When did Boris become the messiah
- Thread starter asredastheycome
- Start date
This lockdown isn't going to get rid of the virus its in place to reduce the pressure on the NHS and help save lives.
At this moment in time the NHS is just about coping and new cases are falling so the lockdown timing was just about right.
The problem is not how or when we started isolation it's how do we come out of it and what happens then.
If we have no vaccine and presumably the virus will still be about then it's logical to assume we will get a 2nd wave.
Then what do we do?
Do we continue in cycles of Lockdowns & further waves until a vaccine is found.
And the $64000 question is when and indeed will we get a suitable vaccine.
The real figure we need to know at the moment is what % of the population has coronaviruses immunity? IE who has already had it. and the need for a test that works and can answer that question should be the number 1 goal
At this moment in time the NHS is just about coping and new cases are falling so the lockdown timing was just about right.
The problem is not how or when we started isolation it's how do we come out of it and what happens then.
If we have no vaccine and presumably the virus will still be about then it's logical to assume we will get a 2nd wave.
Then what do we do?
Do we continue in cycles of Lockdowns & further waves until a vaccine is found.
And the $64000 question is when and indeed will we get a suitable vaccine.
The real figure we need to know at the moment is what % of the population has coronaviruses immunity? IE who has already had it. and the need for a test that works and can answer that question should be the number 1 goal
In regards to herd immunity, even when the Government were discussing this publically, they were not recommending it in the same vein as Sweden, they said from day one that we would be very likely introducing lockdown measures to help flatten the curve and reduce stress on the NHS. It did not mean that at any point they were planning on not introducing measures to protect people. They said over and over again it was a matter of timing, not a matter of if they are going to do it. Yet when they did introduce lockdowns, if was seen as a massive backtrack and change of thinking.
It shouldn't have been spoken about as a plan, but it has been clearly misunderstood and politicised inline with this b***ks about Cummings, who whilst being an odious little chap, has very little to do with our response to COVID19. All of the exit strategies discussed wonder across the world are effectively herd immunity one way or the other.
It shouldn't have been spoken about as a plan, but it has been clearly misunderstood and politicised inline with this b***ks about Cummings, who whilst being an odious little chap, has very little to do with our response to COVID19. All of the exit strategies discussed wonder across the world are effectively herd immunity one way or the other.
SmallTown
Well-known member
This is actually a good point. For the moment it seems that the lack of lockdown and the light touch way it has been introduced is making us look bad. I guess in 4 years time we’ll actually known, if Sweden all of a sudden becomes a covid-19 immune nation whilst the rest of us have to deal with cyclic lockdowns.
No, it's not viable the way we were implementing it (with them touting 250k dead expected) as the NHS can't handle the pressure, so it puts the death rate through the roof. If 60% got the disease very quickly then there would be nobody to treat anyone, no ppe and no equipment. Even 60% population and 1% death rate is about 360k dead. That's not viable, that's why nobody else is doing it, and that's why we binned it off. Even with binning that idea off it's looking like we're only just going to stay around NHS capacity. If we hadn't binned it off we would be in a bigger mess.
The only viable outcome is limit the spread/ flatten the curve so to speak, and do that for each wave, until it's either gone, everyone's had it (in small waves), there's a cure or there's a vaccine. This means we have enough nurses, doctors, beds, ventilators etc.
With regards to Cummings, he's a strategist and the chief adviser to the PM. Of course he's playing a part and he's got a history of seeing everyone as pawns, not people. There's zero evidence he's had no impact.
But seeing as he's employed and still working full time by the PM's side, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's likely had an impact.
They're the Tory protocols (not thw WHO protocols and not world advice), and they've not worked and they were not based on the current experience. Otherwise they would have went "test, test, test", traced and contained.
You're just not getting it that our experts were not experts are you?
If I say my dog is an expert in building rockets, you're not going to listen to me (and my dog) and take a trip to the moon with me are you?
You would probably speak to the space agencies, that have a history of building rockets, and ask them if it's a good idea.
The idea wasn't we should have listened to Italy etc, the idea is we had more notice, a lesser initial infection, more money and a younger population. There's 4 things there which mean we shouldn't be anywhere near as bad as how Italy are. The time is the most important thing, and we knew this was coming a week or two before Spain and Italy. That should equal a lot less deaths than they have, which it's not.
I'm not saying it's all Boris and Cummings, it's not and it's not all their ideas. But you're on a football forum., you should know full well that if you pick the wrong team and the wrong tactics then you get hammered, and most of the time it's the manager that is ultimately responsible.
Laughing
Well-known member
Duke I have some issues with you rinitial post. We don't know what the governments appointed experts actaully said or how the questions were framed. It is easy to point the finger at the experts. I am not as sure as you tha tthey are necessarily to blame for the decision making process.
Lock down is only to reduce the pressure on the NHS? Not sure about this either.
If no one has the virus in the UK (fanciful I know, but its a scenario based argument) we can revert back to test and trace and manage the crisis that way whilst still returning to a more normal way of life. This does not require a vaccine, though obviously one would be good.
Lockdown is not JUST to ease the burden on the NHS. It is to get back to a manageble number of infections so we can implement the strategies we should have implemented in January.
Make no mistakes Johnson and his team are responsible for additional deaths.
Lock down is only to reduce the pressure on the NHS? Not sure about this either.
If no one has the virus in the UK (fanciful I know, but its a scenario based argument) we can revert back to test and trace and manage the crisis that way whilst still returning to a more normal way of life. This does not require a vaccine, though obviously one would be good.
Lockdown is not JUST to ease the burden on the NHS. It is to get back to a manageble number of infections so we can implement the strategies we should have implemented in January.
Make no mistakes Johnson and his team are responsible for additional deaths.
The timing was wrong, it was too slow, and yes they shouldn't have mentioned it. If they hadn't have peddled that crap in the way they did then our situation could have easily been halved, considering we knew quite well what the approximate R number was. Herd immunity is ok, over a very, very long period, but not a short period, and not with something highly infectious (which we knew this to be).
All they've done is pick a lock down time that will try and limit hurt to the economy, and they've weighed that up against an acceptable loss (to them) of Nurses, Doctors and general population. They're not saying they're doing that though, they're playing dumb and pretending these deaths were not preventable.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I don’t think the Government have been properly understood on anything to do with the virus and I think that’s the Government’s fault, largely because they don’t know what they are doing from a strategy point of view. If they don‘t know how can anybody else be expected to know?
I know it is, but herd immunity over 2 years, is a lot different to trying to get herd immunity in two months. They were trying to get it over and done with, but now they're doing the opposite with the "protect the NHS line". If they had stuck with the former idea then there would be a queue outside James Cook to Roseberry Topping, and streets laden with dead people.
What they're doing now is slowing the spread, which is effectively buying more time to get a vaccine, which will hopefully be long before a herd immunity which is manageable to the NHS (which would take a few years).
Again, it relies on the public to understand, and most of them are thick as feck.
Randy
Well-known member
It's fair to assume that more people than you think have already had the virus. Chinese now focusing on asymptomatic cases and reporting them. Take the law of averages into account and I'd hazard a guess that over the half the population of the world has already had the virus since it's first reported case last summer in China.
The idea is the lockdown should eradicate most of it, but certainly not all of it.
Then when you get further waves, you should in theory be much, much, much better prepared so you have more tests, PPE, Fit Nurses and Doctors (as they will probably all have had it). Each case can then be traced and isolated and have smaller local lockdowns. Each wave should be smaller in theory then eventually you have bought enough time to source a cure or a vaccine.
It's the unknown spread that's the big problem, but it's much easier to track and trace that if you've had time to plan how to do it.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Mixed messages, mixed messages, there have been loads of them and there still are.
What was the herd immunity implementation plan exactly? You're going to have to enlighten me on this as death predictions are not a plan of any kind, and the Government were clear from the very early stages that lockdowns would likely be coming regardless of 'herd immunity' - You've misunderstood what this means. The reality is that the Government responded to new modelling from the Imperial college and fast forwarded their responses by banning public gatherings etc, this was not a complete change of plan, they accelerated their timetable based on new information. That's how it works, you react and adjust as new information becomes available. This wasn't just Boris and the Government doing this, they were being lead by Patrick Vallance and the pandemic response team behind him.
I'm afraid that's not how it works in regards to Cummings, being a Government advisor is not evidence that he has been instrumental in the thinking behind our response. Let's cut the bull**** and be honest, these accusations come off the back of 'leaked' reports that he had made comments on herd immunity, said comments where then completely contradicted by reports that discredited the source and alternative reports that suggested he was one of the strongest voices who wanted more stringent lockdowns once the new information was made available.
No, this is wrong.
The protocols come from Public Health England and were not drawn up with advice from whatever Tory Government was sat in office, they were created based on scientific assessments of previous pandemics and modelling on what a new pandemic could look like, this was then peer reviewed and used to guide any early response to a flu like pandemic. The reason the borders were not closed sooner was because this report stated that it was largely pointless "modelling suggests that imposing a 90% restriction on all air travel to the UK at the point a pandemic emerges would only delay the peak of a pandemic wave by one to two weeks." Is this wrong? More than likely, is that the fault of Boris Johnson and his Government? No, obviously not. All they can do is react to new information and change plan accordingly, which you have already admitted they have done.
I'm afraid it's you who is not getting it, our experts are indeed experts, if you want to go through the CV of Patrick Vallance then go ahead, you'll have a hard time discrediting him or Witty. Getting something wrong and/or having to adjust your recommendations based on new evidence does not mean you are not an expert, how is this not obvious? The WHO have got plenty of things wrong and made a mess out of several pandemic responses, does this mean they are not experts? No of course not. Everyone was reacting to this pandemic based on very limited information, the WHO were correct in terms of testing, but also wrong in terms of the effectiveness of said testing. All we can ask is that these experts react to live information and adjust accordingly, which they are doing.
Boris and co didn't pick anything, they did exactly what would be expected from any Government, they followed the advice from the CMO and influenza pandemic preparedness strategy, just like every other country. Once that new information filtered in ie the new modelling, they accelerated their timetable, but we are meant to believe this invalidates them as experts? You're aren't making much sense with this. There's plenty of to criticize the Government for here but your arguments don't add up.
So when the Government gets news of this, they consult the CMO and consult the influenza pandemic preparedness strategy that has been prepared for this exact circumstance. They roll with that initially, and then have to change course and speed up their response based on new information, because funnily enough, you can only prepare so much for something that doesn't exist yet. How exactly are they expected to know exactly what they should be doing? It's not as if any other country has had a perfect response to this, some have been more successful than others, but every country has followed the same national protocols we have. If our initial plan was badly wrong, that's not the fault of this Government, no matter how convenient that would be. The responses and planning from here on in yes, but not the initial response and strategy no.
I do agree that the messages were not communicated well enough and they should have done a lot better on certain things, but in terms of strategy, the idea that they would ever fully know what they are doing is a pipe dream, which is why the majority of European countries fall victim to this same thing, regardless of whether they are left or right wing.
I'm not saying the Government are faultless here, far from it, but you've got to be fair and reasonable and many people are not.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Unfortunately the Government have been all over the place on this, ‘flattening the curve’, ’the key to unlocking the puzzle is testing’, and ‘herd immunity’.
All over the place.
If it had been Labour the army would have been sent in by the Queen, that is how desperate this situation is, there is no end or strategy to an end in sight and half the country is sat at home at the taxpayers expense. It’s the mess of all messes.
Yep, but this is the case all over the place, speak to people in France, Italy, Portugal etc if possible, it's a global pandemic on unprecedented levels, it was always going to be a mess and Government were always going to be put in a position where they had to contradict themselves. Labour would have likely followed the CMO advice initially just like any other Government and I'd imagine that is exactly what you would have wanted them to do.
I'd much rather we focus on criticizing the Government for the chronic under-funding of health services etc than the initial pandemic response strategy, as there will be a full inquest into that when all of the facts are available, doing so now is a pointless exercise, especially based on misunderstandings and half truths. All Governments have blood on their hands one way or another as none have handled this perfectly.
You just can't have it both ways, if you feel like we got this badly wrong and were deliberately negligent, a huge proportion of that comes down to the CMO, Public Health England and the pandemic response team, as long as people are consistent with that I have no complaints.
Duke,
Herd immunity was mentioned, as a method of everyone getting it, so that it no longer spreads at the same rate and so we can get the economy going again. The way they were talking about this was very different to the rest of the world, and they were looking short term to get the economy going again. That's why a load of people were saying "why are we not doing what those that are dealing with this are suggesting?", "why the fcuck are the pubs open", "why is cheltenham still on" etc. The other countries that were ahead of us were calling us "fcuking crazy" for not already being in lock down, with having the extra notice.
It was blindingly obvious this was not a 2-3 year heard immunity plan, like getting some immunity from "normal" flu.
The government chose where they get their information from, and they chose the wrong place or ignored it, that's the fact of it. They chose a different plan to what the rest of the world that was ahead of us were saying. Test, test, test and lockdown. They were even saying "why haven't you locked down yet?"
They either:
Chose a different plan, which is costing peoples lives
They are ignoring their own good advice to save the economy, at the expense of peoples lives
They are implementing bad advice, which is costing peoples lives
What they should have done is:
Implement WHO advice, test, test, test and lock down at worst, a point equal to where we are on the curve, so at least about two weeks earlier than we did
I'm not even saying that the Cummins thing was true, but he's a proven to$$er who manipulates. I 100% think he is capable of sacrificing some lives to save the economy, as that's how someone like him thinks. It works for winning elections, when you look at people like numbers, and sacrifice the votes of certain groups to target others, but when it's people in a pandemic the number at the end is real dead people.
You seem to assume that we took note of all the good advice and implemented it for the good of public health, and yet ignored the bad advice at the benefit of public health. Your're living in a dream land and every graph and statistic proves it.
If we're not performing better than Italy and Spain, with more notice then we're doing a worse job, a lot worse, seeing how everyone pretty much knew that cases would treble every three days with no lock-down. So to do worse we've either picked bad advice or picked good advice and ignored it, I think we've done both.
Herd immunity was mentioned, as a method of everyone getting it, so that it no longer spreads at the same rate and so we can get the economy going again. The way they were talking about this was very different to the rest of the world, and they were looking short term to get the economy going again. That's why a load of people were saying "why are we not doing what those that are dealing with this are suggesting?", "why the fcuck are the pubs open", "why is cheltenham still on" etc. The other countries that were ahead of us were calling us "fcuking crazy" for not already being in lock down, with having the extra notice.
It was blindingly obvious this was not a 2-3 year heard immunity plan, like getting some immunity from "normal" flu.
The government chose where they get their information from, and they chose the wrong place or ignored it, that's the fact of it. They chose a different plan to what the rest of the world that was ahead of us were saying. Test, test, test and lockdown. They were even saying "why haven't you locked down yet?"
They either:
Chose a different plan, which is costing peoples lives
They are ignoring their own good advice to save the economy, at the expense of peoples lives
They are implementing bad advice, which is costing peoples lives
What they should have done is:
Implement WHO advice, test, test, test and lock down at worst, a point equal to where we are on the curve, so at least about two weeks earlier than we did
I'm not even saying that the Cummins thing was true, but he's a proven to$$er who manipulates. I 100% think he is capable of sacrificing some lives to save the economy, as that's how someone like him thinks. It works for winning elections, when you look at people like numbers, and sacrifice the votes of certain groups to target others, but when it's people in a pandemic the number at the end is real dead people.
You seem to assume that we took note of all the good advice and implemented it for the good of public health, and yet ignored the bad advice at the benefit of public health. Your're living in a dream land and every graph and statistic proves it.
If we're not performing better than Italy and Spain, with more notice then we're doing a worse job, a lot worse, seeing how everyone pretty much knew that cases would treble every three days with no lock-down. So to do worse we've either picked bad advice or picked good advice and ignored it, I think we've done both.
Last edited:
Laughing
Well-known member
Randy, that assumption is nonsense. with a 1% mortality rate we would have 35 million dead, with just a 0.1% mortality rate we would have 3.5 million dead. Think before you post fella.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I don’t disagree with much of what you say but I get the impression you trust the Government to follow or interpret the advice of the experts in a sensible way far more than I do. There are big government choices which have been made here for which we haven’t been made fully aware of the reasons and as a member of the public I think there are big problems ahead.