To be very concerned that Boris Johnson said this

[Worriedmum54321]

From the Guardian:
Responding to the argument that a more stringent lockdown should have been imposed sooner, he said: “Don’t forget, it’s a very very demanding thing to ask a population to do – very tough – and so I think it was completely right to make our period of lockdown coincide as far as possible with the peak of the epidemic.”

@LakieLady examples of social interference would be things like giving preferential migration rights to Europeans (I think it’s harmful to base your immigration policy on race/nationality but I’m just a bit radical like that) or the right to have your children educated in accordance your your religious beliefs (again, call me radical but I don’t think that parents have the right to deprive their child of a full education). Conversely you can look at the effect this has had on the migrants themselves. Eastern Europeans have been effectively turned into the EU’s lower class expected to pick up all the crap jobs that Western Europeans don’t want, Then you have the cultural policing of various food products. Obviously however it’s the economic and regulatory policies that are most harmful as they stifle new business making it much harder for people with limited funds to start their own enterprises and achieve financial independence. The imposition of English and French on the member states as the languages of operation (obviously you can access most important documents these days in translation but if you involved in international intra EU business of politics you’re expected to know at least one of the two which seems a bit arbitrary and unfair.

I hasten to add that I don’t think that the EU is all bad, much of the EU policies are good. I expect that Britain will keep a lot of the EU laws for the foreseeable future. I’m not convinced that the U.K. will be better off without it or anything like that. I merely wanted to illustrate the counter narrative to the one usually put out there. There are elements that are deeply concerning. They are balanced out by transparency and internal dissent but when you contrast and institution like the EU (whose very conception was to avoid further catastrophes caused by extremist governments) the claim that the U.K. is soft fascist becomes more ridiculous.

There are people on all sides of the political divide allowing their view of the government to cloud their analysis. This is as true of the right as the left. As we have ample evidence of on MN, from the pretence by some posters that the election result is somehow a relevant factor and the attempts to use it as a shield against criticism.

Are people really this fucking tribal and devoid of critical thinking skills?
Kettle? Pot?
What is hilarious is the effort people put into criticising the timing of the lockdown when it is obvious that to analyse that, you will need long term data (say a year or so) for different countries measuring the number of deaths over historical norms. The rest is either just idle pontification or borne of some desperation to criticise those mean old Tories.

@Livelovebehappy - they did have hindsight. There was pandemic planning a few years ago, and expert advice to the government to stockpile appropriate PPE, rather than flimsy gloves and masks. They chose not to, to save money. Yes, this goes out of date and has to be replenished, but how much money has the lockdown cost? The millions saved on buying the correct and more expensive PPE is dwarfed by the cost of this to the country (in lives and money) of the ongoing pandemic. So short-sighted.

What is hilarious is the effort people put into criticising the timing of the lockdown

I think it's pretty easy to criticise the mass events going ahead.

• @Snorkelface & @Livelovebehappy* exactly what you both said .I said to my DH that Cheltenham was utterly ridiculous to go ahead , he didn't agree .People chose to go because they wanted to and sod everyone else .How many of the daily figures link to Cheltenham and the fans that went to the football game whilst they knew this was spreading .Not everyone though most of Joe public are sensible but there will alway be that minority that is sod the rest you .

The argument for football was that an infected person would be more dangerous in a crowded pub watching the football affecting more people than in a large event where they could only infect a few people around them.

So if someone was infected and was going to go out, better they go to an event like a football match than watch the game on TV, if it was played without spectators.

What is hilarious is the effort people put into criticising the timing of the lockdown when it is obvious that to analyse that, you will need long term data (say a year or so) for different countries measuring the number of deaths over historical norms

Problem with this argument, which is mainly a govt one, is it allows them to do what they like, without scrutiny, this allowed Blair to take part in the 2nd Gulf war.
Any inquest into what really happened and the mistakes made in the months after the World was told of CV-19, will be many years away.

Most of us have elderly or at risk relatives and friends, so it should only be natural to question what would appear to be some very glaring mistakes.... e.g Cheltenham etc and the decision to allow untested patients to be allowed back into the care system and against the scientific advice from Whitty.

If you haven't already seen it can I recommend the Chris Whitty Covid lecture on the Gresham College site which is available on the Gresham .college website (safe) .

He is an epidemiologist as well as chief medical officer , and he has some interesting things to say, comparing Covid 19 to other viral epidemics, talking about what governments can do when faced with an epidemic for which there is currently neither vaccine or cure. One of the things he emphasises is that currently(and for the foreseeable future) the only way to slow /control the disease is through reducing the level of infection person to person , it is vitally important that the R number, the formula used to calculate how fast infections spread , is kept at or under R1. Any higher and the infection is out of control. We don't know if previous infection gives any immunity, or if it does , for how long that immunity lasts, if we don't maintain social distancing and other measures we are in danger of not only having a second wave of infection of previously uninflected people but also the possibility that previously ill people will be reinfected. Since it now appears that the disease not only affects the lungs but in many hospitalised cases appears to cause immunalogical damage to other organs, particularly the kidneys, we would have issues of people requiring renal support as well as breathing support.

It is clear from the lecture that he and other epidemiologists fully expect a second wave, and furthermore expects that Covid 19 is going to be with us for a long time whether or not a viable , safe vaccine, or viable safe treatment drugs are developed which is not likely to happen within a year.

As he says, in the history of mankind we have only managed to completely remove one disease from the population. Other diseases are still with us, but often in mutated forms that we'd have immunity to, or in forms that are not easily transmitted. We don't know about Covid 19 and immunity, we do know it is easily transmitted.

Watch the lecture.

Yes well in that case why did he (C.Whitty) go along with herd immunity? flies in the face of keeping R below zero, which has always been Germany's aim and they appear to have controlled the spread, whilst avoiding prolonged lock down.

It allows them to do what they like without scrutiny
power corrupts, the more you have power the more you seek out opportunities to do what you like without scrutiny (to be clear these are tendencies not absolutes)

We should recognise that there will always be incentives that nudge people in the direction of acting corruptly, we should do everything we can to nudge them in the other direction, to incentivise honesty and transparency.

Problem with this argument, which is mainly a govt one, is it allows them to do what they like, without scrutiny, this allowed Blair to take part in the 2nd Gulf war.
That is the scientific argument. The fact you call it the government's argument and then likens it to Blair and the Gulf war is just evidence of the political bias on this thread.

Even "follow the science" is a weasel phrase designed to abdicate responsibility. So they can claim "we were just following the science" as a way out. It suggests the scientists are leading and the govt just follows.

That's not how SAGE works.

Especially when Cummings is in the meetings.

Here is the lecture⤵️
m.youtube.com/watch?v=3BdPKpWbxTg 👀
Published on Apr 30, 2020
At the time of writing, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has killed many thousands worldwide, infected many more - and changed lives around the world in ways that were unimaginable just weeks ago. What is COVID-19, how has it been managed and what role will science play in combating it? Gresham Professor of Physic (and Chief Medical Officer for England) Chris Whitty, one of the key figures in the UK's fight against the disease, will explain what we know - and what we don't.

That is the scientific argument

No - it should be possible to hold the Government to account during a crisis and to scrutinise it.

I think some people on here seem to think that the Government and its actions should not be scrutinised at all - and claim any complaints are just hindsight and done by 'lefties' and 'look who won the election anyway'.

No Government should be unscrutinised.

justanother They have also been spectacularly wrong on every election since 2010, so it is hindsight to say that MN as a whole was correct and what the government did was wrong.

You're always banging on about this - at least twice on this thread alone. Why on earth would you think or expect the majority of MN to be in tune with the politics of this country? The people that brought you Brexit and a Tory government tend to be middle aged and older, while a lot of MN users will be younger (not exclusively). You're also making quite an assumption that posters aren't capable of having an opinion unless it is informed by the way they last voted. It's so insulting and offensive.

Totally agree with your post above chomalunga

That is the scientific argument. The fact you call it the government's argument and then likens it to Blair and the Gulf war is just evidence of the political bias on this thread

We don't know the Scientific argument because they are not telling us! and it is the Govt's argument, anyone who listens to Govt ministers questioned on the death rate hears the response you said earlier.....

Johnson is a Tory, Blair is Labour... so i would have thought the point i was making is that ANY political party in Govt should be scrutinised.

Blair also didn't release the full advice..... hiding the truth behind "national security"
Johnson won't even tell us who is on the SAGE committee.

Guylan, I think you asked upthread about the counting of the care home deaths. The government is only counting those who have been tested ( not stated on death certifcate as per ons). This is going to be a series undercount, since little testing has been done in care homes to date. Most other countries in Europe have had deaths of around 40 percent and i cant imagine the uk being much different. This is a scandal. France and belguim count suspected cases. The ONS figures to date for deaths in the communtih is well above what the government says.

@Humphriescushion, thank you. That’s really important information and yes a scandal.

The argument for football was that an infected person would be more dangerous in a crowded pub watching the football affecting more people than in a large event where they could only infect a few people around them. Such a shame our govt hasn't got the power to close pubs.

www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

Hindsight is a wonderful thing It is indeed but in the case of the mass gatherings in the week of madness plenty of people were saying the events shouldn't happen, definitely no hindsight there.

No problem @guy it was skimmed over very quickly i felt in the update and definitely is going to be a huge undercount.

The argument for football was that an infected person would be more dangerous in a crowded pub watching the football affecting more people than in a large event where they could only infect a few people around them.
This isn't even logical. Supporters don't teletransport to their seats in a stadium. They queue to go in, may go to a bar in the grounds, mingling with loads of other people on the way. Lots would travel on public transport to matches...

As an argument for not locking down large events, this is spectacularly weak.

Just for a bit of context to this thread, here is the latest situation on corona deaths.

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries is a source of data that's been very respected during this pandemic. If you check the UK column, you'll see the figures are the same as here in : official UK government figures.

If you rank the worldometers chart by the total deaths column, you'll find that UK is currently third on the list, after the US and Italy.