Printable View
I think you give Cummings too much credit for the power he has. He's an adviser, a political strategist according to Wikipedia. He is not a politician, nor is he a lawmaker. He's basically Boris' mate. These aren't his laws.
By the way, he encouraged a faster lockdown.
So he says lol. There's conflicting information on what his position was. I think I've heard the words "if a few pensioners die, so be it" or some such attributed to him.
Regardless, why is he above the law?
Is he above the law? This is actually a police matter and they might yet have something to say.
What if he wasn't checking his eyesight and was actually on a secret govt mission to visit a GlaxoSmithKline factory to discuss a vaccine with their people?
If he was such a master of espionage one would imagine he'd have a better cover story.
I mean, it might just be a huge coincidence, but Cummings just happened to visit a castle that just so happens to be the location for a GSK factory, and two days later GSK just happen to announce a deal with a French company to create a vaccine. And Cummings just so happens to come up with the most improbable excuse imaginable to explain him being seen at the castle.
He hasn't broken the law, he was on top secret government business. Why aren't they just saying so? Because GSK is one of the most corrupt companies in the UK, if not the most corrupt. They got fined £36m for ripping off the NHS, and $3b for ripping off the US health consumer. Obviously those fines aren't nearly as much money as they made.
But "omg Boris".
This country is corrupt as fuck, and politicians who are not corrupt are destined for failure. Boris is the PM because the people who actually have power are satisfied he will adequately represent their interests while fooling the electorate into thinking he's in charge. GSK will still exist in 20 years, and will still be corrupt. Boris will be retired in his mansion, and Cummings will be a "who?".
It's the system that's rotten. Moaning about the govt is futile, the next one will be just as bad.
And maybe a disguise?
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...._AC_SY400_.jpg
lol I'm sure he parachuted into that meeting with a jet pack and grappling hook and the wife and kid in the car stuff, being an irresponsible twat and all that, that was just his cover story.
They're taking the piss. The majority of people will just believe it and instead be outraged about the stupidity of driving somewhere to test if your vision is fit for driving. It's a fantastic distraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
"Wait Boris, what if someone recognizes me on my way to the castle? We need a cover story."
"Fwa fwa, oh I don't know, we'll say you were breaking lockdown. How's that old boy?"
"Sounds good to me! But then what -surely there'll be a kerfuffle."
"Well then we'll just add a few more transgressions to make it more believable. Like, let's say you went home, and your wife was sick, so you rushed back to work like an idiot. How about that?"
"Gee, why didn't I think of that?"
"Yes, well, no-one can know that we're making a deal for a vaccine. Can't be giving people hope you know."
Maybe he was going to meet Hillary and the lizard people.
So you think the GSK thing is just a coincidence? OK.
I don't.
This attempt at mockery seems actually more plausible than you give it credit for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think you can find a lot of coincidences if you look hard enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why limit yourself to places he was seen? Surely some company that makes PPE or sex trafficks in children or summat isn't too far away either. How do you know he didn't drop in on them and the castle thing was just to put clever people like you on the wrong trail?
It's funny how you talk about the "obvious mistakes" the govt have made, then when you're presented with what looks to me like obvious corruption, you dispute it.
I'm not making excuses for him. There's a reason this was a secret, there's a reason they'd rather the public just think Cummings is an idiot.
It's only obvious because you've chosen to connect some dots that happen to line up in a way that seems to justify your paranoia. Cummings - Castle - GSK - vaccine. If his folks had been in Edinburgh it would have been Cummings -Edinburgh - antibody test factory - we get more tests.
You also ignore the fact that he doesn't have to actually physically go to a castle to meet with GSK people. Do you think he was personally trying out the vaccine on his wife and kid in the special suit they made for him out of titanium alloy? Lol.
But ok, let's assume he was on a secret mission and it was so important that he and Boris were willing to not try very hard to cover it up but instead make it look as though Cummings was deliberately, arrogantly flaunting the lockdown. Why would they do that when it was going to cost so much political capital? Why not just shuttle him to the castle in the back of a white van or something, through the back gate? Why is he there with his whole family?
I mean it's really hard to imagine a scenario where they're even more bumbling than they seem right now, but you're actually managing to conjure one up.
Why do they even need cover? I mean, have you read that anywhere else? Did you catch the interview with Laura Kuenssberg where she points out there's a GSK factory right where Cummings just happened to be visiting? No, me neither.
You don't need cover if you control the media.
And yes, these things do need to be done physically. If you're doing shady business, you do not want to be doing it on Zoom or Skype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If they control the media, why did this trip even come out in the open?
And yeah that interview question wasn't asked because a series of coincidences with no evidence to link them other than that they map somewhat close to each other in space and time is not something anyone who isn't paranoid wonders about.
Because he got seen, I guess. Kuenssberg knew about this a month ago, yet for some reason didn't do her duty as a journalist and report it. And I'm not sure how the control works, I mean it's not like I have inside information. This story was broke by the Daily Mirror and the Guardian. The former is a joke that will do anything to sell papers, and the latter is as left leaning as media gets in this country. idk what forces control these media. But the MSM is riddled with propaganda.Quote:
If they control the media, why did this trip even come out in the open?
I'm not sure why you're so keen to defend Cummings here when he has a history of corruption. Next you'll be saying I shouldn't judge him until the inquiry.
I'm not defending him at all. What show have you been watching?
I've heard his family has some contract for PPE from the gov't. So yeah, I'm not disputing that he's corrupt. I'm saying it'll take more than some odd coincidences to convince me of your super spy caper story. You have no evidence for what you're proposing, see.
Isn't it obvious I was taking the piss when I said you were defending him? I added the bit about the inquiry to reinforce the jovial tone.
There is evidence, albeit circumstantial. He was seen on the premises of a castle which hosts the UK's largest pharma company two days before that same company announced a covid vaccine deal. That's quite a fucking coincidence for me. I said earlier the system is rotten, this is exactly what I mean. It's companies like GSK that influence policy.
And yeah he's corrupt. He's as anti-EU as I am. He campaigned against the UK joining the Euro. He obviously campaigned for us to leave the EU. He said EU farming grants end up int he hands of rich people who do stupid things with the money. A farm he co-owned then accepted a £250k EU grant. So yeah, not a man of integrity. idk about the PPE stuff, but nothing would surprise me.
Opposition MPs are calling for - wait for it - an inquiry into Cummings' actions.
Plonkers. It would be a gross waste of resources. An inquiry into a man taking a drive. Fuck me. All the more absurd when you factor in that he might have been on top secret govt business.
Why aren't they demanding an inquiry into GlaxoSmithKline's activities over the last ten years or so? Because the opposition are as corrupt as the govt. They just want political points, and they'll get that from the mouth breathers if they aim for the current least popular man in the country. But they dare not actually take on the faceless wealthy criminals who not only think they're above the law, but actually are. Nobody has gone to jail or even been sacked for the massive frauds they were involved in. Yet people want Cummings' head on a plate because he (maybe) went for a drive like a twat.
It's a massive distraction. Look at Cummings, don't look at GSK.
A massive distraction would be launching a tin hat conspiracy investigation based on no evidence. To be clear, there's not even circumstantial evidence he was on a top secret mission. There's no evidence except your imagination and capacity to ignore the massive holes in your logic, like why he took his wife and four year old kid to the castle on his 'top secret' missioin. Imagination doesn't hold up in court.
Here's the problems with what Cummings did, and with the fact he's not been sacked: It could literally cost us hundreds or thousands of lives.
If you (the gov't) make rules and then don't follow them, you're effectively undermining those rules. Others will say "Hey, if Cummings doesn't have to follow the rules, why should I?" There's already reports from police that they've been getting that excuse from people.
Further, it erodes the general trust in gov't, at a time when it's most needed. Every rule they try to make from now on will be greeted with derision. If (when) cases go up again and they have to strengthen the lockdown again, the new rules are more likely to be ignored by more people than before. This will result in more cases and more deaths.
People are already being idiots, flocking to beaches and lakes and ignoring social distancing. Hardly any of them are even wearing a mask. Don't expect that to get better as long as they see the gov't ignoring their own rules. It will only get worse. We've already passed ITA in deaths/ million and are now closing on SPA for fourth spot. Andorra is not outside our reach if we keep going the way we are.
In case he got seen. Barnard Caslte is Durham, Cummings' home. The locals will recognise him. If he has his wife and kids, they assume he's on family business rather than govt business.Quote:
...like why he took his wife and four year old kid to the castle on his 'top secret' missioin.
Assuming he is honest. I find it astonishing that you believe someone you clearly don't trust. It's easier for you to believe a man with a history of corruption was being stupid rather than corrupt, despite him being at the location of a corrupt pharma company two days before they announce a vaccine deal.Quote:
Here's the problems with what Cummings did, and with the fact he's not been sacked: It could literally cost us hundreds or thousands of lives.
And you lecture me about the "obvious".
I mean you can't believe he was actually "testing his eyesight". That is clearly a crock of shit. So what do you think he was actually doing? Just having an hour out with the family? Having a gawp at a castle on his doorstep where he knows he'll get recognised? When his wife is supposedly ill?
I dunno how that's easier to believe.
So do you agree or not that his actions (or at least his public portrayal of them) and the lack of consequences (no sacking) are bad for the country as a whole for the reasons I stated?
I'm not really interested in speculating about why Barnard Castle in particular, but let's entertain you a bit. Let's say he went there and helped GSK close the deal with Sanofi to work on a vaccine. Maybe he closed a few other deals in the vicinity while he was up there, who knows. And maybe it seemed better to go to Durham to meet with GSK than to some closer office they had, like Slough. And maybe he was just careless about protecting his movements and that's why he got spotted. Wife and kid were there to provide cover, make it look like some possibly shady deal he was doing to enrich himself (let's say) was in fact something the public seems to consider much worse, a breach of lockdown rules. Ok, let's say that's how it happened.
What now? We null the deal between two private companies somehow 'cause we suspect based on proximity that Cummings was in on it? We look for evidence that the private deal between two companies has some sinister motive? Where are we going to find that evidence, and what legal approach are we going to use to find it? Are we going to try to subpoena GSK's ledger to see if it has an entrance for "Dom C, £1m, palm greasing" in it? What is it you think an inquiry will be able to find?
Assuming it was just a day out, where in the UK could he have taken his wife on her birthday plus the kid that wouldn't have risked being spotted? And where could he have taken them that couldn't be linked to some business or other that has an office nearby? Should he have driven to the Shetlands?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Assuming the public portrayal is honest, then yes of course it's bad. It creates a sense of "them and us", it reinforces social division, it's potentially dangerous as stupid people go "well if he can do it so can I", and him lingering in his position overshadows the message that the virus hasn't gone away yet and we still need to be on high alert.Quote:
So do you agree or not that his actions (or at least his public portrayal of them) and the lack of consequences (no sacking) are bad for the country as a whole for the reasons I stated?
Maybe the R&D base in Durham is where they intend to create the vaccine. Perhaps it was necessary for him to travel there. Or maybe the govt just felt it was easier to explain him at a castle near his home than a pharma company's offices in Slough, or at their HQ in Brentford.Quote:
I'm not really interested in speculating about why Barnard Castle in particular, but let's entertain you a bit. Let's say he went there and helped GSK close the deal with Sanofi to work on a vaccine. Maybe he closed a few other deals in the vicinity while he was up there, who knows. And maybe it seemed better to go to Durham to meet with GSK than to some closer office they had, like Slough. And maybe he was just careless about protecting his movements and that's why he got spotted. Wife and kid were there to provide cover, make it look like some possibly shady deal he was doing to enrich himself (let's say) was in fact something the public seems to consider much worse, a breach of lockdown rules. Ok, let's say that's how it happened.
Cummings isn't "in on it" like he has a stake. He's doing his job as a representative for the govt. Maybe he gets a commission, idk, but this isn't Cummings being corrupt without the knowledge of the govt. This is Cummings being corrupt on behalf of the govt. This is the kind of stuff that needs an independent inquiry, not a man going for a drive.Quote:
What now?
idk, literally any castle other than the one he happened to visit?Quote:
where could he have taken them that couldn't be linked to some business or other that has an office nearby?
It's not like GSK have offices "nearby". They have a base on the grounds of the castle. They are the castle's largest employer.
I think you need better evidence is all I'm saying. We don't even know how close to the GSK place he was spotted. If someone had seen him actually going inside or coming out you'd have a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's a town though right? It's not just a castle in the middle of nowhere that GSK owns. So unless someone actually saw him going in or out of GSK property, you got nothing, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean, if he was seen at Hereford Cathedral, I wouldn't assume he was on a govt mission to the SAS base. Maybe if he was seen in Salisbury I'd assume he was going to Porton Down, though. So I guess it depends who the "nearby" party is.
You're right, it's a town. I stupidly assumed the town name was only a reference to the castle. idk if that changes anything though, it's still a curious place to be two days before GSK announce their deal.
I don't need better evidence to be highly suspicious. I appreciate that this is not proven though.Quote:
I think you need better evidence is all I'm saying. We don't even know how close to the GSK place he was spotted. If someone had seen him actually going inside or coming out you'd have a case.
Police taking no action against Cummings. So... one of the following...
1) His claimed actions were not a breach of law,
2) He is above the law,
3) His actions were legally justified by simply saying "I can't answer that question, it's classified".
I'm gonna say it's not #1. Driving to "test your eyesight" is dangerous driving at least.
To be exact, they said he broke the rules but they were taking no further action. Looks more like 2) above to me.
Agree driving while blind is an offense, but not sure you can retroactively prosecute someone for something they said they did on TV. Like, if I said I was speeding on the M25 last weekend, would they send me a speeding ticket? Seems unlikely. Even self-confessions can be retracted, and confessions as a whole rarely hold up in court as conclusive evidence in the UK. So I doubt they'd prosecute for that.
Also, Durham police have no jurisdiction in London. His admission that he went back to work after spending time with his wife with suspected CV should be investigated separately in Islington.
In more cheerful news, we're now No. 1 in excess deaths/million.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZHAwbFX...g&name=900x900
I mean he can argue that he didn't break the law because he was actually fit to drive, he only breaks the law if he isn't, but it can still be reckless endangerment or something like that.
I'm still thinking he was on fishy business. It just makes more sense to me that what he's saying.
I think I've found out where we differ in opinion poop. You think the govt are incompetent. I think they're corrupt. You care about their incompetence. I don't care about their corruption, but only because I know it doesn't matter who's in charge, it's the system that's rotten. I've given up hope when it comes to politics. We live in a corrupt system and no amount of crying about it is going to change it. I'd rather live my life without giving a shit about what I can't control.
I wouldn't be surprised if the path we have taken is the most profitable for those in control. This public display of incompetence and idiocy is smoke and mirrors.
Yet another reason I want an inquiry. I'm reluctant to actually judge the govt based on what could just be paranoia. It's not out of the question they have acted in good faith, and it's a given that what we read in the media is bullshit propaganda. I'm just not sure how much these people can hide behind "classified" when it comes to such inquiries. I guess we'll find out.
I'll say it again. I'm not defending the govt. I'm suspicious of their motives, and would actually prefer them to be incompetent than corrupt. Incompetence is forgivable.
I think this is actually where we disagree. It's not forgivable. You take the job on, you should know whether or not you can handle it. If you can't, don't run for office. And if you get in, and find out only then that you're incompetent, there's always the option to fall on your sword.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I have a hard time imagining who would benefit from tragically poor handling of a pandemic. Maybe the people who manufacturer coffins have paid them off, dunno.
My theory is there are parallels between the Boris and the Trump. Neither is really up for the job, both are just professional bullshitters. Neither is capable of trading short term pain for long term gain, meaning they both started out thinking 'goddamn if we make people do shit they don't want to do, they'll be angry with us. Instead let's hope this isn't as bad as they're saying it will be.' Now when it's obvious they've both fucked up royally, they have only one way of handling fuck ups which is to double down.
So they both just keep trying to bluster their way through because that's what they've always done.
The word has been overused a lot recently, but it's hard to find an alternative... this is unprecedented. How do you know if you can handle this or not? This isn't part of their education. They should be studying things like economics, politics, sociology, things that are relevant to every government. I don't expect them to be studying virology. So we come back to the experts they hire to advise them on such matters. The government's incompetence is taking the wrong advice. That's a really easy mistake to make.Quote:
I think this is actually where we disagree. It's not forgivable. You take the job on, you should know whether or not you can handle it
I don't know how you can type this without thinking of a company that makes vaccines.Quote:
I have a hard time imagining who would benefit from tragically poor handling of a pandemic.
Boris is definitely a professional bullshitter. That's just another term for a politician.
Will start with this 'cause it's easy. There's no future universe in which a vaccine would not be needed, except one in which everyone gets the virus. So, giving everyone the virus seems like a bad move if you're trying to make money selling vacs.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Everyone hasn't got the virus. Enough people have it to cause a sense of panic, the other 90%+ want a vaccine. If it turns out to be a little worse than normal flu, people don't give a fuck about a vaccine. I'm not saying this is what has happened, but I can see ways that a pharmaceutical company can make money from a pandemic, and there's going to be an optimal level of infection for them to maximise profits. Your guess is as good as mine as to where that optimal level is.
Maybe character is a better word, and you'd be right if you said people often aren't good judges of their own character.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But, getting back to the 'advice', there were basically two expert camps on how to deal with a pandemic. One said, like Tegnell in Sweden, to do a mild, voluntary lockdown and wait for herd immunity to build up. The other, like Osterholm, recommend to do what they implemented in places like SKO, GER, GRE, etc., which was to get an early start with testing, tracing, isolating, combine that with lockdowns, and get the virus under control quickly.
We've gone in-between those two, started out like SWE, then later changed our mind and tried to go the other way, but without being prepared for it in terms of testing and tracing. And it just doesn't work, which is why there is no hybrid model of pandemic response.
So, I guarantee you there was no pandemic expert advising them to do things the way they did. Some may advised them to do Plan A, some Plan B, but none of them said try A, then B.
The PM is not meant to be an expert on everything obv. so he gets advice and makes decisions. If one group of experts says do A, and the other says do B, and both agree there's no middle ground of A then B, then doing AB is not taking the "wrong" advice, it's waffling and mashing together conflicting advice in a bad way.
Even if hardly anyone in the UK had it, people would still want a vaccine. Ask people in a country like SKO or GER whether they'd take a CV vaccine that worked, and I bet you 99.99% would say yes. You don't have to kill half your population to make them realise there's a global pandemic going on. Moreover, every one of the people that dies not only can't buy your vax, they can't buy all the other drugs you've been selling them into their old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ok, but were any of them saying "but whatever you do, don't start with plan A and then bail onto plan B"? Or was he getting advice saying "plan A isn't working, let's try plan B"? Advise evolves, one person might advise on thing one day and another thing the next day, as the situation develops. And even still, so long as those who make the decision are doing so in good faith, for me it's forgivable. If not for you, fair enough.Quote:
So, I guarantee you there was no pandemic expert advising them to do things the way they did. Some may advised them to do Plan A, some Plan B, but none of them said try A, then B.
You're not suspicious enough, and I'm too suspicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I wasn't there obv so I don't know what exactly was being said. But afaik, the problem wasn't just that they went from A to B, it's that a) it took them too long to do it; and b) they're still not fully prepared to implement B properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The impression I have from Times and FT articles is both A and B were laid out to the ones who attended the COBRA meetings. Whitty early in March was clearly insinuating we had taken a Plan A approach when he used terms like herd immunity in interviews, an impression which was reinforced in mid March as there weren't any steps being taken to social distance/lockdown.
The ICL study came out about this time and predicted a huge number of deaths, which seemed to scare them out of Plan A. So, they did begin talking about lockdown measures around this time in mid-March, but it was always referred to as some hypothetical time off in the future. So they clearly had a shift to Plan B in mind but hadn't gone over to it yet. Then, as I'm sure you remember, they eventually went into lockdown over the next ten or so days. It's this delay that the Plan B'ers are saying was the biggest mistake. These experts said if you're going to go with Plan B, then every day counts and every day you wait costs lives.
Even still, we're just now starting to get into a proper version of Plan B, which includes test-trace-isolate (TTI), something places like GER, SKO, GRE all had ready to go from the beginning. That's two full months it's taken us to get that set up. Not good. Now imagine if they'd locked down a week sooner, and had not had a big spike in cases and not had to worry so much about PPE and building Nightingale hospitals because who knew how bad it was going to get. So they had to focus their energy on that instead of having an earlier lockdown where they could have kept cases low, and instead focussed on setting up TTI.
I mean, there are people who considered all these things in advance. You say it's unprecedented, but that's not entirely true, at least not in the general sense. They've had models for how infectious diseases behave, and how to deal with pandemics for a long time.
One argument against an early lockdown is it hurts the economy. Well, we ended up having to be in full lockdown for 8 weeks, and are only now just easing out of it, and possibly too early because we don't have adequate TTI yet. Meanwhile other places have had things under control earlier and so their lockdowns lasted less time than ours.
I do strongly suspect they're being influenced by big business to open up and/or never to have closed, if that makes you feel better.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's likely this is fair and true. But their actions can still be in good faith, the advice they were getting could have been ambiguous enough for them to think they were doing the right thing.Quote:
But afaik, the problem wasn't just that they went from A to B, it's that a) it took them too long to do it; and b) they're still not fully prepared to implement B properly.
That we were even talking about "herd immunity" in the early stages shows how unprepared we were. It was a serious option at the time, considered to be viable. It was only when it became clear the NHS would not be able to cope that we changed course. The shift to plan B was far from ideal, but idk how you can expect it to be perfect. You're expecting those in charge to balance health, economics and politics. Under normal circumstances, that's their job. But these are not normal circumstances.
The transition from plan A to B was probably too long. Ten days to implement a lockdown is a long time. But you haven't once even acknowledged the point I made about India doing it in four hours. Clearly doing it immediately is worse than doing it in stages. I agree doing it in ten days is too much, but how are we supposed to know this? It's obvious four hours is not enough.
Of course they plan for this, but this is the first time such plans have been put into action.Quote:
I mean, there are people who considered all these things in advance. You say it's unprecedented, but that's not entirely true, at least not in the general sense. They've had models for how infectious diseases behave, and how to deal with pandemics for a long time.
You're still citing mistakes that can be made in good faith, ie forgivable mistakes.Quote:
One argument against an early lockdown is it hurts the economy. Well, we ended up having to be in full lockdown for 8 weeks, and are only now just easing out of it, and possibly too early because we don't have adequate TTI yet. Meanwhile other places have had things under control earlier and so their lockdowns lasted less time than ours.
Why would it make me feel better? I'd rather them be incompetent. Bur it's this kind of thing that isn't forgivable. This is corruption.Quote:
I do strongly suspect they're being influenced by big business to open up and/or never to have closed, if that makes you feel better.
The UK, and the USA, are refusing to share coronavirus vaccine research with the rest of the world. The race to make a vaccine is not a race to save lives, it's a race to make money. China and Russia are probably doing the same.
If Cummings was "testing his eyesight" then I'm the Queen of England.
It's a subtle but important point that the advice from SAGE wasn't ambiguous, it was conflicting. It said you can either do A or do B. Once you start doing A, it's too late to do B effectively. So you've got to make a decision and be prepared to face the consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The best estimates around early Feb. were that the case fatality rate was about 1%, and that 60% or more needed to be infected in order to achieve herd immunity. So Plan A assumed something like 400k deaths in the UK. That's a pretty fucking stark choice to be considering. And it would have been clear right away the NHS was not going to be able to cope with that. Right then and there they should have been saying "what's Plan B and how do we implement it?"
As it happens (according to the Times story) the official gov't pandemic response plan to an infectious disease was a fully developed and detailed Plan B. IOW, years ago a group of experts had already worked out how to do it and what needed to be done and when, and had written it down. So there was a step-by-step Plan B ready to be implemented, and they chose not to.
But ok fine, a lot of countries made that mistake too, they didn't have their Plan B ready, or they hesitated because it would have meant a big disruption. A lot of the ones that were even going with Plan B from the start, started it too late. We're not alone in that.
The thing is, once we decided we weren't prepared to stick to Plan A and instead needed to get to Plan B, we needed to fucking get to Plan B pronto. Not in some hypothetical time in the future, or a couple of weeks, or ten days, but sooner because every day counts.
And certainly once they decided they were going to Plan B they had to make it clear to everyone this was going to be happening very soon, within days, as soon as practical. That's kinda the whole point of Plan B; you have to lock the stable door before the horses get out.
Their problem was they based their actions on wishful thinking. They seemed to have it in their heads that this would somehow not hit us like it was hitting ITA and SPA at the time. There was no scientist telling them that, they just based it on what they were hoping would be true.
Does this not naturally cause you to lean more towards corruption than incompetence?Quote:
As it happens (according to the Times story) the official gov't pandemic response plan to an infectious disease was a fully developed and detailed Plan B. IOW, years ago a group of experts had already worked out how to do it and what needed to be done and when, and had written it down. So there was a step-by-step Plan B ready to be implemented, and they chose not to.
A lot of your comments assume the govt have acted incompetently in good faith, and you're critical. I'm thinking the govt have acted corruptly, and I want to wait for an inquiry before judging, basically hoping they are just incompetent. It's an interesting difference of opinion, if I'm honest.
I'm not sure how to define 'good faith' in this context because to me it assumes they were trying to do what's best for the country. I think the problem is they were given a clear indication of the best course of action and didn't take it. Their motives for that may well have been tempered in a number of ways that aren't all necessarily honorable.
e.g., the Times article suggested that Boris didn't like the idea of a lockdown because it went against his libertarian instincts. That's naive and shows poor judgment, but it's not corrupt.
And if by 'corrupt' you mean GSK or whoever was bribing them to let the virus spread so they could make money off a vaccine, and they deliberately followed the one course of action that would maximize suffering, I find that hard to believe, even for this gang.
Meanwhile in India.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...stant-11996752
"Good faith" is a pretty subjective term, but for me it's acting with good intention. If they took a path they knew was inferior, then it's hard to see how that decision can be made in good faith.
It's also pretty naive to give any credit to a tabloid that is psychoanalysing a politician.Quote:
e.g., the Times article suggested that Boris didn't like the idea of a lockdown because it went against his libertarian instincts. That's naive and shows poor judgment, but it's not corrupt.
I agree that's pushing the boundaries of viability. But GSK lobbying for access to the vaccine rights, with a few dirty handshakes and briefcases handed over, is certainly within the realms of possibility. The UK and USA are not sharing their vaccine research with the rest of the world, and the reason is money.Quote:
And if by 'corrupt' you mean GSK or whoever was bribing them to let the virus spread so they could make money off a vaccine, and they deliberately followed the one course of action that would maximize suffering, I find that hard to believe, even for this gang.
It's a bit more nuanced than that I think. I think they probably didn't accept what they were being told about how bad things were likely to get. Does that mean they had bad intentions, or just that they were subject to cognitive biases? And if the latter, then you can argue their intentions were good, but their decision making was foggy or clouded or whatever word you want to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
To be clear, the Times was reporting what people around Boris were reflecting on as their impressions about him at the time. Another quote from the same article was 'deer in the headlights'. So it's not them analysing him. Obv. we can't know what was going on in his head, and you can clearly question what kind of bias an official willing to talk to the left-wing press might harbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
More to the point, I think this comes back to my reference to character. A good leader like Churchill would not say 'well it looks like I fucked up but that's fake news.' He'd say "it looks like I fucked up because I very well might have fucked up. Give me another chance, and I'll do better." I think the latter attitude shows a lot more character and ultimately inspires more confidence in the public. The Boris attitude seems to be a Trumpian 'never admit to a mistake' and when the mistakes are so blatant for all to see that's a bad look.
I thought it was just the US that wasn't sharing; I thought the UK was getting together with Europe on this one. But that was a couple of weeks ago so maybe it's changed, or the news was incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, you know, it's not just like they made one bad mistake back in March and have making up for it since then. The bumbling seems to just keep going on and on. Their recent opening up strategy and "stay alert" slogan has come under attack from the experts - Independent Sage and others - because it's not supported adequately by TTI.
Most recently, they announced a further loosening for Monday, still without adequate TTI in place and that seem sto go against their own plan which was to implement the stages of loosening based on the current Alert Level. The current AL is still 4 which is 'high' but they're now loosening up as if it were 3. I mean it's pretty obvious they don't know what they're doing.
FWIW, Independent Sage is an interesting and afaik unprecedented phenomenon. It's a group of renowned world experts in the UK who weren't on the gov't SAGE team but nonetheless are willing to risk their reputations by making their views public (something that SAGE failed to do). It gives them incredible accountability and public credibility that the gov't SAGE team is lacking. IS is open to criticism from other experts. If they say something controversial, anyone can question them.
Here's an article from your least favourite former ambassador... https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...m-coronavirus/Quote:
I thought it was just the US that wasn't sharing; I thought the UK was getting together with Europe on this one. But that was a couple of weeks ago so maybe it's changed, or the news was incorrect.
I mean there's nothing concrete, but he cites articles that claim Russia, China and Iran are trying to hack into pharma and uni websites to gain access to research.
This was posted May 17th. Murray is clued up and honest. If the UK was working with the EU on this, he would add an update to his article. Even in the EU, we were closer to USA, that only increases now. If their pharma companies are trying to profit from this, ours are too.
The UK govt do not like Murray, they have their sights set on him. He's charged with contempt of court and faces court next month in relation to the Alex Salmond case. You'd probably like him if you gave him a chance, he's heavily left-leaning economically. I read him for his foreign affairs, and his views on govt corruption. I ignore his views on socialism and Scottish independence.
Not sure that talks about cooperation between UK and EU. Here's the article I saw:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9496696.html
Well those comments from Boris are a direct contradiction. Let's see where it goes.
Deputy Chief Medical Officer Van Tam has given the Cummings fiasco some fresh legs today. This shit isn't going away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV_sFEpghLA
So Hancock just announced vulnerable would be allowed to leave their homes tomorrow.
When did we go to Alert Level 1?
It actually looks like they've given up on Plan B and are going back to Plan A? Or are they? They've started some feeble attempts to implement TTI, but Sridhar thinks the numbers are too high for that.
Ong will be pleased at least there is some evidence that there was groupthink going on in SAGE. Good thing they didn't make their minutes public until now- someone might have asked some tough questions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFG4u-WoD0
More political point-scoring by the libs
https://twitter.com/NHSMillion/statu...61874062372864
SAGE scientist says "We should have gone into lockdown sooner." Yeah no shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15m9nXb3k2k
Was just waiting for someone to come with a syringe and a strait jacket
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/statu...12010555932672
Our governments' uneducated responses to COVID is deeply unsettling to me.
I'm particularly upset by Trump denying it's a national issue, and blaming the states for something they had every precedent of expecting federal support with.
I'm particularly offended that Trump threatened governors who "weren't nice" to him with actions that would put every person in that state at greater risk of death.
The reduction of the national pandemic response staff and capabilities is deeply upsetting. It's not like anyone could have known that this would happen in 2020, but it was a morally questionable and mortally dangerous gamble to take.
The response here has not been as outrageously off-key as Trump's, but it could hardly be described as competent either.
Gov't spent a big pile of money to a private company for a 'world beating' contact tracing app, and this company is only contacting 1/3 people who test positive, never mind their contacts. So it's basically next to useless. That's just the latest fuckup in a long string of fuckups going back to Jan.
Here's Johnson doing his best impression of more articulate version of Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xAo0WhA1M
And here he is doubling down on a lie that's pointed out straight to his face. Our own little Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTEVnxA15Eg
Anybody have stats on mortality rates and causes relative to initial reported mortality rates and causes from previous years?
He's done such a bad job managing the psychology.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
There's no gameplan, no end in sight. Officials don't have adequate guidance and are making concrete decisions based on unknown or inadequately used statistics.
Financial Times has been tracking this in the UK for weeks now. We're at about 65k excess deaths relative to the five-year average for this year up to now. Our official CV deaths is at 43k, so yeah either they're missing a lot or people are dying 'cause they can't get the health care they could pre-CV.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I think this is the US equivalent. Not sure how up-to-date it is though.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm
Do you know if the previous numbers are revised of if they are at-the-time recordings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's about a four-day lag between the death and when it's registered with the Office of National Statistics which records the numbers, if that's what you mean. So e.g., the count on June 11 is actually the deaths up to about June 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That's in the UK, can't speak to what happens elsewhere.
I'm getting at revisions of numbers at later dates.
The piece of fake news that had pneumonia deaths at significantly lower was because it was using initial figures and comparing them to historical figures that were revised at what looked to be months later.
It's regular in economics. Each month, the employment data you hear is revised down the road to more accurate figures. Frequently the revisions are big. I forget how much it lags, but it's long(ish).
Darwin Awards being doled out by the dozens this year.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/30-year-ma...l_twitter_abcn
One of the criteria necessary to qualify for a Darwin Award is to not reproduce. If that guy managed to father children before he tested his hoax theory, his genes are still in the population. Still, he'd surely qualify for an "honourable mention", which is prestigious in itself.
Apparently a coronavirus party is a thing now in the US. Someone tests positive and has very mild symptoms, so they invite all their dumbest friends over to celebrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He probably had a really good time at that party too. Laughing about what a hoax it all was, all those supposedly dead people who really just had a 'flu, and oh geez why is my throat sore all of a sudden...
Just went outside for a smoke, saw a fucking comet. I had no idea, so I came inside to google it, and sure enough it's a fucking comet.
Highest visibility should be towards mid-end of July. Pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've seen a comet. I remember Halley's comet in the 80's, but I don't recall actually seeing it. And all I can remember about the Hale-Bopp comet was the mass suicide.
I must have seen the Hale-Bopp comet, it was in the sky for 18 months.
Are we dead yet?
A lot are!
Nah, everything's under control.
https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/stat...58722224775168
https://images.cdn.yle.fi/image/uplo...639e46faf3.jpg
COVID lab in training. In tests conducted by the university of Helsinki the dogs are cheaper, faster and more reliable than viral tests. And of course they're not given funding, so looks like it'll just remain a curiosity.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/...ovid-immunity/
Huge if true.
Dog is black - will get stopped by cops before he can smell anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Edit: sorry wrong post
Dog is black - will get stopped by cops before he can smell anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Well there's a fucking surprise. College students not following social distancing. Who could have predicted that?
https://twitter.com/r_cutshall/statu...22402985287687
Meanwhile our uni is planning to stick it's head in the sand and go ahead with face-to-coughing-face teaching. "It won't happen here! Our kids will behave like responsible adults!"
Covid-sniffing dogs now on duty at Helsinki airport.
https://twitter.com/AmeshAA/status/1308734907695484928
In other news, our uni has now decided to move to online teaching for classes >100. I suspect by my first lecture Oct. 1st we'll be entirely online.
How is your uni dealing with it Mojo?
We're all over the place.
A normal sized classroom cannot have more than 13 people in it, 12 students and 1 teacher. A normal size class has ~20 students.
Since this is obviously a problem, all classrooms (I know of) now have cameras and microphones in them to facilitate every lecture being live-cast on zoom, and recorded using the zoom "record meeting" function. These videos are made available online to students in the class.
The amphitheater style lecture halls can hold up to about 20 students, but they're intended to hold hundreds of students, and there are less than 10 large lecture halls on the campus.
Students are told that they are expected to only attend some classes in person and to attend some classes online, but I haven't seen any university-wide instructions on how to divide up who gets to do what on any given day.
The intro physics group is doing all classes online, with no in-person classes. All my demos are done by YouTube videos this semester. I'm more of a video director than a physicist for now. I don't speak in any of the videos, as the professors are speaking over them in their online lectures.
Link to my YouTube page.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChQ...Xc-5MAw/videos
Let me know if that doesn't work.
I haven't shared them with you guys 'till now because I'm not talking in them / not explaining anything.
We're only in the 2nd week of classes for this semester, and who knows what happens if the campus becomes a COVID hot spot.
Yeah our overall system is pretty chaotic and complicated too. I won't bore you with the details (and they change from day to day), but the College is also being pretty noncommital on what would lead them to sending everyone home and going to fully online. Gotta keep those residence fees coming in!
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223
So over 80% of those hospitalized get lasting effects, regardless or contraindications, age etc.
It annoys me that the media here is fixated on reporting confirmed infections and potential exposures. Deaths and hospitalizations should be the main metric.
Definitely, and excess deaths more specifically, and the overall trends (up or down) even better.
The problem is the case numbers depend on the number of tests being done. E.g., in the Spring they were missing a lot of cases, but now they're missing much fewer. So while cases are going up dramatically, deaths are still fairly low, which makes people more complacent imo.