a stick to beat them with. And the Government can't say they're not sensible.

So the policy story outside PMQs has been changed in significant ways by what's happened in PMQs, regardless of whether Starmer or Johnson has been commanding or lawyerly or funny or forensic or whatever. And that's a useful test of whether Starmer is doing well or not.

For what it's worth, I think it's a while since PMQs has been used as a tool to move a story on as effectively as this. That's partly a function of the current crisis, but it reflects well on Starmer too - and less well on Johnson, since none of his moves seemed planned.

I thought it was interesting anyway!

Hi Luckless - well, yes, I found Hamilton's twitter thread good and interesting.

I've nothing against the concept of PMQs or how Starmer is using them (quite the opposite for both in fact) but I am concerned that the launch date of 1 June is now the Government's primary interest in a test, track and trace operation rather than its actual quality. Akin to Hancock's 100,000 tests by the end of April - just stuff 40,000 in envelopes on the 30th and put them in the post claiming job done! If that is the case for the latest operation, that will be down to Boris coming up with a date on the hoof to temporarily get off the ropes and away from Starmer's jabs and it not being part of a properly prepared plan as so obviously needed.

[JDizzle]

Another one to potentially add to the usefulness of PMQs - the government is U Turning on charging overseas NHS workers and carers a surcharge to use the NHS. Which is great news.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

I've nothing against the concept of PMQs or how Starmer is using them (quite the opposite for both in fact) but I am concerned that the launch date of 1 June is now the Government's primary interest in a test, track and trace operation rather than its actual quality. Akin to Hancock's 100,000 tests by the end of April - just stuff 40,000 in envelopes on the 30th and put them in the post claiming job done! If that is the case for the latest operation, that will be down to Boris coming up with a date on the hoof to temporarily get off the ropes and away from Starmer's jabs and it not being part of a properly prepared plan as so obviously needed.

'On the hoof' is a very good way of putting it.

There is an element of 'give them enough rope' to Starmer's approach. There's an instinct with this government to blurt out an arbitrary figure or target to win the next day's headlines, but the problem then is you're required to meet it. Unless it's written on the side of a bus....

Speaking of blurting out, did anyone else sigh when Johnson said yesterday that the government's test, track and trace system would be 'world-beating'? He couldn't help himself, could he?

[MrInvisible]

@JDizzle: To be honest I was surprised that Johnson was trying to defend this yesterday in PMQs - an absolute stinker of a policy, albeit one I'm sure not only would have played v well with many Tory voters prior to Covid-19 but also serves ideological interests - set up future charging for NHS more generally by bringing it in for immigrants first.  I'm not one for the weekly clapping (though don't have a problem with those that do), but would be more than happy to pay more tax towards NHS and wish to see a more concerted effort to collect taxes from the highest earners to resource it properly, rather than encouraging scapegoating of migrant workers and unfairly charging them to use it.

I also agree that PMQs are a good opportunity for Starmer to set the agenda, and despite consensus being that Johnson had held his own more yesterday, I agree with you that this u-turn makes it a good week for the Labour leader.

[guildfordbat]

I've nothing against the concept of PMQs or how Starmer is using them (quite the opposite for both in fact) but I am concerned that the launch date of 1 June is now the Government's primary interest in a test, track and trace operation rather than its actual quality. Akin to Hancock's 100,000 tests by the end of April - just stuff 40,000 in envelopes on the 30th and put them in the post claiming job done! If that is the case for the latest operation, that will be down to Boris coming up with a date on the hoof to temporarily get off the ropes and away from Starmer's jabs and it not being part of a properly prepared plan as so obviously needed.

'On the hoof' is a very good way of putting it.

There is an element of 'give them enough rope' to Starmer's approach. There's an instinct with this government to blurt out an arbitrary figure or target to win the next day's headlines, but the problem then is you're required to meet it. Unless it's written on the side of a bus....

Speaking of blurting out, did anyone else sigh when Johnson said yesterday that the government's test, track and trace system would be 'world-beating'? He couldn't help himself, could he?

Yes, I winced when I heard that. I should have emphasised that too in my post.

[guildfordbat]

@JDizzle: To be honest I was surprised that Johnson was trying to defend this yesterday in PMQs - an absolute stinker of a policy, albeit one I'm sure not only would have played v well with many Tory voters prior to Covid-19 but also serves ideological interests - set up future charging for NHS more generally by bringing it in for immigrants first.  I'm not one for the weekly clapping (though don't have a problem with those that do), but would be more than happy to pay more tax towards NHS and wish to see a more concerted effort to collect taxes from the highest earners to resource it properly, rather than encouraging scapegoating of migrant workers and unfairly charging them to use it.

I also agree that PMQs are a good opportunity for Starmer to set the agenda, and despite consensus being that Johnson had held his own more yesterday, I agree with you that this u-turn makes it a good week for the Labour leader.

Looking now at the Government's U Turn on overseas workers, Starmer probably influenced Tory backbenchers to put pressure on their bosses to implement this change and so he may well have had a more effective duel with Johnson at yesterday's PMQs than he was first credited with.

If no one can hear you above all the other noise and no one can ever see you, probably not worth you going out for the weekly clapping, Mr Invisible!

[123456789.]

The Telegraph (a famous left wing mouthpiece) has reported today that an earlier lockdown could have reduced the death toll to just 8,000. Comparable to Germany's.

Three-quarters of coronavirus deaths in Britain might have been avoided if the lockdown had begun a week earlier, modelling suggests.

Researchers said that if the UK had imposed the measures seven days earlier its death toll now would be on a par with the 8,000 in Germany.

They also said it would have been possible to have a shorter and less economically damaging lockdown.

Britain introduced its lockdown measures on March 23, when 359 deaths had been reported. Germany took such steps on the same day, but had reported only 86 fatalities at that time.

The UK's death toll has now exceeded 35,000 people.

Modelling from British scientist James Annan suggests that entering lockdown a week earlier would have reduced the number of deaths by three-quarters.

Mr Annan, from Blueskiesresearch.org.uk, said an earlier lockdown would have been shorter and had less economic impact.

In a related blog, he wrote: "Implementing the lockdown one week earlier would have saved about 30,000 lives in the current wave (based on official numbers, which are themselves a substantial underestimate).

"It would also have made for a shorter, cheaper, less damaging lockdown in economic terms."

Modellers said the calculations showed that even small changes in the timing of interventions could make a significant difference.

Dr Kit Yates, senior lecturer in mathematical biology at the University of Bath, said: "In the early stages of an epidemic, the number of cases is growing exponentially. This means even a small change in the rate of spread or in the timing of interventions can make a big difference a short period of time down the line.

"It is clear that, had we locked down sooner, we would have reduced the spread earlier, limiting the number of cases and consequently the number of deaths.

"The other benefit of locking down earlier would have been bringing cases under control sooner and potentially allowing the release of lockdown sooner."

The modelling was revealed on Radio 4's More or Less programme, which highlighted differences in the testing regimes used by different countries earlier in the epidemic, with Germany carrying out 50,000 tests daily at a time when the UK could not even achieve that weekly.

As a result, at the point both countries entered lockdown, Germany had identified around 27,000 cases, when the UK had confirmed just 9,000, researchers said.

[123456789.]

Hancock announced that 17% of Londoners and 5% of the rest of the country have antibodies for Covid-19. I believe that equates 6.6% across the entire country. On a presumption of 60% for Herd Immunity, and using the official death rate of 36,042 it equates to a death rate of 325,000 across the country. Given experts are saying the death rate if closer to 60,000 it could be as high as 540,000. Ferguson is being mocked for saying 500,000 could die if we didn't enter lockdown. It doesn't seem all that silly now.

[JDizzle]

Figures say around 6000 people have died in London from/with Covid.

Population of London is about 9m, so 17% = 1.5m. Which puts the IFR at around 0.4% (maybe up towards 0.8% if there are double the number of deaths which haven't been reported), which seems about right and sounds like 17% is about right as the number infected.

[lostinwales]

....

I've nothing against the concept of PMQs or how Starmer is using them (quite the opposite for both in fact) but I am concerned that the launch date of 1 June is now the Government's primary interest in a test, track and trace operation rather than its actual quality. Akin to Hancock's 100,000 tests by the end of April - just stuff 40,000 in envelopes on the 30th and put them in the post claiming job done! If that is the case for the latest operation, that will be down to Boris coming up with a date on the hoof to temporarily get off the ropes and away from Starmer's jabs and it not being part of a properly prepared plan as so obviously needed.

Confirmation this morning 'that officials from Matt Hancock’s health department had advised Public Health England to count postal tests from when they were sent out not when they were returned.'

Also news on vaccine development. A program of testing the vaccine on 10K volunteers is being put together- but the timescales are that they do not expect results until September at earliest. It does feel as if the development is moving very quickly - but Government's suggestions of 30million vaccines by September seem (as ever) hopelessly optimisitic.

[jimbopip]

Also, BBC is reporting that when individuals were given nasal and saliva tests the government instructed PHE to count that as two tests. So if 10 000 people turned up at the testing centre the government could claim 20 000 tests carried out.

In one sense it is factually correct but it certainly is not 20 000 people being tested.

as Arfur Daly was fond of saying, "No Terence, it's not illegal. Well...not technically illegal."

[123456789.]

The thing that always confuses me about this is that no one figured out that people would ask questions. The theory with the tests that weren't tests was that Big Bad Dom had figured out that people would appreciate the effort in raising testing levels to above 70,000. By adding a bit of chicanery in he moved the conversation to a comparison between two British figures rather than the British figures and the German for example. On the Nose and Ear stuff I simply cannot fathom why you would possibly try it.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

The thing that always confuses me about this is that no one figured out that people would ask questions.

Let's be honest, this was brazen stuff. They're beyond worrying about whether questions will be asked. They've come to realise that their getting caught won't matter to enough people for it to cost them. Millions either won't believe this, or will think it's not important, they're doing their best, get behind the government.

Come to think of it, millions won't even hear about it. That's another thing they've come to realise. The big, bold lie-announcement reaches more people than the correction. Isn't there a saying, something about the lie travelling by train and the truth travelling by horse?

[Sponsored content]