The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

The protests yesterday were also disgraceful.




It is pretty obvious that the UK has made a lot of progress. We're at pre-lockdown levels of daily cases. So easing carefully is sensible. If the evidence suggests that 1m distancing can be safe with face coverings that should be considered.

Do you think the police should have stopped yesterday's protests? Cleared the protesters out of the city?

Sunak didn't say, we've made great progress. He said "we've suppressed the virus." Is that so? Does the alert level not count anymore, are they still transitioning? There are more reported cases and deaths now than pre lockdown but we dont really know what the true caseload ever was because of their sheer incompetence.

And sunak was pretty clear, if they go 1m it will be a political decision and the buck stops with them on it. I applaud him for honesty at least.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which evidence are you going to base it on though? Clearly you cannot believe the government. They have been caught in so many lies at this stage.

The scientists that were involved have shown themselves to be very open to political persuasion, failing to call out clear breaches, failing to offer counter arguments when faced with clear wrong statements.

So what can you believe? We were all told that the government were following the science when they delayed lockdown. We now see the biggest death toll in Europe.

In English we use the word if to highlight a condition. My opinion doesn't matter much either way. The WHO seem to suggest that 1m is a minimum.

It is obvious that 1m would enable shops to operate more efficiently, and schools to get back up to speed sooner than what they are. 2m isn't a universal law as Patrick Vallance said the other day at the briefing, there are other factors at play also.

From my perspective 1m should only be allowed if it is safe and probably with other mitigating measures. If not, then it should not.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Do you think the police should have stopped yesterday's protests? Cleared the protesters out of the city?

All protests should be banned until this situation changes. The problem with not enforcing some and not allowing others is that you end up with situations like this. All mass gatherings irrespective of the cause should be banned. In France they banned the Black Lives Matter protests straight off. That was the right call. All protests should be treated the same. The government shouldn't be favouring some causes above others. The law should be applied to everyone equally.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

And sunak was pretty clear, if they go 1m it will be a political decision and the buck stops with them on it. I applaud him for honesty at least.

All political decisions are down to politicians. Advisors advise and politicians decide.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

All protests should be banned until this situation changes. The problem with not enforcing some and not allowing others is that you end up with situations like this. All mass gatherings irrespective of the cause should be banned. In France they banned the Black Lives Matter protests straight off. That was the right call. All protests should be treated the same. The government shouldn't be favouring some causes above others. The law should be applied to everyone equally.



All political decisions are down to politicians. Advisors advise and politicians decide.

What did the banning of the french protest march achieve? They knew it would go ahead anyway, potentially increase tensions. That's not a straightforward decision. What cause is government favouring over another? What did you make of Johnson tweets about churchill? Did that help things very much?

Therese Coffey, 20 May: "If the science was wrong, advice at the time was wrong, I'm not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision."

Kay Burley, 5 June: "You can't stick this on the scientists."
Helen Whately: "Yes I can."

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

What did the banning of the french protest march achieve? They knew it would go ahead anyway, potentially increase tensions. That's not a straightforward decision. What cause is government favouring over another? What did you make of Johnson tweets about churchill? Did that help things very much?

Therese Coffey, 20 May: "If the science was wrong, advice at the time was wrong, I'm not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision."

Kay Burley, 5 June: "You can't stick this on the scientists."
Helen Whately: "Yes I can."

Either mass gatherings are dangerous or they are not.

The law is the law. Dispersing the protests and sending a clear message that mass gatherings should not happen is either the right thing to do universally, or the wrong thing to do.

We shouldn't decide that we won't enforce the law because we think the cause is "right on" or not. It isn't the government's business to tell people explicitly or implicitly that they favour one over the other. Either we have the universal liberty to do this, or we don't have it temporarily.

I've not got an opinion about Johnson's tweets about Churchill. I'm interested in this topic from a public health perspective.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

Either mass gatherings are dangerous or they are not.

The law is the law. Dispersing the protests and sending a clear message that mass gatherings should not happen is either the right thing to do universally, or the wrong thing to do.

We shouldn't decide that we won't enforce the law because we think the cause is "right on" or not. It isn't the government's business to tell people explicitly or implicitly that they favour one over the other. Either we have the universal liberty to do this, or we don't have it temporarily.

I've not got an opinion about Johnson's tweets about Churchill. I'm interested in this topic from a public health perspective.

Johnson is a very stupid man but probably not so stupid to be aware his none so suble tweets would act as a lightning rod for right wing thugs with their nazi paraphernalia to rush to the defence of the statue to their great anti fascist champion. That's a public health issue far as I'm concerned.

What was the difference between the response to the blm protests and the far right protest? Can you elaborate on the favouritism supposedly shown to the "right on" cause? Did you also call for the police to clear sun bathers on durdle door a few weeks back?

lainey_d_123

Joe_ Public wrote: »

'Just listening to Rishi Sunak on marr. Something quite impressive about him, but it definitely helps when the comparitive bar is being set by the likes of Johnson and Hancock. Looks like they're definitely going with 1m but was pretty clear that it wont ultimately be on the scientists but on ministers taking the decisions. He did also say "we've suppressed the virus" which was a pretty absurd claim to make.

Exactly...it says a lot when someone who is actually intelligent stands out as being impressive among a cabinet full of absolute morons.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Johnson is a very stupid man but probably not so stupid to be aware his none so suble tweets would act as a lightning rod for right wing thugs with their nazi paraphernalia to rush to the defence of the statue to their great anti fascist champion. That's a public health issue far as I'm concerned.

What was the difference between the response to the blm protests and the far right protest? Can you elaborate on the favouritism supposedly shown to the "right on" cause? Did you also call for the police to clear sun bathers on durdle door a few weeks back?

I posted explicitly about Durdle Door twice saying that crowd of people gathering without space wasn't acceptable. You need to be honest.

The Government shouldn't distinguish between the protests based on ideology. Either this freedom is for everybody or it is for nobody. For the record, if they are going to decide that this exception is to be made for one group, why can't other exceptions be made for others. Deciding who gets liberties based on whether or not the government or anyone else likes your cause is a dangerous precedent to set.

Either these protests are dangerous from a public health perspective or they are not. Last time I checked I don't think the virus much cares whether or not the protest is for a "right on" cause or not.edom is for everybody or it is for nobody. For the record, if they are going to decide that this exception is to be made for one group, why can't other exceptions be made for others. Deciding who gets liberties based on whether or not the government or anyone else likes your cause is a dangerous precedent to set.

Either these protests are dangerous from a public health perspective or they are not. Last time I checked I don't think the virus much cares whether or not the protest is for a "right on" cause or not. All protests irrespective of cause should be banned until this is over.

On the statues, I think it was primarily the protesters last week that did that. If the protest had not happened, then this concern about the statues wouldn't have come about. Hence why the French solution was the best and most consistent. Just ban the protest until the virus has passed.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

I posted explicitly about Durdle Door twice saying that crowd of people gathering without space wasn't acceptable. You need to be honest.

The Government shouldn't distinguish between the protests based on ideology. Either this freedom is for everybody or it is for nobody. For the record, if they are going to decide that this exception is to be made for one group, why can't other exceptions be made for others. Deciding who gets liberties based on whether or not the government or anyone else likes your cause is a dangerous precedent to set.

Either these protests are dangerous from a public health perspective or they are not. Last time I checked I don't think the virus much cares whether or not the protest is for a "right on" cause or not.edom is for everybody or it is for nobody. For the record, if they are going to decide that this exception is to be made for one group, why can't other exceptions be made for others. Deciding who gets liberties based on whether or not the government or anyone else likes your cause is a dangerous precedent to set.

Either these protests are dangerous from a public health perspective or they are not. Last time I checked I don't think the virus much cares whether or not the protest is for a "right on" cause or not. All protests irrespective of cause should be banned until this is over.

On the statues, I think it was primarily the protesters last week that did that. If the protest had not happened, then this concern about the statues wouldn't have come about. Hence why the French solution was the best and most consistent. Just ban the protest until the virus has passed.

The question i asked was did you call for the police to clear durdle door? Surely by the terms you're outlining, that's what should have happened.

And among that rather rambling response i dont see where you have addressed the query about supposed "right on" causes being favoured. You need to justify that. What was the precise difference between the police response to blm and far right so called "counter" protest?

And again, what did banning paris protest achieve? Nothing. They turned out in force anyway, likely angrier than they might otherwise have been.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The question i asked was did you call for the police to clear durdle door? Surely by the terms you're outlining, that's what should have happened.

And among that rather rambling response i dont see where you have addressed the query about supposed "right on" causes being favoured. You need to justify that. What was the precise difference between the police response to blm and far right so called "counter" protest?

And again, what did banning paris protest achieve? Nothing. They turned out in force anyway, likely angrier than they might otherwise have been.

And the protest was shut down in Paris. Setting an example that either the law applies or it doesn't.

On two occasions I said it was unacceptable. If there were people meeting outside their own household and if it was against the law at the time then of course the police should have enforced it. Why not?

My view is pretty clear and consistent: The law applies to all.

If you are arguing that these protests were acceptable, then you are saying the law should apply only to those I don't like.

ChikiChiki

Joe_ Public wrote: »

'Just listening to Rishi Sunak on marr. Something quite impressive about him, but it definitely helps when the comparitive bar is being set by the likes of Johnson and Hancock. Looks like they're definitely going with 1m but was pretty clear that it wont ultimately be on the scientists but on ministers taking the decisions. He did also say "we've suppressed the virus" which was a pretty absurd claim to make.

I thought the same but he completely lost all credibility for the moment he tweeted support for Dominic Cummings. I now have him on an even keel with Johnson, Hancock and the rest of them.

nacho libre

So Boris once expressed the views that Jews control the media. Also that Africa was better off overall when it was colonised. If the leader of the opposition, or his predecessor, had stated that jews control the media the right wing press would be rather vocal about it. I suppose his admirers will say these views are not what he currently thinks about these matters. Given Boris is at best economical with the truth, i'd have my doubts about that.

nacho libre

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I thought the same but he completely lost all credibility for the moment he tweeted support for Dominic Cummings. I now have him on an even keel with Johnson, Hancock and the rest of them.

Realistically, what would you expect given he was promoted by Johnson into one of the top jobs in the country? Most people won't put principles/ doing the right thing before their careers. If this sounds like i am defending him, i'm not, just stating how things are .

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

And the protest was shut down in Paris. Setting an example that either the law applies or it doesn't.

On two occasions I said it was unacceptable. If there were people meeting outside their own household and if it was against the law at the time then of course the police should have enforced it. Why not?

My view is pretty clear and consistent: The law applies to all.

If you are arguing that these protests were acceptable, then you are saying the law should apply only to those I don't like.

Ok finally. You agree police should have dispersed the durdle door crowd, at least we've got somewhere. You wont address the "right on cause" favouritism remark so will give up on that, it's sunny outside for a change so need to get out and enjoy it!

Personally I'd rather none of the protests had happened but I'd prefer it more if the reasons behind them didnt exist at all. And I'm not an expert in crowd control or policing demonstrations, i just know that trying to contain them or going in with batons and tear gas are decisions that carry consequences so it's never a simple reductive matter. Sure, I'd be ok with seeing the full riot squad bear down on those fine chaps sporting and frolicking around yesterday, but i understand why they didnt do it. Same reason as last week. Shutting them down carries risks and sometimes only succeeds in prolongation.

theological

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok finally. You agree police should have dispersed the durdle door crowd, at least we've got somewhere. You wont address the "right on cause" favouritism remark so will give up on that, it's sunny outside for a change so need to get out and enjoy it!

Personally I'd rather none of the protests had happened but I'd prefer it more if the reasons behind them didnt exist at all. And I'm not an expert in crowd control or policing demonstrations, i just know that trying to contain them or going in with batons and tear gas are decisions that carry consequences so it's never a simple reductive matter. Sure, I'd be ok with seeing the full riot squad bear down on those fine chaps sporting and frolicking around yesterday, but i understand why they didnt do it. Same reason as last week. Shutting them down carries risks and sometimes only succeeds in prolongation.

You're desperately trying to get your gotcha moment. Of course the law should be enforced.

Can we move on to discussing something of substance?

Joe_ Public

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I thought the same but he completely lost all credibility for the moment he tweeted support for Dominic Cummings. I now have him on an even keel with Johnson, Hancock and the rest of them.

Given what had happened to javid, I'd say he likely felt he'd no choice in that matter. I wouldn't hang him for that but i wouldnt over estimate his qualities either. He's had a fairly simple enough job so far, doling readies out like a socialist on speed. But wait till the hard choices need to be made and decisions about who has to bear the brunt of the recession. We'll see his true colours then i imagine.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Given what had happened to javid, I'd say he likely felt he'd no choice in that matter. I wouldn't hang him for that but i wouldnt over estimate his qualities either. He's had a fairly simple enough job so far, doling readies out like a socialist on speed. But wait till the hard choices need to be made and decisions about who has to bear the brunt of the recession. We'll see his true colours then i imagine.

Dyed-in-the-wool Tory right winger.

nacho libre

theological wrote: »

My view is pretty clear and consistent: The law applies to all.

If you are arguing that these protests were acceptable, then you are saying the law should apply only to those I don't like.

I would have to agree with you here. In a public health emergency, adherence to policies, in place to ensure the publics safety, should not be dependent on the political persuasions of the protestors or if your a top advisor to Boris. The law, as you mention, should apply to all.

nacho libre

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Given what had happened to javid, I'd say he likely felt he'd no choice in that matter. I wouldn't hang him for that but i wouldnt over estimate his qualities either. He's had a fairly simple enough job so far, doling readies out like a socialist on speed. But wait till the hard choices need to be made and decisions about who has to bear the brunt of the recession. We'll see his true colours then i imagine.

It's easy for him to be popular when he playing Santa Claus, but
once the cut backs come he'll not be very popular with the general public. He might become a fall guy in that scenario.

Joe_ Public

Sunak was also very disingenuous this morning when asked about the OECD report that said the uk will experience the biggest economic hit among the largest European countries. He conceded that but only in the short term, claiming the report suggested they'd be showing the strongest recovery within two years. Except the report expressedly warns that the likely no deal brexit will only make things even worse. But for some reason, he left that bit out.

Enzokk

nacho libre wrote: »

Realistically, what would you expect given he was promoted by Johnson into one of the top jobs in the country? Most people won't put principles/ doing the right thing before their careers. If this sounds like i am defending him, i'm not, just stating how things are .

I will always be wary because he is in the job where he doesn't pick his own advisers. Who in their right mind would accept a job like that when it is one of the most important in government?

He sounds competent, but we will see how he does now with the next few budgets. He may not be white but his background is the same as Cameron and Gove and Johnson and Rees-Mogg, privately educated and Oxford University. Then we move on to his work career and he worked at Goldman Sachs and from there he worked at a couple of hedge funds. His father in law is also worth north of $2bn, so again this is someone who will not feel the economic pain of his actions as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1272177469811052544

ShineOn7

https://twitter.com/evanfanning/status/1271837543395397632

double jobbing

The UK is only sightly behind us in the re opening timeline, and the recent protests and a spate of raves last night across the North seem to show the public has effectively given up the lockdown.

It's interesting to compare them vs us.

Today they have confirmed 1514 new cases in a population of 68 million.

They have 14 times the population of the Republic of Ireland and we have confirmed 8 cases, or less than 0.5% of the UK. And those 1514 cases would largely exclude N.I, whose cases have per capita not been wildly out of kilter with outs.

A similar per capita number for us to the UK mainland would be 104 daily cases. We barely hit that this week never mind daily.

We last hit these numbers in early to mid May, before a single lockdown measure was lifted bar the increase from 2km to 5km.

Is the virus there to stay in the UK for the foreseeable? Is it time the government put some clarity out there? Banning Irish citizens, never mind tourists, from coming back from there?

mloc123

I think the UK will be used as an example of a country that did not lock down and what the outcome was.

They have had a lock down in name only, with little compliance based on the various news stories from the past 2 months.

drunkmonkey

They won't, it's the right thing to do but it's not politically correct.
Let's see what Taoiseach Martins take on it is, he'd be more of a patriot than Leo.

Beasty

Threads merged

double jobbing

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They won't, it's the right thing to do but it's not politically correct.
Let's see what Taoiseach Martins take on it is, he'd be more of a patriot than Leo.

In the latest round of Premier League testing two out of 1200 tested positive.

There is no reason players would be a higher risk group than any other, 1 in 600 just shows how rampant this is over there. That would point to 8000 positive cases here if we had the same rate, yet the stats seem to indicate there is probably somewhere under 200 out there carrying without knowing it at any given time.

double jobbing

mloc123 wrote: »

I think the UK will be used as an example of a country that did not lock down and what the outcome was.

They have had a lock down in name only, with little compliance based on the various news stories from the past 2 months.

Compliance was hardly rock solid here. Never seen as many little howiyas loitering about in groups as this year.

We were lucky that the leftie protests here happened in the death phases for one thing. The virus is still on fire in the UK and the riots can't have helped it.

declanflynn

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They won't, it's the right thing to do but it's not politically correct.
Let's see what Taoiseach Martins take on it is, he'd be more of a patriot than Leo.

What will he do?

PommieBast

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wait a minute, you're not a pommie b***ard?

British living in Dublin. Pub was in Hertfordshire. Hence the irony..

Imagine posting that paragraph in January 2016?

I did. Wasn't on Boards though..

I knew the distain for experts would lead to some sort of disaster, but I was not seriously expecting the dogma to replicate the Big Leap Forward's legacy of killing lots of people in a short period of time.