The Covid-19 serious chat thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

Self-isolating, social distancing, locked down thread split.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Guardian saying that Hancock is now stating that the R number is not that important and that as long as it is below 1 it is okay to carry on with the easing of lockdown.

I haven't been able to find where he said it, but if it is true it is another time when they are changing the rules so suit their failures.

From memory the R factor had to be between 0.5 and 0.7 before lockdown could start to be eased and below 0.2 before we could think about social gatherings in pubs and the like

Nationally we still have it at a minuscule amount below 1 and we are into a second phase of easement across the country. London and it's surrounding area has circa 20% of the population and the R factor is currently 0.4. If London is that low it means that the rest of the England is on average above 1, yet the figures keep showing the overall figure below 1. Are we putting all the good work that the majority of people have done during lockdown at risk by easing up in areas that according to the government we should not be easing in?

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Dentists!!!!!!!!!

They can now carry out work, however around my way, they are only carrying it out privately, My wife contacted 4 dentists yesterday, all could see her within the next few days, but none on the NHS. We are fortunate that we can afford to go privately, she even got in the same day which is a first. But £90 for an examination and a prescription for an infection which she told him it was before she even went.

A lot of people cannot afford to pay that, especially in the current financial climate.

WE PAY FOR THEM TO BE TRAINED! I think that dentist like doctors should have to sign up for a period of time after they qualify to work solely for the NHS and that dental practises should be obliged to have a reasonable percentage of their work done through the NHS. With the current government in power and likely to be cash strapped for some years to come, I can see the NHS all gradually being privatised like dentistry has been.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Various members of the SAGE panel are now coming out and saying that the delay in going into lockdown has costs us many lives. They also say that the delay was due to the lack of knowledge about how the virus was transmitted. Most countries locked down a little earlier, those that didn't had far better testing regimes in place (despite our 2nd in the world readiness result). One week earlier would have saved 20,000 lives according to Neil Ferguson.

[jimbopip]

So...no schools to open fully before September because it isn't safe.

Catch Up summer sessions for all starting soon. Taught in? Taught by? The Liar In Chief refused to go into details.

Orwellian Doublethink???

[lostinwales]

Saw something saying that we have the lowest net approval of our government's CV19 response in the world, or at least countries where they have such data, just beating Mexico.

Probably as least as much to do w/ the general tenor of political discussion in this country these days. Too many simply think there's a conspiracy to hide facts from the public or the Government of the day (whatever its flavour) is simply scheisse. Too many think they're experts on everything under the sun. Not saying UKG is great, but political discourse in the UK is utter cr@p.

It is, but the communication from the UKGov has been terrible. In all honesty had we had exactly the same results but the government had been straight rather than always claiming they have made the right decisions and denying what they had pushed earlier in the process they would be a great deal more popular right now.

If you look across the pond the infection and death rates in New York have been appalling, and yet the governor, Cuomo, has come out of it well simply because he's been honest about what has gone wrong and what they are doing to fix things.

[tigertattie]

Dentists!!!!!!!!!

They can now carry out work, however around my way, they are only carrying it out privately, My wife contacted 4 dentists yesterday, all could see her within the next few days, but none on the NHS. We are fortunate that we can afford to go privately, she even got in the same day which is a first. But £90 for an examination and a prescription for an infection which she told him it was before she even went.

A lot of people cannot afford to pay that, especially in the current financial climate.

WE PAY FOR THEM TO BE TRAINED! I think that dentist like doctors should have to sign up for a period of time after they qualify to work solely for the NHS and that dental practises should be obliged to have a reasonable percentage of their work done through the NHS. With the current government in power and likely to be cash strapped for some years to come, I can see the NHS all gradually being privatised like dentistry has been.

Dont get me started.

Doctors and Dentists should have to see NHS patients first and then private ones in overtime. If it wasnt for the possibility that all docotrs would move to private, I'd have them either in the NHS or they can opt out entirely and go private if they want. Floating between both is jsut wrong and I dont care what they say, I've seen surgeons cancel NHS operations to allwo them to go do a private one!

[jimbopip]

Saw something saying that we have the lowest net approval of our government's CV19 response in the world, or at least countries where they have such data, just beating Mexico.

Probably as least as much to do w/ the general tenor of political discussion in this country these days. Too many simply think there's a conspiracy to hide facts from the public or the Government of the day (whatever its flavour) is simply scheisse. Too many think they're experts on everything under the sun. Not saying UKG is great, but political discourse in the UK is utter cr@p.

It is, but the communication from the UKGov has been terrible. In all honesty had we had exactly the same results but the government had been straight rather than always claiming they have made the right decisions and denying what they had pushed earlier in the process  they would be a great deal more popular right now.

If you look across the pond the infection and death rates in New York have been appalling, and yet the governor, Cuomo, has come out of it well simply because he's been honest about what has gone wrong and what they are doing to fix things.

Very true.
I watched yesterday's briefing and Johnson was chuntering on about "the two metre rule"; Patrick Vallance then explained that there was no such rule, that it was a scientific judgement and took into account factors such as indoor/outdoor, length of time talking etc. It was rather guidance about how to stay as safe as possible in the given circumstances. Johnson then immediately began his next sentence by saying that the government will be sticking to the two metre rule but looking to review it as soon as possible.

Conflicting messages???

[navyblueshorts]

Various members of the SAGE panel are now coming out and saying that the delay in going into lockdown has costs us many lives. They also say that the delay was due to the lack of knowledge about how the virus was transmitted. Most countries locked down a little earlier, those that didn't had far better testing regimes in place (despite our 2nd in the world readiness result). One week earlier would have saved 20,000 lives according to Neil Ferguson.

With respect, this is in-line w/ things like bears using the woods for a toilet. Of course locking down would likely have caused fewer deaths; it's axiomatic. To extrapolate to absurdity, why don't we have permanently closed borders and permanent curfews? Would stop any issue, of any sort. The info was the info at the time and even Ferguson acknowledges this. This is a job for the post-pandemic enquiry. Ferguson's ex-SAGE, so I guess he might feel it OK to comment as he has. Have any other current members been unprofessional and commented outside of SAGE's agreed position?

Any comment on the COG publication pointing out that the Madrid-Liverpool footy likely had no significant effect at all?

[jimbopip]

Various members of the SAGE panel are now coming out and saying that the delay in going into lockdown has costs us many lives. They also say that the delay was due to the lack of knowledge about how the virus was transmitted. Most countries locked down a little earlier, those that didn't had far better testing regimes in place (despite our 2nd in the world readiness result). One week earlier would have saved 20,000 lives according to Neil Ferguson.

With respect, this is in-line w/ things like bears using the woods for a toilet. Of course locking down would likely have caused fewer deaths; it's axiomatic. To extrapolate to absurdity, why don't we have permanently closed borders and permanent curfews? Would stop any issue, of any sort. The info was the info at the time and even Ferguson acknowledges this. This is a job for the post-pandemic enquiry. Ferguson's ex-SAGE, so I guess he might feel it OK to comment as he has. Have any other current members been unprofessional and commented outside of SAGE's agreed position?

Any comment on the COG publication pointing out that the Madrid-Liverpool footy likely had no significant effect at all?

Actually Mr Shorts there was an academic study which identified THREE sudden growths in infection rates centred on;  Cheltenham, Liverpool and South Wales. The researchers were quite categorical in stating a causal relationship between the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool-Atletico match but seemed slightly baffled by the south Wales outbreak. I would suggest that lots of Welsh rugby fans had travelled to London for the England-Wales match the week before(coincidentally attended by that celebrity covid victim Boris Johnson) and lots of Welsh and Scottish fans had travelled to Cardiff for the Wales-Scotland match which was eventually called off at lunchtime on the Friday before Lockdown was announced.

From a purely personal perspective I stopped taking assignments from my Supply Agency about a week and a half before Lockdown was announced. We all knew it was coming, the only question was when. During that last week my agency were calling me three or four times a day. They could not fill the gaps in schools. My, totally unscientific, hunch is that lots of teachers knew schools were about to close and called in sick rather than place themselves at risk. In the week before Lockdown my eldest son contracted Covid 19, he commuted up to London with a high temperature before being sent home. Goodness knows how many people he could have infected; train, tube, office, tube train then home.

In the two or three weeks before Lockdown everyone knew it was coming: the government can't argue that they were caught by surprise and reacted as quickly as possible. There were calls to cancel the Cheltenham Festival. Ditto professonal Football. The government were very slow to act.
Recent evidence says that 39% of the early infections came into this country via Spain. It is highly unlikely that the Atletico Madrid supporters didn't contribute to this.

[navyblueshorts]

Various members of the SAGE panel are now coming out and saying that the delay in going into lockdown has costs us many lives. They also say that the delay was due to the lack of knowledge about how the virus was transmitted. Most countries locked down a little earlier, those that didn't had far better testing regimes in place (despite our 2nd in the world readiness result). One week earlier would have saved 20,000 lives according to Neil Ferguson.

With respect, this is in-line w/ things like bears using the woods for a toilet. Of course locking down would likely have caused fewer deaths; it's axiomatic. To extrapolate to absurdity, why don't we have permanently closed borders and permanent curfews? Would stop any issue, of any sort. The info was the info at the time and even Ferguson acknowledges this. This is a job for the post-pandemic enquiry. Ferguson's ex-SAGE, so I guess he might feel it OK to comment as he has. Have any other current members been unprofessional and commented outside of SAGE's agreed position?

Any comment on the COG publication pointing out that the Madrid-Liverpool footy likely had no significant effect at all?

Actually Mr Shorts there was an academic study which identified THREE sudden growths in infection rates centred on;  Cheltenham, Liverpool and South Wales. The researchers were quite categorical in stating a causal relationship between the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool-Atletico match but seemed slightly baffled by the south Wales outbreak. I would suggest that lots of Welsh rugby fans had travelled to London for the England-Wales match the week before(coincidentally attended by that celebrity covid victim Boris Johnson) and lots of Welsh and Scottish fans had travelled to Cardiff for the Wales-Scotland match which was eventually called off at lunchtime on the Friday before Lockdown was announced.

From a purely personal perspective I stopped taking assignments from my Supply Agency about a week and a half before Lockdown was announced. We all knew it was coming, the only question was when. During that last week my agency were calling me three or four times a day. They could not fill the gaps in schools. My, totally unscientific, hunch is that lots of teachers knew schools were about to close and called in sick rather than place themselves at risk. In the week before Lockdown my eldest son contracted Covid 19, he commuted up to London with a high temperature before being sent home. Goodness knows how many people he could have infected; train, tube, office, tube train then home.

In the two or three weeks before Lockdown everyone knew it was coming: the government can't argue that they were caught by surprise and reacted as quickly as possible. There were calls to cancel the Cheltenham Festival. Ditto professonal Football. The government were very slow to act.
Recent evidence says that 39% of the early infections came into this country via Spain. It is highly unlikely that the Atletico Madrid supporters didn't contribute to this.

All good points, but the published COG survey looking at phylogeny etc that made the news yesterday suggests that the Athletico-Liverpool match would have had an insignificant impact. No-one said none of the ~3k (wasn't it around that #?) Athletico fans weren't carriers, but the point of that is that it would have been insignificant cf. where we were anyway.

Easy to look back and say "we all knew it was coming" (wife and I were saying same), but what if it was a damp squib? Think UKG had to bear that in mind, given economic impact perhaps.

Can't comment on Cheltenham. Did think it was odd at the time though!

[Duty281]

The UK government also had to bear in mind whether the country would accept lockdown. Lockdown only works with consent. If the government tried to institute lockdown too early, then the country at large may have rebelled against it, equalling in failure of lockdown.

And then the hindsight merchants would have been saying "why didn't the government wait a little while longer?!"

[JuliusHMarx]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

[lostinwales]

I don't actually like buying into the kind of language that gets thrown around too easily - like 'English/British exceptionalism -but the recent CH4 dispatches program is very good on the timeline. The virus was coming one way or another and there was enough evidence it was going to be bad, and yet the people who could have made a difference did not - one line being that it could not happen here.

Yes it was always going to be a difficult sell locking down earlier, but had we done so we could have been leaving lockdown now with much more confidence.

[navyblueshorts]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

[jimbopip]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

Mr Shorts, I know that I was in the fortunate position of being between assignments in the weeks before lockdown :MrsPip and I were on the US at the end of Feb/beginning of March and I knew a local FE college were about to offer a post commencing mid March so I was in the fortunate position of being able to turn down job offers and stay at home.I remember us having a conversation with a Canadian couple who were saying they had booked a trip to Italy in late May/early June and they were asking if we thought they should cancel the hotels they had already paid for. My advice was that pretty soon travel to Italy would be banned and they could then claim on their travel insurance, but best rsign themselves to the fact that they wouldn't be travelling to Italy. As I posted above, in the fortnight leading up to Lockdown the demand for supply cover was increasing by the day. This suggests to me that a lot of people were choosing to stay at home. But on a national scale they would have been a tiny fraction of the workforce. Very few people were in the fortunate position to be able to refuse to go to work. If you think back, in the last week before Lockdown cinemas, theatres and restaurants were deserted. People were staying at home when they could but when they had no choice they were going to work. Granted, there were lots of idiots who were in denial and continued as if nothing was happening but they were very much in the minority.
I know we mentioned the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool - Atletico match but can we consider the Wales-Scotland match? In the run up to Lockdown large section of the hospitality sector were crying out for some, indeed any, action from the government. The government's stance of "strongly advising" people not to go out except for work meant that cinemas, theatres, bars and restaurants were empty and heading towards bankruptcy. Their argument was that if the government closed them down they could claim on their insurance but if they were allowed to remain open with no customers they would go broke. The Welsh RFU having sold 80 000 tickets for the Scotland match were waiting for the government to ban large sporting events. If it was banned they could claim against their insurance; if not they stood to make a huge loss. The WRFU blinked first and on the Friday afternoon, the very latest moment when they could feasibly do so, they cancelled the match. By that time there were lots of rugby fans already in Cardiff and lots of Scots had started their trips from north of the wall.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it was not a case of one day everything was normal and hunky dory and the next we were in full lockdown. We all saw the way things were in the rest of the world. we all had a fair idea that things were deteriorating. The government made a catastrophic error in its timing. They could have and should have acted sooner.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

On south Wales being a hotspot early on for cases and deaths, it was actually Gwent, or the Aneurin Bevan LHA that was worst hit, and it just so happens that on 6th March, the Dragons hosted Benetton Treviso at Rodney Parade in Newport. I haven't seen anything to say that the influx of supporters from northern Italy had an effect here, but I'd say it's bound to have done.

[navyblueshorts]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

Mr Shorts, I know that I was in the fortunate position of being between assignments in the weeks before lockdown :MrsPip and I were on the US at the end of Feb/beginning of March and I  knew a local FE college were about to offer a post commencing mid March so I was in the fortunate position of being able to turn down job offers and stay at home.I remember us having a conversation with a Canadian couple who were saying they had booked a trip to Italy in late May/early June and they were asking if we thought they should cancel the hotels they had already paid for. My advice was that pretty soon travel to Italy would be banned and they could then claim on their travel insurance, but best rsign themselves to the fact that they wouldn't be travelling to Italy. As I posted above, in the fortnight leading up to Lockdown the demand for supply cover was increasing by the day. This suggests to me that a lot of people were choosing to stay at home. But on a national scale they would have been a tiny fraction of the workforce. Very few people were in the fortunate position to be able to refuse to go to work. If you think back, in the last week before Lockdown cinemas, theatres and restaurants were deserted. People were staying at home  when they could but when they had no choice they were going to work. Granted, there were lots of idiots who were in denial and continued as if nothing was happening but they were very much in the minority.
I know we mentioned the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool - Atletico match but can we consider the Wales-Scotland match? In the run up to Lockdown large section of the hospitality sector were crying out for some, indeed any, action from the government. The government's stance of "strongly advising" people not to go out except for work meant that cinemas, theatres, bars and restaurants were empty and heading towards bankruptcy. Their argument was that if the government closed them down they could claim on their insurance but if they were allowed to remain open with no customers they would go broke. The Welsh RFU having sold 80 000 tickets for the Scotland match were waiting for the government to ban large sporting events. If it was banned they could claim against their insurance; if not they stood to make a huge loss. The WRFU blinked first and on the Friday afternoon, the very latest moment when they could feasibly do so, they cancelled the match. By that time there were lots of rugby fans already in Cardiff and lots of Scots had started their trips from north of the wall.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it was not a case of one day everything was normal and hunky dory and the next we were in full lockdown. We all saw the way things were in the rest of the world. we all had a fair idea that things were deteriorating. The government made a catastrophic error in its timing. They could have and should have acted sooner.

Your opinion, which is fine. All I'm really saying is that it wasn't an easy decision and we aren't privy to all the info that led to the decision on when to close up shop. I'm not going to judge them on not shutting down a week earlier, especially when there's evidence that there was so much here even before that. Everything is so easy w/ hindsight. People will no doubt make up their minds, probably inline with their normal voting preferences.

[JuliusHMarx]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

I was very reluctant to go into the office for about a week before lockdown, but what choice did I have? Refuse to work? Insist on working from home, when it was frowned upon? So yes, I was waiting - not to be told what to do - but to have the government back me up so that I could do it. I shouldn't have had to wait, when things were so obvious.

[Samo]

Not to mention a lot of small businesses were reluctant to close before the Government told them because then they could apply for various insurances and assitance.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

More evidence that the government is using scientific expert puppets on the briefing:

"England's most senior nurse was dropped from one of Downing Street's daily coronavirus briefings after refusing to publicly back Dominic Cummings, it has been claimed.

"Chief Nursing Officer Ruth May was originally due to appear alongside Matt Hancock on June 1, but senior NHS sources allege she was immediately dropped" from the line-up after expressing her feelings on the Prime Minister's most senior adviser."

So is Van-Tam dropped, not been seen since he said that Cummings was wrong, Jenny Harries backs him up and disappears from public view and now the Chief Nursing Officer is dropped after saying she is to willing to back Johnson's lies/position on/about Cummings.

Before I am told this is more lefty propaganda, it is a report from The Telegraph, hardly the most liberal of papers.

[LordDowlais]

I had a very interesting conversation from a dear friend in Poland yesterday. She said that she had been very ill, and had all the symptoms of covid-19, she was bed ridden for over a week, and the hospitals did not want her to go to them. I asked her if she had the virus, and she said she did not know, but thinks she did.

I found this very peculiar, so I pressed her on the subject, and to cut a long story short, she told me, that the authorities in Poland will not test anyone unless they are in hospital on oxygen, and are on deaths door with a slim chance.

So, are other countries trying to skew their figures ? Are they trying to justify their reasons for easing their lock-down restrictions, are New Zealand really covid free ?

[lostinwales]

I had a very interesting conversation from a dear friend in Poland yesterday. She said that she had been very ill, and had all the symptoms of covid-19, she was bed ridden for over a week, and the hospitals did not want her to go to them. I asked her if she had the virus, and she said she did not know, but thinks she did.

I found this very peculiar, so I pressed her on the subject, and to cut a long story short, she told me, that the authorities in Poland will not test anyone unless they are in hospital on oxygen, and are on deaths door with a slim chance.

So, are other countries trying to skew their figures ? Are they trying to justify their reasons for easing their lock-down restrictions, are New Zealand really covid free ?

This seems to be a common theme, although sometimes the lack of testing facilities can be a feature (as it has been for us).

Russia is a really odd case in that they have been publishing some big numbers for infections but are apparently reluctant to attribute CV19 as a cause of death. End result is an apparent death rate of 1.2-1.4%. Even Germany has a death rate of 4.8%.

[jimbopip]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

Mr Shorts, I know that I was in the fortunate position of being between assignments in the weeks before lockdown :MrsPip and I were on the US at the end of Feb/beginning of March and I  knew a local FE college were about to offer a post commencing mid March so I was in the fortunate position of being able to turn down job offers and stay at home.I remember us having a conversation with a Canadian couple who were saying they had booked a trip to Italy in late May/early June and they were asking if we thought they should cancel the hotels they had already paid for. My advice was that pretty soon travel to Italy would be banned and they could then claim on their travel insurance, but best rsign themselves to the fact that they wouldn't be travelling to Italy. As I posted above, in the fortnight leading up to Lockdown the demand for supply cover was increasing by the day. This suggests to me that a lot of people were choosing to stay at home. But on a national scale they would have been a tiny fraction of the workforce. Very few people were in the fortunate position to be able to refuse to go to work. If you think back, in the last week before Lockdown cinemas, theatres and restaurants were deserted. People were staying at home  when they could but when they had no choice they were going to work. Granted, there were lots of idiots who were in denial and continued as if nothing was happening but they were very much in the minority.
I know we mentioned the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool - Atletico match but can we consider the Wales-Scotland match? In the run up to Lockdown large section of the hospitality sector were crying out for some, indeed any, action from the government. The government's stance of "strongly advising" people not to go out except for work meant that cinemas, theatres, bars and restaurants were empty and heading towards bankruptcy. Their argument was that if the government closed them down they could claim on their insurance but if they were allowed to remain open with no customers they would go broke. The Welsh RFU having sold 80 000 tickets for the Scotland match were waiting for the government to ban large sporting events. If it was banned they could claim against their insurance; if not they stood to make a huge loss. The WRFU blinked first and on the Friday afternoon, the very latest moment when they could feasibly do so, they cancelled the match. By that time there were lots of rugby fans already in Cardiff and lots of Scots had started their trips from north of the wall.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it was not a case of one day everything was normal and hunky dory and the next we were in full lockdown. We all saw the way things were in the rest of the world. we all had a fair idea that things were deteriorating. The government made a catastrophic error in its timing. They could have and should have acted sooner.

Your opinion, which is fine. All I'm really saying is that it wasn't an easy decision and we aren't privy to all the info that led to the decision on when to close up shop. I'm not going to judge them on not shutting down a week earlier, especially when there's evidence that there was so much here even before that. Everything is so easy w/ hindsight. People will no doubt make up their minds, probably inline with their normal voting preferences.

Shorts, could that last sentence just possibly apply to yourself?

Do you really think that it was impossible to call the Lockdown a week , or two, sooner?
May I, respectfully , suggest that you trawl the interweb for Johnson's speech to business leaders when the virus was heading our way in which he basically said (my synopsis) Let them go into lockdown and shut down their economies, we'll ride it out and then emerge from the phone box in our Superman underpants ready to take full advantage of the economic opportunities this will present. OR look on the BBC website which carried an article about the Italian Premier who says that as he was shutting everything down at the height of their crisis he had a phone call with Johnson. When he asked if Britain was planning on locking down the answer was that we would "take it on the chin".

People will no doubt make up their minds, probably inline with their normal voting preferences.

Could that sentence possibly refer to yourself?

[navyblueshorts]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

I was very reluctant to go into the office for about a week before lockdown, but what choice did I have? Refuse to work? Insist on working from home, when it was frowned upon? So yes, I was waiting - not to be told what to do - but to have the government back me up so that I could do it. I shouldn't have had to wait, when things were so obvious.

Yeah. Fair point. Difficult.

[navyblueshorts]

I think at the time most people* were wondering why on earth the Government hadn't gone in to lockdown yet. Allowing the Cheltenham Festival was absurd - and plenty of people said so at the time.

*Obviously I'm speaking for most people in the same way BoJo always presumes to.

I was taking my daughter to go look for bugs/frogs one Sunday during this pre-lockdown period. On the radio was a respiratory Registrar doing a Q&A for a phone-in. He was quite good, but one thing sticks in my mind - when asked whether UKG should lockdown, he said there was enough info around on Covid and that more people needed to take responsibility for their own, and their loved ones', health at that point. That was around a week (maybe a little more) before the lockdown. An interesting point.
We have a country who, apparently, don't trust UKG one iota (and didn't before this) and yet they were waiting to be told what to do when at the same time profess not to trust anything UKG says.

Mr Shorts, I know that I was in the fortunate position of being between assignments in the weeks before lockdown :MrsPip and I were on the US at the end of Feb/beginning of March and I  knew a local FE college were about to offer a post commencing mid March so I was in the fortunate position of being able to turn down job offers and stay at home.I remember us having a conversation with a Canadian couple who were saying they had booked a trip to Italy in late May/early June and they were asking if we thought they should cancel the hotels they had already paid for. My advice was that pretty soon travel to Italy would be banned and they could then claim on their travel insurance, but best rsign themselves to the fact that they wouldn't be travelling to Italy. As I posted above, in the fortnight leading up to Lockdown the demand for supply cover was increasing by the day. This suggests to me that a lot of people were choosing to stay at home. But on a national scale they would have been a tiny fraction of the workforce. Very few people were in the fortunate position to be able to refuse to go to work. If you think back, in the last week before Lockdown cinemas, theatres and restaurants were deserted. People were staying at home  when they could but when they had no choice they were going to work. Granted, there were lots of idiots who were in denial and continued as if nothing was happening but they were very much in the minority.
I know we mentioned the Cheltenham Festival and the Liverpool - Atletico match but can we consider the Wales-Scotland match? In the run up to Lockdown large section of the hospitality sector were crying out for some, indeed any, action from the government. The government's stance of "strongly advising" people not to go out except for work meant that cinemas, theatres, bars and restaurants were empty and heading towards bankruptcy. Their argument was that if the government closed them down they could claim on their insurance but if they were allowed to remain open with no customers they would go broke. The Welsh RFU having sold 80 000 tickets for the Scotland match were waiting for the government to ban large sporting events. If it was banned they could claim against their insurance; if not they stood to make a huge loss. The WRFU blinked first and on the Friday afternoon, the very latest moment when they could feasibly do so, they cancelled the match. By that time there were lots of rugby fans already in Cardiff and lots of Scots had started their trips from north of the wall.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it was not a case of one day everything was normal and hunky dory and the next we were in full lockdown. We all saw the way things were in the rest of the world. we all had a fair idea that things were deteriorating. The government made a catastrophic error in its timing. They could have and should have acted sooner.

Your opinion, which is fine. All I'm really saying is that it wasn't an easy decision and we aren't privy to all the info that led to the decision on when to close up shop. I'm not going to judge them on not shutting down a week earlier, especially when there's evidence that there was so much here even before that. Everything is so easy w/ hindsight. People will no doubt make up their minds, probably inline with their normal voting preferences.

Shorts, could that last sentence just possibly apply to yourself?

Do you really think that it was impossible to call the Lockdown a week , or two, sooner?
May I, respectfully , suggest that you trawl the interweb for Johnson's speech to business leaders when the virus was heading our way in which he basically said (my synopsis) Let them go into lockdown and shut down their economies, we'll ride it out and then emerge from the phone box in our Superman underpants ready to take full advantage of the economic opportunities this will present. OR look on the BBC website which carried an article about the Italian Premier who says that as he was shutting everything down at the height of their crisis he had a phone call with Johnson. When he asked if Britain was planning on locking down the answer was that we would "take it on the chin".

People will no doubt make up their minds, probably inline with their normal voting preferences.

Could that sentence possibly refer to yourself?

That last sentence could apply to me, but it doesn't. I've not voted Tory for decades, and when I did, I was far more naive than now. Green last time around, Lib Dems couple of times before that. Labour before Bliar went off on his mission from God etc. Nice try .

Yes, we could have locked down sooner. We didn't, but I'm not arrogant enough to presume I know the exact reasons why we did what we did, when we did.

[navyblueshorts]

Interesting report perhaps:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/health/coronavirus-mutations-scripps-gene/index.html

Proviso is this is a pre-print and pre-peer review. Doesn't suggest more dangerous for an infected individual per se, but possibly more infectious so wider issues re. pandemic management?

[Samo]

Marcus Rashford: please do a little bit more to help poor families fed their kids through the summer.

Boris Johnson: lol no.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Marcus Rashford: please do a little bit more to help poor families fed their kids through the summer.

Boris Johnson: lol no.

What did you expect from this government? There have already been 4 reports published in the last 3 years, all have been effectively ignored or the recommendations have been tinkered with rather than applied.

The Race Disparity Audit, published by then Prime Minister Theresa May in 2017, showed inequalities between ethnicities in educational attainment, health, employment and treatment by police and the courts

The 2017 Lammy Review found evidence of bias and discrimination against people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the justice system in England and Wales

Also in 2017, the McGregor-Smith Review of race in the workplace found people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds were still disadvantaged at work and faced lower employment rates than their white counterparts

An independent review of the Windrush scandal, published in March, found the Home Office showed "institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race"

This back of a fag packet review is simply to divert attention away from the fact that they have ignored all the previous ones.

[BamBam]

Marcus Rashford: As you go about your business this morning, please think about parents who have to choose between services like hot water and electricity or feeding themselves / their children

Therese Coffey: That's a lie, water can't be turned off

[Pr4wn]

Fantastic work by Rashford, what a great bloke.

As for Johnson and his government, another humiliating u-turn which shows them as the over-privileged and out of touch shower that they are.

[Soul Requiem]

Fantastic work by Rashford, what a great bloke.

As for Johnson and his government, another humiliating u-turn which shows them as the over-privileged and out of touch shower that they are.

So you'd rather they didn't u-turn or are you just being facetious?

[Pr4wn]

Consider that some might have wanted the government to show some humanity in the first place.

Obviously the u-turn is welcome, that goes without saying. The fact that the PM had to be begged speaks volumes, though.

[BamBam]

Yes, we all want our government to only do the decent thing if they're lobbied in that direction by 22 year old footballers.

Any scenario that doesn't see footballers mounting campaigns must mean the government can continue being their normal tw4tish selves, supported by the usual types - see Therese Coffey as the best example this morning

[123456789.]

I've never understood the 'u-turn' criticism of politicians personally. When a Prime Minister, of any side, announces something terrible, like we plan to burn London to the ground. Pressure comes on from all sides. The government says we've had a rethink, we are no longer going to burn down London. Everyone then goes look how they weak they are, they're not burning London. I'm glad they've U-turned and it's the right thing to do.

It's symptomatic of a government shorn of talent or sense that they've got into this nightmare in the first place. Governed by a psychopath who thinks only of himself and a scheming creep with a genius in campaigning and a surfeit of ideas in how to govern. They never had any ideas beyond Brexit, they've apparently not got much thought on that. It's not that there isn't talent in the Tory back benches, it's that it's not being used. If Johnson had any sense he would jettison Cummings, demote Patel and Raab. Bring in Javid and Hunt. He's already lost Gauke, Stewart and Rudd. Tim Montgomerie, a former ally of Johnson, recently wrote of how he met with him frequently in the run up to the 2015 election to discuss Johnson's leadership bid. Cameron still planned on another four years in office at that stage. It was regularly reported that he was courting support throughout May's premiership. You'd think at one point in the plotting it would cross his mind how or for what he would govern. It rather reminds me of the time at school that I spent months chatting to a girl, putting in the groundwork and then at the moment of truth at a house party, it turned out that I'd had too much to drink and threw up on her shoes.

[guildfordbat]

Cracking school story, Numbers.

Yep, with you guys - although would be concerning if anyone wasn't. A government should do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because it's shamed into it.

[JuliusHMarx]

I've never understood the 'u-turn' criticism of politicians personally. When a Prime Minister, of any side, announces something terrible, like we plan to burn London to the ground. Pressure comes on from all sides. The government says we've had a rethink, we are no longer going to burn down London. Everyone then goes look how they weak they are, they're not burning London. I'm glad they've U-turned and it's the right thing to do.

It's symptomatic of a government shorn of talent or sense that they've got into this nightmare in the first place. Governed by a psychopath who thinks only of himself and a scheming creep with a genius in campaigning and a surfeit of ideas in how to govern. They never had any ideas beyond Brexit, they've apparently not got much thought on that. It's not that there isn't talent in the Tory back benches, it's that it's not being used. If Johnson had any sense he would jettison Cummings, demote Patel and Raab. Bring in Javid and Hunt. He's already lost Gauke, Stewart and Rudd. Tim Montgomerie, a former ally of Johnson, recently wrote of how he met with him frequently in the run up to the 2015 election to discuss Johnson's leadership bid. Cameron still planned on another four years in office at that stage. It was regularly reported that he was courting support throughout May's premiership. You'd think at one point in the plotting it would cross his mind how or for what he would govern. It rather reminds me of the time at school that I spent months chatting to a girl, putting in the groundwork and then at the moment of truth at a house party, it turned out that I'd had too much to drink and threw up on her shoes.

Catch 22 maybe? If you hadn't had that much to drink maybe you'd never have made it to the moment of truth.

[navyblueshorts]

I've never understood the 'u-turn' criticism of politicians personally. When a Prime Minister, of any side, announces something terrible, like we plan to burn London to the ground. Pressure comes on from all sides. The government says we've had a rethink, we are no longer going to burn down London. Everyone then goes look how they weak they are, they're not burning London. I'm glad they've U-turned and it's the right thing to do....

I agree. Guess it's a balance - the odd U-turn OK; U-turning on everything not OK.

[navyblueshorts]

Good stuff on Dex:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53061281

Cheap, load around, been around ages and only re-purposing so little paperwork. Here's hoping this is the first of many beneficial treatments.

[jimbopip]

I've never understood the 'u-turn' criticism of politicians personally. When a Prime Minister, of any side, announces something terrible, like we plan to burn London to the ground. Pressure comes on from all sides. The government says we've had a rethink, we are no longer going to burn down London. Everyone then goes look how they weak they are, they're not burning London. I'm glad they've U-turned and it's the right thing to do.

It's symptomatic of a government shorn of talent or sense that they've got into this nightmare in the first place. Governed by a psychopath who thinks only of himself and a scheming creep with a genius in campaigning and a surfeit of ideas in how to govern. They never had any ideas beyond Brexit, they've apparently not got much thought on that. It's not that there isn't talent in the Tory back benches, it's that it's not being used. If Johnson had any sense he would jettison Cummings, demote Patel and Raab. Bring in Javid and Hunt. He's already lost Gauke, Stewart and Rudd. Tim Montgomerie, a former ally of Johnson, recently wrote of how he met with him frequently in the run up to the 2015 election to discuss Johnson's leadership bid. Cameron still planned on another four years in office at that stage. It was regularly reported that he was courting support throughout May's premiership. You'd think at one point in the plotting it would cross his mind how or for what he would govern. It rather reminds me of the time at school that I spent months chatting to a girl, putting in the groundwork and then at the moment of truth at a house party, it turned out that I'd had too much to drink and threw up on her shoes.

The main difference between you and the Adulterer In Chief is that all the time you knew what you wanted to do when you got to the Moment Of Truth and I sincerely hope it wasn't to throw up on her shoes. The nagging feeling is that Johnson spent decades scheming to become PM because...well because he wanted to be PM. Not to actually do anything...just to be PM.

I believe that we'll see the Rashford scenario played out in many different guises over the term of this parliament: high profile figure begins campaigning on a political issue, media and public get behind him/her...Boris changes government policy doublequicktime. He really needs to be loved.

[JDizzle]

It's a fair effort to have majority of 80, and yet still have U turned this many times in a few weeks already.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

It's a fair effort to have majority of 80, and yet still have U turned this many times in a few weeks already.

It is only because he has a majority that big that he can keep "U turning", without it, he would have been dumped after the first two or three.

His latest gaff, setting up a person who is known to have made up her mind about racial inequality, i.e. "it does not exist" as the head of the commission looking into racial inequality, Munira Mirza. Report dead in the water before it is written. As I have previously written on here, there have already been four recent reports, she has rubbished them all, there is a "grievance culture" within the anti racist lobby she has said.

Apparently Lammy's report was accepted by May, Cameron and Corbyn, so why another one if you had a cross party consensus. That they do not actually believe in equality perhaps?

[Luckless Pedestrian]

I don't care that Matt Hancock called him 'Daniel' Rashford. I care that he's applauding and praising a policy that, until yesterday lunchtime, his government opposed.

It's one thing performing a U-turn; it's another thing to make out that this is the direction you were travelling in all along.

[BamBam]

Appears the entire government is following the description of Boris Johnson in Michael Heseltine's famous quote

"He looks to see which way the crowd is going then runs to the front shouting "Follow Me!"

[jimbopip]

Appears the entire government is following the description of Boris Johnson in Michael Heseltine's famous quote

"He looks to see which way the crowd is going then runs to the front shouting "Follow Me!"

I believe that we'll see the Rashford scenario played out in many different guises over the term of this parliament: high profile figure begins campaigning on a political issue, media and public get behind him/her...Boris changes government policy doublequicktime. He really needs to be loved.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

How much medical equipment or free school meals can you get for £900K?

That is the amount Boris is wasting on having his RAF transport plane repainted in red white and blue. It also includes teh design by one of his friends, I wonder how much that cost the taxpayer.

[lostinwales]

Contact and tracing app...

[BamBam]

Yeah, I mean what were the chances that Apple and Google wouldn't agree to fundamentally compromise the propriety of their product? Didn't they know Dom's mate was the one doing the asking????

[lostinwales]

Yeah, I mean what were the chances that Apple and Google wouldn't agree to fundamentally compromise the propriety of their product? Didn't they know Dom's mate was the one doing the asking????

I heard the Germans had offered us their app for free, source code and all. Bloody Europeans and their inferior stuff that actually works.

[navyblueshorts]

Yeah, I mean what were the chances that Apple and Google wouldn't agree to fundamentally compromise the propriety of their product? Didn't they know Dom's mate was the one doing the asking????

I heard the Germans had offered us their app for free, source code and all.  Bloody Europeans and their inferior stuff that actually works.

Does it work? If the issues re. Apple/Google is correct, just what OS are they basing their app on? Maybe Germans are happy that their app can't tell exactly how far away someone else is?

[lostinwales]

Yeah, I mean what were the chances that Apple and Google wouldn't agree to fundamentally compromise the propriety of their product? Didn't they know Dom's mate was the one doing the asking????

I heard the Germans had offered us their app for free, source code and all.  Bloody Europeans and their inferior stuff that actually works.

Does it work? If the issues re. Apple/Google is correct, just what OS are they basing their app on? Maybe Germans are happy that their app can't tell exactly how far away someone else is?

I don't really know much having not read too far.

I think I read that it uses bluetooth to track other devices that come in range and that all data is local on the phone. Nobody is going to be looking unless you test positive.

[Sponsored content]