Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what ailment you have which does not have a proven cure from modern medicine but for which Chinese "medicine" does.
Mac is the secretive one, not me.

[super_realist]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

[beninho]

If any party had got in, and then used dominic Cummings to sit on the scientific board. I would have been concerned.

You trust him and trust the government. I have my concerns.

And, nope, I don't sit in meetings i have no knowledge for. That would be strange. I go to meetings where I have the knowledge to provide an input.

For the millionth time, I don't trust him. I trust the scientific findings of the committee. Have you got any evidence that Cummings is hiding the findings from these meetings or manipulating what has been discussed, or that he is the sole voice to the PM? No. Is it Whitty (or some other scientist) who is making the daily briefings, or is it Cummings?  I'll let you think about that one.
Why would CUmmings even bend the findings of the meeting? What's he got to gain?

I'm delighted your employer thinks so little about your career development that there  is no point in learning about things in meetings that you might not be expert in and only puts you in ones where you currently have knowledge. That's superb planning and a great way to expand your knowledge and the skills of your department. Good old council, short sighted as ever.

So you sit in meetings you don't know anything about that don't have any link to your job? Why? I'm not sure other parts of the council would be happy when a housing manager Rocks up into a meeting about rubbish collection.

I'm parking the Cummings discussion. You have no concerns about it. That's fine.

[beninho]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

There may be a million explanations, I'm yet to see one that doesn't concern me. Sorry I don't want to just believe the govt. 40k dead and still no one can fault them. We have a right wing vote leave government. My trust in them is pretty low.

[Soul Requiem]

I'm finding lots of your type criticising the government.

[beninho]

Your type. Classic gammon.

[super_realist]

Man, You need to stop this ridiculous belief that the government is somehow trying to conspire against you.

It's not as if the PM has his Scientific Advisers on one shoulder and a more persuasive Dominic Cummings on the other in some sort of Angel/Devil scenario.

What has Vote Leave got to do with this? You don't think there would still be 40k deaths if there was a Corbyn government? Where did you pull the 40k number from anyway?

Yes, we've had a lot of deaths, but virtually every single country in the world could have dealt with it better had better information been around at the time and had better decisions being made. It's almost as if you believe that the government wants people to die, which for the Tory's would be pretty ridiculous seeing as they rely on the grey vote. It's funny that you blame the government (and only our government for this) but make no comment about all the other things outwith our control which have contributed to the position we find ourselves in, and then have the temerity to accuse me of only seeing things in black and white when that is precisely what you are doing here.


I don't routinely sit in meetings which have nothing to do with my job, but I can learn things about my job in listening to sections of the meetings which have a passing link to mine, i.e. Geophysics, whilst it is also interesting to hear elements of the Well Planning or something like that to my role. I didn't at all say that you should sit in on meetings where there was no connection at all, simply that there may be meetings or parts of meetings where your presence is there to learn, rather than contribute. What possible harm could there be in that, for example, in terms of housing, your particular specialism, I could think of plenty of examples of meetings that you might not have expertise in, but in which you might learn something.

[Soul Requiem]

Your type. Classic gammon.

Struck a nerve did I?

[super_realist]

Your type. Classic gammon.

Struck a nerve did I?

Apparently he's parked the conversation now, so you won't need to read his paranoid rants.

[beninho]

Your type. Classic gammon.

Struck a nerve did I?

Nope. It's an internet message board.

[beninho]

Man, You need to stop this ridiculous belief that the government is somehow trying to conspire against you.

It's not as if the PM has his Scientific Advisers on one shoulder and a more persuasive Dominic Cummings on the other in some sort of Angel/Devil scenario.

What has Vote Leave got to do with this? You don't think there would still be 40k deaths if there was a Corbyn government? Where did you pull the 40k number from anyway?

Yes, we've had a lot of deaths, but virtually every single country in the world could have dealt with it better had better information been around at the time and had better decisions being made. It's almost as if you believe that the government wants people to die, which for the Tory's would be pretty ridiculous seeing as they rely on the grey vote. It's funny that you blame the government (and only our government for this) but make no comment about all the other things outwith our control which have contributed to the position we find ourselves in, and then have the temerity to accuse me of only seeing things in black and white when that is precisely what you are doing here.


I don't routinely sit in meetings which have nothing to do with my job, but I can learn things about my job in listening to sections of the meetings which have a passing link to mine, i.e. Geophysics, whilst it is also interesting to hear elements of the Well Planning or something like that to my role. I didn't at all say that you should sit in on meetings where there was no connection at all, simply that there may be meetings or parts of meetings where your presence is there to learn, rather than contribute. What possible harm could there be in that, for example, in terms of housing, your particular specialism, I could think of plenty of examples of meetings that you might not have expertise in, but in which you might learn something.

You didn't really explain your point about meetings very well I'm a housing manager, obviously I sit in a variety of different meetings, all with links to my job. Though, I'm not seeing the comparison to a non political scientific group having a political advisor involved. but, each to their own. Xx

[super_realist]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

Don't you think it's a better way to understand the science than to not be present?

[beninho]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

[navyblueshorts]

It's good that the government have been following the advice of the scientists on the stage group, including the well known scientist, wr Dominic Cummings and his mate.

Where has anyone said he's offering advice? Don't you think one of the senior advisors to the PM should listen in to SAGE so that he knows what's going on and what's being considered? Stop looking at everything through pre-formed political bias.

[super_realist]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

Under what circumstances would it be a bad thing?

[navyblueshorts]

Super

You said you don't really understand the problem so I will try to explain it for you. The purpose of the SAGE meetings is to form scientific advise for the government and every effort should be made to keep it impartial and unbiased. How can those standards be maintained if the governments most influential advisor is participating in and steering the meetings?

More pre-formed bias/assumption. For a 'scientist', you sure draw a lot of conclusions based on unfounded assumption...

[navyblueshorts]

and steering the meetings?

Where's that come from Mac?

In most papers today they are reporting that he was not just an innocent bystander (which would have been bad enough) but someone who asked questions and participated in the meetings.

And as an ex civil servant (supers wet dream to learn this snippet) I can tell you special advisers (spads) are never just there to listen. You are acutely aware that you need to take on board what they are saying.

Must be true then...

[navyblueshorts]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

There may be a million explanations, I'm yet to see one that doesn't concern me. Sorry I don't want to just believe the govt. 40k dead and still no one can fault them. We have a right wing vote leave government. My trust in them is pretty low.

Jesus H Christ! Stop making s**t up.

[navyblueshorts]

Your type. Classic gammon.

Grow up. You wonder why debate in this ****ing Country is pointless?

[navyblueshorts]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

There is no suggestion he's a member of SAGE. There is no suggestion he has any 'voting rights' on SAGE. Your opinions are obviously worth nothing, as you can't remove yourself from your extant biases. Will bear that in mind moving forward...

[beninho]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

There may be a million explanations, I'm yet to see one that doesn't concern me. Sorry I don't want to just believe the govt. 40k dead and still no one can fault them. We have a right wing vote leave government. My trust in them is pretty low.

Jesus H Christ! Stop making s**t up.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1254433529238294528?s=19

You think I just plucked the figure out if the air? Or you think this guy has?

[beninho]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

There is no suggestion he's a member of SAGE. There is no suggestion he has any 'voting rights' on SAGE. Your opinions are obviously worth nothing, as you can't remove yourself from your extant biases. Will bear that in mind moving forward...

Do they vote at Sage meetings? I read they dont, but I may be wrong.

[beninho]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

Under what circumstances would it be a bad thing?

Are you asking me the question about what ive6said I have concerns about?

[super_realist]

No, I'm asking under what circumstances you can think of when a government adviser sitting in on a meeting learning more about the science could ever be a bad thing.

[super_realist]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

There may be a million explanations, I'm yet to see one that doesn't concern me. Sorry I don't want to just believe the govt. 40k dead and still no one can fault them. We have a right wing vote leave government. My trust in them is pretty low.

Jesus H Christ! Stop making s**t up.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1254433529238294528?s=19

You think I just plucked the figure out if the air?  Or you think this guy has?

No, he states quite clearly it is an estimate.

By the way Nick Clegg said this morning on Talkradio that he attended Sage meetings during his time in government, so what's the problem?

[Soul Requiem]

Chris Giles has made a purely mathematical estimate based on overall death rates which include higher than normal flu deaths which he has not factored in, that is backed up by the statistics of January and February before Covid-19 took hold.

[beninho]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

[McLaren]

Navy /super

I can't really offer much more here than my personal experience with spads in civil service meetings. When they are present it changes the tone and the questions they ask are usually aimed at getting what their party wants. A few pointed questions from a spad are enough to steer a meeting.

[super_realist]

Mac, you are making the leap that your insignificant meetings as an underling in the plastic parliament are in any way analogous with the biggest crisis since WW2.

I would love to know what sort of meetings a nobody like you was in, but of course you'll never reveal that.

[super_realist]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

I don't know, why don't you ask him. He said that this very morning on Talkradio. Given the time he was in power probably foot and mouth, bird flu, SARS, MERS or something like that.

The amusing thing is that you think it should be a closed shop.

[navyblueshorts]

We have 2 members of SAGE who are concerned with Cummings and his mate. And they way they were involved in certain aspects of the meetings.

But they shouldn't be worried as super realist says nothing to worry about and he knows more than them.

I've never said that at all. There is about 20 people on this committee. Have you ever been in a meeting, actually judging by your comments thus far it's clear you are never in meetings.

People disagree in meetings, stop the press.  Your point is still a ridiculous one. Even if people are unhappy with Cummings being there, how does this affect the outcome of the meeting? You are still basing this that the PM only hears about the meeting though Cumming and no one else.

I'm convinced you just get up every morning, find a headline about the government and wonder how you're going to string it out all day without ever having a decent basis for your argument. You did it last week with Chinese Medicine and looked an oaf because you didn't grasp the reasons behind why it is not considered medicine and not efficacious and now you are trying to make a story Cummings being present at a meeting as if it is somehow going to shape the UK response to the crisis. No wonder Labour lost if people think as pathetically as that.

Again, this comes back to your faith and trust in the govt. I've not said they only hear back from Cummings, but if you don't think Cummings will report back his views and politicise the meeting, and the PM wont listen to his chief advisor, I'm don't think you understand politics. Actually I don't think you do understand many things, as you have some weird black and white views, don't seem to be able to see shades of grey.

Irony is strong in this post.

Exactly, Ben only ever sees one point of view, never considers that there could be a million explanations for something, but what do expect if you are a Guardian reader, the worst paper in Britain.

There may be a million explanations, I'm yet to see one that doesn't concern me. Sorry I don't want to just believe the govt. 40k dead and still no one can fault them. We have a right wing vote leave government. My trust in them is pretty low.

Jesus H Christ! Stop making s**t up.

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1254433529238294528?s=19

You think I just plucked the figure out if the air?  Or you think this guy has?

You don't understand, do you? 40k deaths haven't been recorded. Until they are, it's supposition. I'm not remotely thinking we'll get away w/ <40k in reality, but why not act sensibly and wait until it's fact, before claiming it is? Doesn't fit your agenda though, does it?

[navyblueshorts]

I don't see why you have a problem with someone sitting in on a meeting, potentially asking questions. What harm is there?

All depends on the meeting and the person.

There is no suggestion he's a member of SAGE. There is no suggestion he has any 'voting rights' on SAGE. Your opinions are obviously worth nothing, as you can't remove yourself from your extant biases. Will bear that in mind moving forward...

Do they vote at Sage meetings? I read they dont, but I may be wrong.

I have no idea, but I would imagine any advice given to Ministers is SAGE consensus? Do they have a ballot box/show of hands? Who cares?

[Davie]

I don't like Cummings; I don't trust him. But he is Boris's senior advisor. Who better to advise Boris of what was happening in these meetings?

[navyblueshorts]

Navy /super

I can't really offer much more here than my personal experience with spads in civil service meetings. When they are present it changes the tone and the questions they ask are usually aimed at getting what their party wants. A few pointed questions from a spad are enough to steer a meeting.

You're weak then. As are SAGE members if they're influenced at all, simply by the fact Cummings is sat there. Even so, there's no evidence Cummings has/had any influence at all.

[beninho]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

I don't know, why don't you ask him. He said that this very morning on Talkradio.  Given the time he was in power probably foot and mouth, bird flu, SARS, MERS or something like that.

The amusing thing is that you think it should be a closed shop.

But he didn't send the governments chief political advisor to attend? Where am I saying it should be a closed shop, you are making up arguments for me again.

Again, if you think Cummings and his mate are going to be nice quiet boys and take notes but not report anything back. Then that's your opinion.

[super_realist]

I don't like Cummings; I don't trust him. But he is Boris's senior advisor. Who better to advise Boris of what was happening in these meetings?

It's also ludicrous to suggest that Cummings is the only source of information as to what happens in those meetings. Conspiratorial nonsense.

[super_realist]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

I don't know, why don't you ask him. He said that this very morning on Talkradio.  Given the time he was in power probably foot and mouth, bird flu, SARS, MERS or something like that.

The amusing thing is that you think it should be a closed shop.

But he didn't send the governments chief political advisor to attend? Where am I saying it should be a closed shop, you are making up arguments for me again.

Again, if you think Cummings and his mate are going to be nice quiet boys and take notes but not report anything back. Then that's your opinion.

You don't think Cummings should be there. Is it just Cummings you don't want there or would you accept someone else.
I'm sure Cummings will report back, but why would he adjust what is said there when the Pm will also be briefed by the Chief Scientific Officer?

What has Cummings got to gain by misrepresenting scientific findings which come out every single day in the briefings to media and public?

[beninho]

I don't like Cummings; I don't trust him. But he is Boris's senior advisor. Who better to advise Boris of what was happening in these meetings?

But, you also have to be realistic with how he will report his opinions into it and add a political twist to a supposedly non political meeting.

If people believe that he will just report back and defer to the others then fine. But, after what I've seen and read about him and his views, I have my concerns.

Remember the quote from Cummings about if some pensioners die, so what. Or words to that affect. He also has expressed his views on, basically, survival of the fittest.

That's my concern. It's the person not necessarily the dead.

[super_realist]

You keep repeating that theory as if it's the only source of information Boris will hear.
How naive are you? At this stage any government would take far more notice of the a chief Medical Officer than someone who isn't a scientist and went to one meeting.

Please demonstrate who is having more influence right now?

[McLaren]

Navy

It is a tautology to say we need to wait for the numbers, can't say how things will turn out etc. It will years worth of academic research to work out exactly what happened and who did what.

But in the meantime we can have a go at saying what we think the outcome will be. None of our thoughts should be submitted to Nature or printed as news but why not place your bets?

I for example think in time the UK will be shown to have had one of the most catastrophic responses to covid19. Are you really not willing to reveal how you think the UKG's response will look in the aftermath?

[beninho]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

I don't know, why don't you ask him. He said that this very morning on Talkradio.  Given the time he was in power probably foot and mouth, bird flu, SARS, MERS or something like that.

The amusing thing is that you think it should be a closed shop.

But he didn't send the governments chief political advisor to attend? Where am I saying it should be a closed shop, you are making up arguments for me again.

Again, if you think Cummings and his mate are going to be nice quiet boys and take notes but not report anything back. Then that's your opinion.

You don't think Cummings should be there. Is it just Cummings you don't want there or would you accept someone else.
I'm sure Cummings will report back, but why would he adjust what is said there when the Pm will also be briefed by the Chief Scientific Officer?

What has Cummings got to gain by misrepresenting scientific findings which come out every single day in the briefings to media and public?

He is the chief political advisor. He has strong views. Again, I've mentioned already. It comes to what you think about him.

[Davie]

Ah - back to "herd immunity" again. But it never was a strategy. Just a desirable outcome of other strategies.

[super_realist]

Navy

It is a tautology to say we need to wait for the numbers, can't say how things will turn out etc. It will years worth of academic research to work out exactly what happened and who did what.

But in the meantime we can have a go at saying what we think the outcome will be. None of our thoughts should be submitted to Nature or printed as news but why not place your bets?

I for example think in time the UK will be shown to have had one of the most catastrophic responses to covid19. Are you really not willing to reveal how you think the UKG's response will look in the aftermath?

Ben claimed there were 40,000 dead, when in fact that is just an estimate at the current stage.
You know the score on positive claims Mac.

[beninho]

You keep repeating that theory as if it's the only source of information Boris will hear.
How naive are you? At this stage any government would take far more notice of the a chief Medical Officer than someone who isn't a scientist and went to one meeting.

Please demonstrate who is having more influence right now?

I wish I was as trusting as you. I really do.

[super_realist]

What one did Clegg sit in on? What was it about?

I don't know, why don't you ask him. He said that this very morning on Talkradio.  Given the time he was in power probably foot and mouth, bird flu, SARS, MERS or something like that.

The amusing thing is that you think it should be a closed shop.

But he didn't send the governments chief political advisor to attend? Where am I saying it should be a closed shop, you are making up arguments for me again.

Again, if you think Cummings and his mate are going to be nice quiet boys and take notes but not report anything back. Then that's your opinion.

You don't think Cummings should be there. Is it just Cummings you don't want there or would you accept someone else.
I'm sure Cummings will report back, but why would he adjust what is said there when the Pm will also be briefed by the Chief Scientific Officer?

What has Cummings got to gain by misrepresenting scientific findings which come out every single day in the briefings to media and public?

He is the chief political advisor. He has strong views. Again, I've mentioned already. It comes to what you think about him.

No, it comes to what advice the government is following, and it is demonstrably following the scientific advice and not Cummings ( not that you even know what that is)

[McLaren]

Think of the type of chat I mentioned above as like football pre match punditry. It isn't that accurate but can be fun to engage in and helps build the anticipation.

[super_realist]

You keep repeating that theory as if it's the only source of information Boris will hear.
How naive are you? At this stage any government would take far more notice of the a chief Medical Officer than someone who isn't a scientist and went to one meeting.

Please demonstrate who is having more influence right now?

I wish I was as trusting as you. I really do.

If you have any evidence the government is listening to Cummings and not the science then by all means demonstrate it, until then take your tin foil hat off Owen Jones.

Who says I'm trusting? I'm just not buying your crackpot conspiracy theory.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

It is a tautology to say we need to wait for the numbers, can't say how things will turn out etc. It will years worth of academic research to work out exactly what happened and who did what.

But in the meantime we can have a go at saying what we think the outcome will be. None of our thoughts should be submitted to Nature or printed as news but why not place your bets?

I for example think in time the UK will be shown to have had one of the most catastrophic responses to covid19. Are you really not willing to reveal how you think the UKG's response will look in the aftermath?

Yes, we can have a go at predicting outcomes, but they're still just predictions. Science is littered w/ myriads of 'predictions' that turned out to be wrong. You can't accept this because you want UKG to do badly to satisfy your politics.

Unfortunately for you and others:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/03/27/covid-19-support-government-reaction-swells

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/04/17/support-government-holding-despite-increasing-crit

Might change the longer this goes on, but the above also highlights how you're not alone, so feel comforted about that .

[navyblueshorts]

Think of the type of chat I mentioned above as like football pre match punditry. It isn't that accurate but can be fun to engage in and helps build the anticipation.

That I get.

[beninho]

Who will be first out the door? Hancock?

[McLaren]

But some of your responses seem to imply I won't accept the what studies in the future say about the UKGs response because I would currently put my money (maybe about 50p) on future analysis not looking good for them.

But I refuse to believe you have not began to form a gut reaction to how things have played out. If you were to share this I wouldn't hold you to it and in fact would be keen to hear when and why your thoughts on the matter change.

[Sponsored content]