So it's nothing to do with the science then

[bonsaidragon]

The government lied when they said it's all about the science.

From the bbc :

Relaxing lockdown is a risk because levels of the coronavirus are still "very high", one of the government's top science advisers says.
Prof John Edmunds said it was a "political decision" to lift lockdown and that "many" scientists would wait.
The warning comes as Sage, the group of scientists advising government, publish details of their confidential meetings.
One meeting on 23 April estimated there would be only 1,000 cases per day by mid-May.
Instead, estimates by the Office for National Statistics suggest there are currently 8,000 cases per day in England alone. Those figures don't include cases in care homes or hospitals.
'Little time for stringent measures'
"Many of us would prefer to see the incidence down to lower levels before we relax measures," Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, said.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, agreed that measures were being lifted too early, writing on Twitter that the newly-introduced NHS test and trace system needed to be "fully working" before measures were eased.
Newly-published Sage documents also warned of the dangers of having high numbers of cases.

Johnson has now said it might be working by the end of June. If you believe him on that.

I’m no fan of the man, but if you’re going to quote him you should do it accurately. The fact that the system won’t be fully operational at a local level (per Dido Harding not the PM) is disgraceful, but let’s characterise it accurately.

So your view is that we shouldn’t take any further steps until the app is up and running

I just want him to be honest and open about what is happening.

I want to live in a country that views the virus as a problem to be solved, not an affront to the egos of the people in government.

It really worries me that the instinctive reactions of both Cummings and Boris were ‘no ones going to tell me what I have to do’, whether they were shaking hands or going on day trips.

This isn’t just about ensuring that people stick to the rules, it’s also about giving them confidence that they can trust the government as restrictions are lifted.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t put my safety in the hands of somebody who thinks you should go for a drive to check your eyesight - why would I do that now?

I completely agree with you but that isn’t the government that we’ve got. We can only deal with the situation as it is and not as lots of us would like it to be. Much as I dislike BJ et al a political coup isn’t an option right now so we are going to have to find our way as best we can.

Being dragged into a skirmish about DC just means opportunities are missed to press down on the detail of the things that matter. Press question after press question at the briefings asking the same thing. I understand why to an extent but it means lots of other things get missed.

DC isn’t going anywhere, at least not for now.

I agree with you, Sunshine82.

We should be spending more time discussing why lockdown is being ended than discussing Cummings.

Both are important but the former is more important.

They are linked though. If Boris hadn't needed quick distractions the news could have been delayed.

It was always a mistake to put an arbitrary date. Just as it was a mistake to set an arbitrary target for tests.

The correct answer for how many tests we need was "enough for everyone who has symptoms, and who is having to put themselves within 2m of others, either because they are elderly or very young, or need to so their work can be done." The success would be measured by how many people rang up and had to be told no.

The correct answer for "when to open schools to more children and shops to more customers" was "when the infection number is down to a point that we can trace and track all the people who are possibly walking around and being infectious." The success would be measured by the degree of change in the R before and after opening within a pilot area where the numbers of infections are low, but the test and track capability is high.