Current Affairs

[barney]

I see that we have a new statistic being rammed down our throats by the media. "7% of people are estimated to have had Covid-19 which means that 93 out of 100 are still liable to get it".

If I heard that once yesterday I must have heard it a dozen times.

Which means to me that unless you are in the vulnerable group, get back to normal as much as possible.
The only other option is perpetual lockdown.

[Gill W]

I see that we have a new statistic being rammed down our throats by the media. "7% of people are estimated to have had Covid-19 which means that 93 out of 100 are still liable to get it".

If I heard that once yesterday I must have heard it a dozen times.

Which means to me that unless you are in the vulnerable group, get back to normal as much as possible.
The only other option is perpetual lockdown.

I think people are going to do their own thing now. Where we are now is no where near normal, but some will want to push the boundaries and others will want to hang back. After the events of this week, I won’t criticise either group,

However, I noticed that the alert level remains at 4, but they are easing the lockdown anyway. The R is very close to 1 in places, so it’s really on a knife edge as to what happens next.

I’m happy to carry on with my socially distant life for a while yet, and see what happens

[Gill W]

I’ve been thinking more about this.

A week or two ago, I said that they’d start ignoring the R.

They haven’t started doing that (yet), but it was the general feeling I had that they’d start ignoring their own guidelines sooner or later.

Sure enough, we are still at alert level 4, which states that there should be no changes to the lockdown. But lockdown is still being eased as if we were at level three.

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

I’m in agreement with the scientists. New cases are still very high, and there’s even a slight uptick in deaths reported this week. Plus test and trace isn’t in full operation yet.

Incidentally, has anyone noticed that, although they are still reporting the number of tests, the information regarding the number of actual people tested hasn’t been available for several days? This is thought to be because they are double counting the two parts of the test, making it look like it’s two completely separate tests.

I’m definitely not making any changes to my lockdown yet. A second wave could be incoming, sooner than we think

[david63]

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

All decisions are, and always have been, political "based on scientific/medical advice". If some of the "scientists" were running the country then we would be in lockdown for the rest of our lives.

The country has to get back up and running and that requires an easing of lockdown, and ultimately, the easing/reduction of social distancing.

[Manoverboard]

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

All decisions are, and always have been, political "based on scientific/medical advice". If some of the "scientists" were running the country then we would be in lockdown for the rest of our lives.

The country has to get back up and running and that requires an easing of lockdown, and ultimately, the easing/reduction of social distancing.

But, for me, the timing has to be spot on and right now is not the right time ... it's still a tad too early.

[Onelife]

The only reliable figure in estimating how we are coping with covid is hospital admissions and deaths thereafter. We are still averaging 500+ admissions daily and these figures are before we relax lockdown measures further. Looking at the figures l'm not so sure this is panning out as the way the Government /scientist were predicting, as it seem we are seeing a much slower decline in death and infection rates than was expected? " We are "flattening the curve" are increasingly the words being banded about....which makes me think there is an acceptance by the government that the R figure is going to be breached due to an over loosening of lockdown?

[david63]

it's still a tad too early

That may well be true, but we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other as there is nothing to measure it against.

[Kendhni]

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

I believe the main driving factor for this is getting a certain SPAD out of the headlines. Boris lacks integrity, so he will yet again sell his principles and what he has told the people about measures to protect himself.

I reckon Boris is repaying the favour to his SPAD, who manufactured headlines about Boris making toy buses - that was an attempt to manipulate internet search engines - people saw through it and it failed.

[Manoverboard]

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

I believe the main driving factor for this is getting a certain SPAD out of the headlines. Boris lacks integrity, so he will yet again sell his principles and what he has told the people about measures to protect himself.

I reckon Boris is repaying the favour to his SPAD, who manufactured headlines about Boris making toy buses - that was an attempt to manipulate internet search engines - people saw through it and it failed.

Have I got this right, Ken .... you seriously believe that the easing of the lockdown was taken in the knowledge that more people could potentially die just to deflect attention from you know who.

If so it does you no credit to even think it let alone post it.

[towny44]

A week or two ago, I said that they’d start ignoring the R.

They haven’t started doing that (yet), but it was the general feeling I had that they’d start ignoring their own guidelines sooner or later.

Sure enough, we are still at alert level 4, which states that there should be no changes to the lockdown. But lockdown is still being eased as if we were at level three.

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

A comment in the paper today says that since most current cases are either in hospitals or care homes, then the R level in the general public is probably below 0.5, which is possibly why they have decided to ease the lockdown now.

[Onelife]

A week or two ago, I said that they’d start ignoring the R.

They haven’t started doing that (yet), but it was the general feeling I had that they’d start ignoring their own guidelines sooner or later.

Sure enough, we are still at alert level 4, which states that there should be no changes to the lockdown. But lockdown is still being eased as if we were at level three.

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

A comment in the paper today says that since most current cases are either in hospitals or care homes, then the R level in the general public is probably below 0.5, which is possibly why they have decided to ease the lockdown now.

I'd be interested to know which tool they are using to come to that assumption

[Stephen]

A week or two ago, I said that they’d start ignoring the R.

They haven’t started doing that (yet), but it was the general feeling I had that they’d start ignoring their own guidelines sooner or later.

Sure enough, we are still at alert level 4, which states that there should be no changes to the lockdown. But lockdown is still being eased as if we were at level three.

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

A comment in the paper today says that since most current cases are either in hospitals or care homes, then the R level in the general public is probably below 0.5, which is possibly why they have decided to ease the lockdown now.

I'd be interested to know which tool they are using to come to that assumption

Perhaps they've got Diane Abbott on loan

[screwy]

A comment in the paper today says that since most current cases are either in hospitals or care homes, then the R level in the general public is probably below 0.5, which is possibly why they have decided to ease the lockdown now.

I'd be interested to know which tool they are using to come to that assumption

Perhaps they've got Diane Abbott on loan

[oldbluefox]

I'd be interested to know which tool they are using to come to that assumption



Perhaps they've got Diane Abbott on loan

I thought I had misread it as "I wonder which fool......."
Same answer!!!

[Kendhni]

This appears to be a political decision- the scientists are coming out of the closet saying that we are lifting the lockdown too early.

I believe the main driving factor for this is getting a certain SPAD out of the headlines. Boris lacks integrity, so he will yet again sell his principles and what he has told the people about measures to protect himself.

I reckon Boris is repaying the favour to his SPAD, who manufactured headlines about Boris making toy buses - that was an attempt to manipulate internet search engines - people saw through it and it failed.

Have I got this right, Ken .... you seriously believe that the easing of the lockdown was taken in the knowledge that more people could potentially die just to deflect attention from you know who.

If so it does you no credit to even think it let alone post it.

Actually I think it is fair to make such postulation. Have the basic key criteria been met that Johnson has been promoting for the past few weeks? The answer is no. Does the scientific evidence back his decision, even among SAGE? The answer is no. Listening on the radio this morning, every single commentator suggested he was 2-3 weeks too early with this. So then you have to question why would someone like Johnson not want to err on the side of caution, given how wrong he got it going into lockdown (when he was well aware that the probability was that more people would die because of the delay) - and given that he has shown he is not above using such diversionary tactics in the past, it seems extremely convenient for someone that is well known for having Johnson's ear (and possibly owed a couple of favours).

The fact you appear to want to accept anything Johnson says without questioning it (given his poor track record for honesty and integrity) does you no credit let alone admit it.

[david63]

One thing that is confusing me is that scientists have for years been arguing that they only deal with facts that can be proven - now all of sudden they are advocating courses of action based on possibilities without any facts.

As for SAGE disagreeing you have to bear in mind that it is a committee of over 50 so it actually amazes me that they ever come to any unanimous decision about anything and why there will always be some descenting voices amongst them.

[Manoverboard]

Actually I think it is fair to make such postulation ....

That being the case there is little else to say but I would like to point out that I do not actually agree with everything that anybody says unconditionally let alone Boris. I am not obsessed with him nor his policies but I certainly do not believe that he’s a would be mass murderer.

[Gill W]

it's still a tad too early

That may well be true, but we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other as there is nothing to measure it against.

A future measure would be if we had another big wave of infections and countries like Spain and Italy didn't.

[Kendhni]

Actually I think it is fair to make such postulation ....

That being the case there is little else to say but I would like to point out that I do not actually agree with everything that anybody says unconditionally let alone Boris. I am not obsessed with him nor his policies but I certainly do not believe that he’s a would be mass murderer.

He was late into lockdown due to questionable decisions, and nobody called him a mass murderer, so why would others call him a mass murderer if he used similar dodgy decisions to end lockdown early. Democratic governments are not mass murderers, they always find some way to spin their decisions. However you are the first person I have seen suggesting that 'mass murderer' would apply, maybe internally you are questioning his decision and the logic behind it!

[Kendhni]

it's still a tad too early

That may well be true, but we will never have any way of knowing one way or the other as there is nothing to measure it against.

A future measure would be if we had another big wave of infections and countries like Spain and Italy didn't.

I am sure that someone like Johnson will already have speeches written to cover that scenario and are having teflon suits made as we type

[david63]

A future measure would be if we had another big wave of infections and countries like Spain and Italy didn't.

Or, of course, the opposite - Spain and Italy have another wave of infections and we don't!

The problem is that no two countries are the same in many respects so you can be comparing apples with bananas and coming up the the answer 783!

[Gill W]

Actually I think it is fair to make such postulation. Have the basic key criteria been met that Johnson has been promoting for the past few weeks? The answer is no. Does the scientific evidence back his decision, even among SAGE? The answer is no. Listening on the radio this morning, every single commentator suggested he was 2-3 weeks too early with this. So then you have to question why would someone like Johnson not want to err on the side of caution, given how wrong he got it going into lockdown (when he was well aware that the probability was that more people would die because of the delay) - and given that he has shown he is not above using such diversionary tactics in the past, it seems extremely convenient for someone that is well known for having Johnson's ear (and possibly owed a couple of favours).

The fact you appear to want to accept anything Johnson says without questioning it (given his poor track record for honesty and integrity) does you no credit let alone admit it.

There was a time, not that long ago, when I believed that a PM wouldn't actively do anything that would harm the people of this country.

Unfortunately, I don't think that anymore. Johnson would do anything, and I mean anything, to keep Cummings at his side. Hence the full backing, senior cabinet ministers tying themselves in knots trying to defend Cummings and his reverse engineered explanation and the Rose Garden Statement. I can only surmise that Johnson knows he is way out of his depth, and needs Cummings to be able to function as PM. The other possible explanation is that Cummings has something so bad on Johnson, that Johnson will not sack Cummings for fear of the dirt being dished. Either way, Johnson and Cummings are inextricably linked. If one falls, so does the other one.

I don't think Johnson is properly in charge any more, its Cummings that's calling the shots now.

All of this makes me deeply uneasy.

[Onelife]

I think it a fair assumption that the announcements were brought forward in an attempt to throw the wolves off the scent....which leaves me wondering if a couple of the decisions were less thought out than otherwise would have been the case..... had he not been pushed into, what could turn out to be rash decision making.

[Gill W]

A future measure would be if we had another big wave of infections and countries like Spain and Italy didn't.

Or, of course, the opposite - Spain and Italy have another wave of infections and we don't!

The problem is that no two countries are the same in many respects so you can be comparing apples with bananas and coming up the the answer 783!

Quite!

However, we remain one of the worst affected countries, and to not at least look at how other badly affected countries are coming out of lockdown, seems to be a way of avoiding thinking about just how bad our figures are.

[Gill W]

I think it a fair assumption that the announcements were brought forward in an attempt to throw the wolves off the scent....which leaves me wondering if a couple of the decisions were less thought out than otherwise would have been the case had he not been pushed into what could turn out to be rash decision making.

He didn't have to be pushed. It's a situation of his own making. If Cummings had done the right thing and resigned or if not, Johnson had sacked him, people wouldn't have so furious all week. (and still are angry)