Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 12:47

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035156)
Sorry I forgot quotation marks. I was paraphrasing the sentiment of the article, and other articles, that I view as deflecting from the pertinent questions around this. Testing and contact tracing.

We get this right and the lockdown is worth it. We get this wrong and we will be back in lockdown by August.

"Padawan"!

Hugh 15-05-2020 13:09

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36035139)
A comment copied over from the Keir Starmer thread:




The Vallance quote is however lacking context.

It was made on best evidence at the time, but it was made at a specific and quite early stage of the crisis and was not qualified in any way as far as I can see. Did he offer 20,000 as a pinpoint for 'good' beyond which all is 'bad', or is it at the lower, mid or upper range of a scale of 'good'? How far beyond it is 'meh'? At what point do we hit 'truly awful'?

And ultimately, are we more interested in whether it's 20,000 extremely sick people who would have died this year anyway but now have Covid-19 on their death certificate too, or are we interested in an 'excess death' figure that tries to get closer to the actual impact on the size and health of the population?

I'm not trying to obfuscate here; simply pointing out that regardless of who it was who stood up and said '20,000' its value in isolation is strictly limited. And also that cold, dispassionate statistics, collated many months from now, are the only things that can actually give us a good idea how good or bad the government's response was.

I agree with your points - however, my response was to a post which stated
Quote:

No one could possibly know what a “good “ outcome for the U.K. would or could have been
I was pointing out this was not congruent with actuality, as senior Government officials actually had.

1andrew1 15-05-2020 13:27

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx

It's an interesting change from last July when there was talk of revering the sugar tax and rolling back the "nanny state".
Quote:

Boris Johnson will end the “continuing creep of the nanny state” if he becomes prime minister, starting with a review of so-called “sin taxes” on sugary, salty and fatty foods.
The former foreign secretary wants to reverse the interventionist policies pursued by Theresa May and David Cameron in favour of a more liberal agenda.
He believes that taxes on less healthy foods “clobber those who can least afford it” and should be halted unless there is clear evidence that they work.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...in-taxes-food/

pip08456 15-05-2020 13:38

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035156)
Sorry I forgot quotation marks. I was paraphrasing the sentiment of the article, and other articles, that I view as deflecting from the pertinent questions around this. Testing and contact tracing.

We get this right and the lockdown is worth it. We get this wrong and we will be back in lockdown by August.

Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."

jfman 15-05-2020 13:50

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035161)
Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."

I'm delighted to be on the wrong side of the fence in this case. :D

Pierre 15-05-2020 15:02

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36035158)
I was pointing out this was not congruent with actuality, as senior Government officials actually had.

The CSA (not Government) in a commons hearing on March 18th (or around then) said when compared to annual flu deaths of 8,000 then 20,000 would be a good outcome.

But this was when the epidemic was in its infancy, WHO had only declared the pandemic 10 days before and only 81 people had died in the UK.

So he was foolish to make that statement, Professor Chris Whitty, has continually refused to put a figure on it.

Russ 15-05-2020 15:16

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx

I wish them luck. See the queues outside McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, or whatever when their drive through reopened?

jfman 15-05-2020 15:31

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035169)
The CSA (not Government) in a commons hearing on March 18th (or around then) said when compared to annual flu deaths of 8,000 then 20,000 would be a good outcome.

But this was when the epidemic was in its infancy, WHO had only declared the pandemic 10 days before and only 81 people had died in the UK.

So he was foolish to make that statement, Professor Chris Whitty, has continually refused to put a figure on it.

Of course the delay in the fact it was declared a pandemic ten days earlier is irrelevant. It was complete semantics, due to the absence of sustained community transmission in South America.

The epidemic was far underway in Europe, and the UK, by then. The absence of community to community transmission in South America a complete irrelevance to what we could/should have been doing.

'Only 81' people had died should have been alarm bells ringing everywhere. If we follow your logic, and in fact I'm sure the Conservatives will, every policy failure can be fobbed off at the result of a nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Whitehall.

Paul 15-05-2020 15:46

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx

Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:

1andrew1 15-05-2020 16:04

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36035173)
Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:

Probably tiny compared to the state interference that has brought the R rate to less than 1.

Taf 15-05-2020 16:14

Re: Coronavirus
 
I think we should remember that all this stuff we are buying from the shops is coming from warehouses. And they are possibly not receiving new stock in from manufacturers as many production centres are not running both here and abroad.

That's why the world needs to get back to work.

Rationing anyone?

Damien 15-05-2020 16:20

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36035173)
Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:

But the intervention on smoking shows it can work. Public health campaigns, the taxation and the ban on smoking in pubs reduced the rates of smoking.

The Governments has quite a few tools at it's disposal to help influence public behaviour.

jfman 15-05-2020 16:39

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36035176)
I think we should remember that all this stuff we are buying from the shops is coming from warehouses. And they are possibly not receiving new stock in from manufacturers as many production centres are not running both here and abroad.

That's why the world needs to get back to work.

Rationing anyone?

It's not why the world needs to go back to work. It's why some need to go back to work, and others need to do what they can to facilitate that happening safely.

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 16:41

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035180)
It's not why the world needs to go back to work. It's why some need to go back to work, and others need to do what they can to facilitate that happening safely.

... but Taf has a point.

denphone 15-05-2020 16:43

Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035182)
... but Taf has a point.

Yes but it must be done safely don't you agree?.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum