Re: Coronavirus
 

Michael Gove strenuously defending BJ on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah well, BJ is 'taking back control' yet again, so we're all saved. Praise the Lord. Maybe he'll turn up to the meetings this time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely acceptable for him to spend his time recovering now and not attend. But surely unacceptable to avoid chairing FIVE Cobra meeting earlier in the year?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wasn't it May who kept Johnson out of her Cobra meetings as she did not trust him to keep them confidential?

Re: Coronavirus
 

A meeting to discuss something that requires an IMMEDIATE response and decisions to an event such as a terrorist threat or attack, is VERY different to something to which requires more planning and forethought before any final decision can be made.:rolleyes: The more normal reasons for COBRA meetings will have ready-made plans and options all set up, ready for a final decision and authorisation to be made that very moment. No quick decisions would've been made on the nature of any lockdown. Different countries have had different types of lockdown.

Little danger of anybody (else) in this country not simply swallowing the garbage from the media, and thinking the situation through for themselves, is there.:rolleyes::mad:

Re: Coronavirus
 

tbf he was too busy obsessing with pointless crap like Brexit, than deal with real actual threats facing the country.

As ever politicians only ever deal with the here and now rather than tomorrow. Their re-election is the only issue. That's why we're in such a mess with climate change, which is a much bigger threat to humanity than this pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Care home deaths 'far higher' than stated in official figures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52341403

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think even Hotpoint can produce as much spin as Michael Gove has just done!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It would help if Michael Gove actually answered some of Sophy Ridge's questions instead of the usual spin and obfuscating but alas as usual that is too much to ask..

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are now at the point in the news cycle where nothing new is happening and journalists are re-running the same story whenever they can get somebody different to give their take on it. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. I’ve filed screeds of copy that way in my time.

We have known for weeks that the headline death rate only includes those who die in hospital and who have tested positive for Covid-19. We have known for almost as long that the ONS is compiling a more comprehensive figure that will include deaths outside hospitals - such as the care home deaths in this case - but that this is lagging the headline figure by days because they are doing it carefully and with methodology they have had to design and implement in a bit of a hurry.

As usual Den you are far too eager to jump on the ohmygosheverythingisawfulpanicpanicpanic bandwagon. Things are actually quite bad enough without sensationalist non-news nonsense like this. For the sake of your mental wellbeing you should put the internet (and all news outlets) down for the rest of the day. Sit in the garden if you can, get some sunshine. Everyone is doing their best here. Nobody is sitting in their lair twirling their moustache and plotting how best to feck up the official statistics. We’ll get there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It would help if Sophie Ridge actually asked a sensible question.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would say several hundred people dying every day is new to those affected. Lives can be saved if politicians deliver on the their promises of PPE and testing. They need to be held to account, daily.

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

That would be to ignore the the question asked, ask the one they wanted of themselves, and answer that instead. The remote interviews are making it easier for them to avoid questions, and cut journalists off, particularly in the daily briefings.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Send the politicians to the front line of folk that had the virus with no protection!

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------

The BBC web site says the delivery of PPE is delayed,


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52343912

Re: Coronavirus
 

I know that it's an offence for an employer to knowingly send an employee into a situation or undertake a task that could be a risk to their health and/or safety.

I'm surprised that none of the healthcare workers or their trade union representatives have brought this up with regards to the lack of PPE.

Maybe Government operations are exempt from this Act? ISTR that hospital kitchens were exempt from hygiene checks, but this was eventually remedied.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The PM is not needed for all Cobra meetings, so he did not skip 5 as he was not down to attend any of those 5 meetings.

It's all well and good having ago at the Government for what we know now. Hindsight is a good thing.

I can quote several of you in this thread from the beginning of it, that said this is just hyped up by the Media, or it's political correctness gone mad, practically none of you were taking this serious back in February, if people take a look back at the beginning of this thread, so if you were not taking it seriously, in February, why should you expect the government to have done the same? :rolleyes:

That said, the position on lockdown timing was crystal clear. It was articulated transparently by the CSO and CSA and it represented the SAGE consensus, all of which the minutes of their advice to government ministers at the time, is available for all to see on the internet!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well for one they should have better information than us and it isn't our responsibility. I don't judge the competence of other professions based on if I could personally do it. The Times is alleging that the Government's own advisory committee were raising the alarm in late January.

I also think that even if they didn't know it would get as bad as it has they should have had better contingencies in case it did. The NHS said they needed PPE. Why didn't ramping that up start in February? Why did it take so long to scale up testing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am not sure why Rexz, is showing for something I said. Will correct that. :confused:

I have added a further bit to my above post:

Someone should have told the Sunday Times that. Pathetic journalism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just got off the phone after being told that Paul O'Grady is ill and thinks he's got Covid-19.

In addition, his heating has broken down at home, so he's been spending his days laid on the sofa in front of his fire with his dogs laid on top of him!

Then, to top it all off, one of his dogs (Boycie) died :(

I do hope he recovers ok as he's 64 now.

#StayInSaveLives

Re: Coronavirus
 

Luckily, you’ve been misinformed- here’s a tweet from his Official Fan Club account, saying it is untrue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris did, and now he's vilified for shaking patients' hands.

And there is still no evidence that health workers are sadly catching the virus from patients AFAIK. If they are, they are not following correct procedures for PPE. It only takes one slip....

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to this, it sounds like he initially thought he had it because of his symptoms, but then realised he didn't. Probably run of the mill flu. Either way, i'm glad as I have fond memories of Paul and the odds of surviving Covid-19 at 64 with a history of heart problems wouldn't be good.

AFAIK Boris Johnson doesn't have any heart or other underlying conditions and he was only given a 54% chance of surviving.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/04/1...lth-condition/

Re: Coronavirus
 

I deal with Employer's Liability cases which would be along those lines.

Any cases regarding exposure to CV would be some way off yet as we don't know enough about the virus to establish what sort of risk assessment would be enough.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris is villified for be a blundering buffoon. He didn't take much interest until he personally got the disease. Now he's singing the praises of nurses. He and his party have voted against any meaningful pay rise for nurses in the last few years, and cheered as they did so.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mir...g-10707293.amp

What evidence would you like ? More bodies? Highly suspect that so many front line workers have died. Doubtless you'll be down your local hospital to help out. Hospitals are always after volunteers, you don't need any qualifications. Ring and ask, don't expect PPE though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh Mr K, you do it every bloody time - LIES LIES LIES - FFS, stop posting Fake News. :mad:

That is not what they voted for at all - that video showed them voting against an amendment to the Queen speech, to undo the 1% cap of pay rises, public sector workers would usually get. They then later that year raised the cap anyway, so no, NHS workers, including nurses got more than a 1% pay rise the following years!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's hypocritical Mick as well you know. Particularly for MPs who have given themselves much bigger rises than nurses or anyone else in the public sector.

Re: Coronavirus
 

MPs don't give themselves pay rises either - yet more lies.

Fyi: IPSA sets MPs pay rises, which is a Independent body! I don't necessarily agree with the rises they get, but it is totally wrong to suggest MPs set their own pay rises.

Don't let facts get in the way of your agenda will you? :dozey:

Re: Coronavirus
 

They could reject that rise if they wanted to. Interesting how they reject independent pay reviews for other public sector workers but accept when it comes to themselves.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You've just done it again, you cannot resist a dig, even if it means the dig you post, holds absolutely no substance.

Again, they have not rejected anyone's pay increases. In 2018, NHS workers got a big increase, between 4.5% and 29% over three years.

The vote you linked to, wasn't even a meaningful vote, so it wouldn't have mattered a jot, even it had passed.

Some MPs in the past, have rejected the pay increase, but they cannot refuse it, they will still get the money, IPSA said it's one level of pay only, some MPs from various political parties have in the past, donated it to their local causes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

have YOU ever rejected a pay rise awarded to you? No? Bloody hypocrite.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well let's see, number of MP vacancies zero, and no shortage of volunteers given the number of candidates at the last election. Oh, and they're claiming an extra £10k supplement each for the stress of working at home atm.....

Nursing vacancies 43,000 and climbing all the the time...

Have we got the pay right? You decide.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The £10k is for equipment for their staff to work from home

---------- Post added at 22:31 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

Pointless post removed

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well the military is obviously excempt, and no doubt medical staff, along with other emergency services.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it's stuffed full of failed politicians, cronies and former high ranking civil servants It's about as independent as the city remuneration committees that adjudicate each others pay and bonuses in the banking sector, a box ticking exercise that lacking only impartiality and integrity

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

DHSC response to the Sunday Times article.

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020...sight-article/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not exactly. Employers have a duty of care to mitigate any risk to their staff.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They answer points, but sometimes not the points made... No specific mention of the lockdown in the response.

No mention in the response on PPE and IC Vents.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Really?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, really....

I was talking about the specific point I highlighted about the need for having them beforehand, as an outcome of Cygnus - there was no mention of that. Your response point was about trying to get some stock, not about have a "just in case" reserve stock.

Also, they didn't make any response to the point about BJ having a 12 day "working holiday" mid-February, about a month after he had had a two week holiday in the Caribbean...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Good analysis. It's often what they don't say is more important than what they do say.
Can't help thinking that Margaret Thatcher would have taken her responsibilities to her country somewhat higher.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The individual departments and Ministers are the ones that make a lot of decisions. Same with any sort of organisation.:rolleyes: As with anything else if the PM needed to be involved and make a big decision immediately, then there would be no problem getting contact with them. Reports would have been made after any meeting, so those would have been available to read.

Re: Coronavirus
 

[QUOTE=Hugh;36032095]The £10k is for equipment for their staff to work from home[COLOR="Silver"]

Forgive me,but what equipment would be needed and cost £10 grand for them to work from home?.
Surely all these people will already have a laptop/desktop/tablet/phone?.Just asking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Guess that if follow H&S rules properly ensuring proper chair, desk etc. For some may need secure lines or specially secured laptops. If staff and normally in an office you need to route phones and other communications too.

And is that 10k per MP who may have multiple staffers or per MP's staffer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

[QUOTE=figgyburn;36032113]They're not given £10,000 and told they can spend it how they like.:rolleyes: If there are no additional requirements, then there will be no additional expenses claimed. If there are additional requirements, then the maximum for their expense has been increased to cope with that eventuality. It might well be that any additional requirements are still within the previous limit. It's a case of it's there if they need it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Getting on to the government intranet from home is no mean feat. There is a list of hardware and software requirements. Back when I last had to do it you weren't even allowed to use home wifi - wired ethernet back to your approved router or nothing. Once you are working from home you incur additional costs to all your utilities bills. You may even have to adjust your home insurance, if you're being an absolute stickler for detail (as someone in an MP's position surely does). Then you can add to that, providing all of the same for the one or two administrative staff who help you keep on top of your case load, who are now also working from home and incurring all those costs.

The cost of running an office has always been a claimable expense for an MP, on top of their salary. I wouldn't like to try to quantify the cost of running multiple home offices, but there absolutely is one, and making money available for MPs to run home offices is not an unreasonable proposition.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In response to those commenting on handling donations to those raising money for NHS/COVID-19.

We have donated to charities using give.net. They have a 3% fee detailed here. They do not charge the recipients and whatever anyone says there are costs involved in handling money. Yes 3% of £10 is small and £20,000,000 is bigger but so are the costs. Their illustration would show that their fee for a £10 gift with gift-aid gives the charity £12.12 instead of £12.50. There is no card fee.
From the linked page
"*Just like the churches, charities and full-time Christian workers we support, we’re a not-for-profit too. It means you can use give.net in full confidence that we’re not profiting from your generosity. In the event that we do make a surplus, it is reinvested back into supporting our charitable activities."
Other donation handling mechanisms may differ.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but the governments rebuttal is the best response, against a failing newspaper business, no wonder when it writes hatchet job pieces laid with utter lies and inaccuracies.

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Maajid Nawaz hits nail on head regarding Sunday times hit piece yesterday:

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...ts-boris-john/

Re: Coronavirus
 

The response to the stockpile as an outcome of Cygnus had already been given earlier in fact Gove mentioned it in response to Soapey Ridge that morning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

By contrast Trevor Cavanagh's piece in the Sun today makes much better analysis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

[QUOTE=figgyburn;36032113]Snouts in trough is the obvious conclusion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can imagine the looks on the editorial team, at Sunday Times HQ. Sat night probably rubbing their hands thinking they have multitudes of government gotchas in their hit piece, only watching their flimsy masterpiece being ripped apart and turned to dust, in the space of 48 hours.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Sunday Times is hardly an anti-Conservative paper although both The Times and the SundayTimes have more editorial freedom than The Sun does.

Usually it's the left who becomes paranoid about every single newspaper article critical of 'their side' being part of a larger game concocted by the evil proprietors of those newspapers. A single negative article about the Government must be because Rupert Murdoch wants Boris Johnson out? That's overstating it a bit. If it's true then why trust The Sun instead? Other than one paper is saying something you disagree with and the other isn't. Murdoch decided to use The lower-circulation Sunday Times to start the move against Johnson but uses the higher-circulation Sun newspaper to defend him?

This is the standard retort now to every negative article about Labour or the Tories. It's a smear, it's a hatchet job. There is an entirely loyal breed of voter now who only accepts the word of the Government as the truth and anyone holding them to account as lairs, people who seem to trust the state (or their political party if they're not in government) without question.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:confused: It's just an increase in the maximum allowance in expenses. They might need to use the extra, then again they might not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Damien, I’m not saying the government cannot be held to account, hell, I don’t agree with our borders being open, people not being adequately tested if they’re from hot CV zones.

But if people want to be critical, they have to be correct and fair in their criticism. That means, if they’re going to accuse the Prime Minister of not listening, when he actually was, then need to be spot on in their assertions.

That Sunday Times hit piece was an absolute disgrace, did you watch the clip of Maajid Nawaz, I linked to above?

He is absolutely spot on, I urge people to listen to what he says. Again, it highlights hindsight is a good thing, but we cannot blame any one for not having it, including the UK Government, for not having hindsight, but the Sunday Times is trying to rewrite history here and it’s is totally wrong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The £10k could get burnt through fairly quickly if (and it's a big if) the staff are not already set up for mobile working. Looking at my home setup, I have;

Laptop - £1700 (our standard laptops are £1000)
Monitor - £200
Keyboard and Mouse - £75
Phone - £550
Chair - £400
Desk - £400
Printer - £130
Headset - £70
Plus software licences, setup costs, VPN, etc.

It all adds up pretty quickly...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I did listen to the clip but I think it's nuts to suggest Murdoch wants Boris Johnson out. It overstates the degree to which a newspaper owner imposes their own politics onto each and every edition, they may have an editorial line in favour of the owner but that doesn't mean every article is in pursuit of that goal. The Times especially has a greater degree of independence than The Sun. It would be the latter that would be making moves if this really was a goal of Murdoch.

As for judging in hindsight then if we're not careful then you can use that to excuse anything. It just becomes an excuse to never to critique the Government because they'll never know everything that's about to happen. The questions are the degree to which they could have predicted future events, the role their existing management of the country helped or hindered a response to those events and what they did when those events occurred.

In hindsight Labour couldn't have predicted the 2008 crash. However should they have paid more attention to regulation of the financial crisis before it? Should they have paid more attention to the warning lights flashing in the year or so preceding the collapse of Lehman Brothers? Are they to blame for the state of the economy and it's ability to cope when the crash did occur?

The Government will in time face similar questions. Did they pay enough attention in the early part of the year? Should the NHS have been in a better position to respond? Did they pay enough attention to the reported results where we simulated the impact of a viral pandemic?

I think the Government did well when the crisis did come but the question of if we could have been better prepared is still open.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think the criticism was at the state of the nations finances when the crash came as not only had the Labour Govt enjoyed a buoyant economy and spent the revenues earned, but they had also borrowed big time during the same period.

As I've said before, as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected) but so far, everyone that has needed an ICU bed has got one, and everybody that has needed ventilation has got it.

There has been no dying in the corridors, or doctors having to decide who gets the ventilator and lives and who doesn't and dies - as was reported to be happening in Italy at some hospitals.

The PPE issue is potentially where scrutiny can be given, did we have enough stockpiles (Y/N) if N why and if Y why was the logistics of getting it to the hospitals so bad?

There is always things that can be done better, because no matter how well you prepare, you don't know how you will perform until tested in real life, and this pandemic was swift. If we had modelled how we respond in these situation based on Swine Flu & SARS then we wouldn't have measured up as COVID19 infection rate is miles worse that those two.

Personally I would give them a B+ at the moment, that may rise to an A- or A if they manage to steadily reduce infection and death from now and have a functioning economy come June.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

But Damien, the government listened to the advice they were given, they cannot do anything better than that, at the time, the World Health Organisation was playing the virus down significantly, so was SAGE and other government scientific bodies and now we know the whys and how, we cannot blame the government for following the Status Quo, that was, during January through Feb, the virus was played down and that was because the science behind the decisions, WHO listening to propaganda from China, you cannot expect any government to ignore advice that it was given or to act outside of it, especially if it involves peoples lives.

The timing of the lockdown was critical, I've said many times why and being in the healthcare sector myself, it totally makes sense to have done what the government did. To do so any earlier, to listen to the hysteria and screaming from certain quarters in the media, would have been a disaster, more than we are seeing now, 100K deaths for sure and an NHS on it's knees, as it stands, the government strategy has completely avoided this and this is what people don't get, they see the current death rate, compare it to other countries, which I don't deny is very high and behind each one, a tragic death, was a living and breathing person, they see that death rate and just scream incompetence.

It doesn't help when you have an hysterical media outlet, getting it's facts totally wrong, trying to rewrite history, writing stupid remarks, like the "PM missing Cobra meetings", which is the standard anyway and they knew that from the outset, it's just pathetic sensationalism, desperation to sell more papers because it is a dying and failing industry.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would think so. Many are pulling their hair out by now and cannot cope with the complexity of the school work!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you using Priti Patel's calculator? :D

John's calcs for one person come to over £3.5k. Multiple that by three people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We do have one of the highest death counts in Europe though so until we understand why an 'A' grade might be optimistic. I suspect that's more about lockdown timing though.

Looking at one of the most successful countries - Germany - getting on top of the testing situation might have been beneficial too. The people who get infected, and where, make a difference though which may also have helped Germany.

---------- Post added at 14:12 ---------- Previous post was at 14:10 ----------

We don't know precisely what advice they were given prior to the Imperial College Report as that hasn't been published.

Why would have an earlier lockdown seen 100k deaths?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because it was not at the beginning of the curve towards the peak, you introduce a lockdown, at the wrong time, it's going to have exponential ramifications down the line, NHS will get overwhelmed, when an early and unnecessary lockdown lifts and you still have a 66 Million people population susceptible to still getting Covid-19, many people will not be able to get treated, because all the ICU beds are full, all the hospital corridors, waiting rooms get swamped, thousands more people will die and they cannot get treated because the NHS has fallen apart, it's been swamped with an overburden of new Covid-19 infections, throughout the entire UK.

The science is there, I thought this guy in this video that I shared back in March, explained in basic terms why you cannot just introduce a lockdown right at the beginning of a few cases of Coronavirus....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sure but that was the initial strategy which changed after the publication of the Imperial College Report. The concept there is a the herd immunity one whereby we accept most of the population will manage it so we control the flow as to not overload ICU capacity.

What changed was that the demand on beds was a lot higher than expected, we'll see what happens but the Government might be going for a hybrid approach.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some thoughts here from former PM Tony Blair as he publishes a potential exit plan from lockdown.

https://institute.global/sites/defau...ing%20Harm.pdf

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mr Blair’s plan for exiting the Brexit process didn’t work out too well for him. I can’t imagine whatever hare brained, nakedly political wheeze he’s come up with now will fare any better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lest anyone gets excited and starts criticising the report because of Tony Blair's political views on Iraq or Brexit...
The report is from The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, and is written by five people, none of whom is a Tony or a Blair. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup. Hard to believe they’re not expressing an opinion consistent with their employers though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This perfectly sums up how feel about the media currently.

https://www.effiedeans.com/2020/04/j...d-country.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: Price of Oil plummets to a record low level of $1.92 a barrel due to global decline in Vehicle usage due to Coronavirus and Saudi-Russia Price war!!! :eek:

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Correction, is now less than $1 a barrel!!! :eeek:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Petrol still 105ppl near me.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Give it a month, they'll pass it on. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Petrol 102.7p just down the road from us.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWEKnDFW...png&name=small

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

AFP NEWS AGENCY: #BREAKING US benchmark WTI #Oil collapses to $0.01/barrel in New York

Re: Coronavirus
 

Given the total collapse in demand some countries are running out of capacity to store it l hear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How does this work, if I order 1 Million barrels, do they have to pay me $1.43 to take it. making me over a $ 1 Million richer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yup, they pay you to take it off their hands. Similar happened a while back with North Sea gas. The savings were not passed onto consumers though.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As a former Liebour voter, he can take that plan and stick it only were customs officials dare go.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Never thought I’d see the day when oil was worthless.

Of course it’s temporary, but still........holy shoot.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The last parts particularly ;

Re: Coronavirus
 

Agree with the first excerpt but the other two excerpts are just strawmen arguments which only undermine the article.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In your opinion ;)

The second one is partly spot on IMO.
Its doubtful we would have lost the war, but the rest is spot on.

The last one is a bit iffy at best.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brent Crude is still about $27 a barrel.

Re: Coronavirus
 

First one has a problem with a strawman proposition as well - no journalist has said that that we should have locked down in January and February.

And since WHO didn't declare a Global Emergency until the 30th January, and were still saying on 25th February it was too early to call the outbreak a pandemic, if they had, surely they would have been scaremongering..

Re: Coronavirus
 

"Partly spot on" surely - something's either spot on or it's not. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

US finally paying the price for choosing to base its oil price on its own domestic measures rather than the one used by the rest of the entire world...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Kind of shows how a decision taken decades ago can impact an economy in the future and the difficulty in linking economic performance to individual regimes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This article, from a right of centre blogger, make a few good points but it is principally aimed at shutting down dissent and debate. The message is clear: "Shut up and clap when you are told to". Holding your Government to account is the basis of democracy and pieces like this, thankfully consigned to the oddball corners of the Internet, are naive at best and sinister at worse.

In wheeling out the old favourite wartime trope to justify the argument, what the author fails to point out is that the WII Government, although led by the Conservative Party, included leaders from the Labour and Liberal parties as well. This meant that decisions were made on a basis of broad political consensus and not just by one Party.

The media has a duty of responsibility to hold the Government to account when and if it is clearly making the wrong decisions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was thinking last night and there is a problem with perception on the whole COVID-19 issue that is also true of most politics.

Politics. science, statistics deal with populations and big numbers. They would have to wrestle with how many deaths, how much the cost, global/national/regional impacts. If we spend money on this and not that what happens. If we support this project in the long term that is beneficial to the nation/region etc more so than keeping things aside for this eventuality. If we send stuff to this country to help them, we get good will to benefit in the future and so on. If we lock down hard now, spend lots on testing then what is long term impact on economy, NHS, morale; if we don't then ...

We deal with the people level, it's Auntie Maud, brother, sister, Nurse Claire, PC Bob. The big picture isn't important when it's someone you know. You don't tell a grieving relative that their loved one died so that some unknown business could better secure a contract. It's not like a war where risks are better known and there is more clear line between a death and it's benefits. (Not that saying we should be careless to our service personnel and use them simply as cannon fodder or being ill equipped either).

It's getting the balance right, reminding the big picture people that it impacts actual real people so they do keep that in mind. That job shouldn't be easy and divorced from individual reality.

Just wondering if down the line we get headlines like "my Suzie died from <nasty disease> because research was stopped during COVID-19" or other permutations however things pan out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not surprised you don't like this article, because it says what many people think and you are in the minority on this one.

People in the main accept that the press and the opposition parties are there to hold the government to account. What people object to is people criticising for the sake of it. I really don't think you would be making all these negative comments if it was Labour that was taking these measures. More objectivity would be nice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wrong as usual. I would be making the same points if Labour made the same mistakes.

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

Denmark applies a moral perspective in governing this crisis:

Denmark Blocks Firms Registered in Tax-Havens From State Aid

If only this government would follow suit ..

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am having difficulty living with the knowledge that several of my friends and relative are working on the front line and living away from their loved ones because they are desperate to protect us. I have already lost 3 friends to the virus and and have 2 more in hospital. One of them is now in ICU.

This blog just about sums up most of my thoughts over the last few weeks and the following is a prime example.I have found despair washing over me at the level of stupidity shown by some people, the shear sensationalism that seems to be driving most journalists and that people seem to revel in their perceived negativity of how Covid-19 has been managed.

I have no problem with discussions what I do have a problem with is the kangaroo court attitude that I see being shown by people who I thought better of. People who would rather argue over small issues , over and over again, trying to convince others they have some 'inside information' or are so more intelligent than any of the actual experts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sounds like one or two on here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You need to differentiate between the click-bait articles that just want to generate attention and the more serious ones that have objective points to raise. BTW, the same "kangaroo court attitude" applies to those who shout down legitimate criticism ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think anyone is "shouting down" legitimate criticism.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think this is a fair summary either of the aim of the blog, or the role of the Press.

Published news media has a function in democratic debate, insofar as it permits the public to challenge their elected representatives via journalists who are (in print at least) free to be partisan, unruly and in many ways unbounded by the restrictions and conventions that affect politicians. They can be a useful, disruptive influence on the whole process. Their privileged access, however, is predicated on the assumption that they are providing a service for those who cannot be there directly (as there are just too many of us). The market-led nature of non-broadcast media is supposed to ensure that the angles journalists pursue are influenced by their readers' interests (as measured by what they will actually pay for). The reality, with the disruptive influence of online news that is now much more reliant on headline grabbing, ad-revenue-generating clicks, rather than subscriber loyalty, is that there is a widening disconnect between what journalists instinctively want to do and what their readers want them to do.

The blogger's main point is absolutely, demonstrably correct. Most journalists are instinctively treating this as a business-as-usual political crisis, and asking all the usual tick-box questions about day to day competence, as a prelude to deciding if and when to run the standard 'under pressure' 'questions asked' and 'should resign' articles they all keep a template for in their desk drawer. They are also, to be fair to them, doing exactly what they were trained to do, and (in the blogger's words) skim-reading medical journals before writing features and analysis in which they effectively pass themselves off as experts. Such an approach, however, utterly fails to grasp the size, complexity or novelty of this situation.

For whole chunks of what we normally take for granted in our national life, we are in the middle of an existential crisis. Yes, the politicians making the decisions must be scrutinised, but there are other tasks befitting journalists. The stuff all of them did week in, week out when they started out on local or regional titles, and which they clearly now think is beneath them, such as championing the good stuff that's going on and trying to put a human face on events.

I think the blogger's most prescient point was in her reference to Captain Tom. If we discovered he had come down with Covid-19 we would all say he was a fighter. It would be a perfectly normal expression of hope for his recovery. Yet when Dominic Raab used the same perfectly common expression, opining that Boris would come through his illness because he is 'a fighter', he was savaged by more than a few hacks for supposedly implying that those who die of Covid-19 were somehow weak and lacking courage or vitality.

Yes, the Press should be scrutinising our leaders at this time, but that is not what they are doing. They are preoccupied with the business-as-usual game of assuming everything is a matter of basic competence and hoping to be first to claim a scalp, and unfairly judging those in power who dare to express the hope or optimism that the public desperately needs to feel right now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well said Chris :tu: :tu:

... and there you have an example of what I mean. You assume that only you are capable of having the ability to differentiate between good and bad journalism and that legitimate criticism is the same as no evidence

Quote:

Kangaroo Court. An unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.

I now back away from this thread about Covid-19 as I do not wish to sidetrack it with any more of my off-topic posts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I assume nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out the important distinction, something that you failed to highlight in your original post.

---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Again you choose to focus on the media pieces that fit your narrative and in doing so try to prove a universal truth that nearly all journalists are prioritising unwarranted attacks over objective truth. Of course the real world is different to your perception. There will always be journalists in both camps but you insult a lot of professionals to imply that the vast majority are in the former.