Sir Keir’s Kerfuffle

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If Sir Kier was PM and shut the country down for all of last year, would that have made him more popular?

He wasnt, and didnt, so no one will ever know.
As a guess, he'd be just as unpopular, if not more.

[Mr K]

Guess Sir Keir would have to go it some to be better than Bozza's Covid response which has led to the most deaths in Europe.
https://timeline-of-failure.com/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Guess Sir Keir would have to go it some to be better than Bozza's Covid response which has led to the most deaths in Europe.
https://timeline-of-failure.com/

We are on the front foot with the vaccine, which will dramatically reduce deaths, leaving other countries still trying to get their acts together with mounting deaths while they get themselves organised with the vaccine. They will soon catch up, and surpass us with the death tolls, if they haven’t already done so.

They might like to revise their death tolls while they are at it to include EVERYONE who dies of Covid, and then you will see we’ve not done so badly after all. Excluding care home and community fatalities was a nice trick, but they’ve been rumbled.

---------- Post added at 14:39 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Just shows how mixed up he was/is with his messages.

Agreed.He’s been constantly going on about how he would have locked down before Boris did. Would he really ever have let us out for the summer? I don’t think he had the nerve.

I suspect that under Kier, he would have been panicked into a lockdown and would have been intimidated by our dear scientists to keep us all locked up all summer long.

But as Paul says, I guess we will never know. However some of us can make an intelligent guess...

[jfman]

Old Boy the UK stats don't include everyone who dies of Covid - as you well know - it only includes those with a positive test within 28 days.

Also your opinion that other countries will catch up - and surpass - our death toll. That is pure conjecture on your part.

It also ignores their potential to do what you've claimed we should do all along which is just shield those at risk.

If it's that easy - and I'm offering you some latitude here - surely other countries could do it while rolling out their shiny 95% effective vaccines?

Or do you finally concede that 'just shield those at risk' never has been, and never will be, a credible Covid-19 response for anyone, anywhere in the world?

[OLD BOY]

From the ‘Daily Telegraph’:

‘THE Welsh government has come under fire for a “truly bewildering” policy of delaying the coronavirus vaccine rollout, with the British Medical Association and No 10 leading the criticism.

Mark Drakeford, the First Minister, yesterday defended the slower rollout in Wales, claiming they were stringing out supplies of the Pfizer jab so vaccinators were not left idle. His government has faced criticism for vaccinating fewer people in proportion to its population than any other home nation.

However, rather than silencing his critics, his comments led to an immediate backlash. Dr David Bailey, chairman of the BMA in Wales said: “For the First Minister to say there is no point in using all the supplies in a week to ensure vaccinators aren’t standing around with nothing to do is truly bewildering”. He called on the Welsh Government “to stop sitting on supplies and get on with it”.’

Just one example of how Labour politicians think. Absolutely bewildering. I’m afraid Sir Kier seems little different to me.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

From the ‘Daily Telegraph’:

‘THE Welsh government has come under fire for a “truly bewildering” policy of delaying the coronavirus vaccine rollout, with the British Medical Association and No 10 leading the criticism.

Mark Drakeford, the First Minister, yesterday defended the slower rollout in Wales, claiming they were stringing out supplies of the Pfizer jab so vaccinators were not left idle. His government has faced criticism for vaccinating fewer people in proportion to its population than any other home nation.

However, rather than silencing his critics, his comments led to an immediate backlash. Dr David Bailey, chairman of the BMA in Wales said: “For the First Minister to say there is no point in using all the supplies in a week to ensure vaccinators aren’t standing around with nothing to do is truly bewildering”. He called on the Welsh Government “to stop sitting on supplies and get on with it”.’

Just one example of how Labour politicians think. Absolutely bewildering. I’m afraid Sir Kier seems little different to me.

... Just one example of how idiots think.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy the UK stats don't include everyone who dies of Covid - as you well know - it only includes those with a positive test within 28 days.

Also your opinion that other countries will catch up - and surpass - our death toll. That is pure conjecture on your part.

It also ignores their potential to do what you've claimed we should do all along which is just shield those at risk.

If it's that easy - and I'm offering you some latitude here - surely other countries could do it while rolling out their shiny 95% effective vaccines?

Or do you finally concede that 'just shield those at risk' never has been, and never will be, a credible Covid-19 response for anyone, anywhere in the world?

Just in case you missed it OB - I'd a couple of pertinent questions there on your inconsistencies re: all things covid.

---------- Post added at 17:28 ---------- Previous post was at 17:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... Just one example of how idiots think.

Curious as to whether there is anyone in the UK, or even the world, with an ongoing supply of the vaccine that has administered every single dose.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy the UK stats don't include everyone who dies of Covid - as you well know - it only includes those with a positive test within 28 days.

which initself skews the figures as they may not have died of Covid. Either way you look at it the data is flawed.

By what % we don't know

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

which initself skews the figures as they may not have died of Covid. Either way you look at it the data is flawed.

By what % we don't know

Indeed. The ONS data indicates a much higher death rate based on death certificates. I suppose country to country comparisons would require some kind of consistency to be helpful but OB has made a very bold claim there about deaths "catching up" considering he thinks a country can successfully both reopen an economy and shield the vulnerable with minimal deaths. Quite the contradiction I'm sure you'd agree.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

which initself skews the figures as they may not have died of Covid. Either way you look at it the data is flawed.

By what % we don't know

I'm not sure the data itself is flawed, perhaps the criteria used to define the data could be better?

As jfman indicates, another perhaps more accurate measure is to look at the additional deaths since the first Covid death compared to similar 12-month periods in previous years. But if this generates a higher figure than the 28-day figure then I can understand why the government would prefer the lower figure.

But all of this is incidental to Old Boy's catching-up claim.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed. The ONS data indicates a much higher death rate based on death certificates. I suppose country to country comparisons would require some kind of consistency to be helpful but OB has made a very bold claim there about deaths "catching up" considering he thinks a country can successfully both reopen an economy and shield the vulnerable with minimal deaths. Quite the contradiction I'm sure you'd agree.

Well I think things could have been done better, especially as we came into Lockdowns 2 & 3 and before you ask no I don’t have all the alternatives but it surely couldn’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with something more sophisticated than more lockdowns. I’m not a fan of Lockdowns. I think I’ve been consistent on that.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure the data itself is flawed, perhaps the criteria used to define the data could be better?

As jfman indicates, another perhaps more accurate measure is to look at the additional deaths since the first Covid death compared to similar 12-month periods in previous years. But if this generates a higher figure than the 28-day figure then I can understand why the government would prefer the lower figure.

But all of this is incidental to Old Boy's catching-up claim.

Well I think that is what was supposed to be the method as advised during the initial wave.

I would go as far to say 3-5 year average comparisons would probably be better.

Regardless of what the final numbers may be I doubt it’ll tell you much and I doubt comparisons to other countries stats will be helpful either

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well I think things could have been done better, especially as we came into Lockdowns 2 & 3 and before you ask no I don’t have all the alternatives but it surely couldn’t be beyond the wit of man to come up with something more sophisticated than more lockdowns. I’m not a fan of Lockdowns. I think I’ve been consistent on that.

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------



Well I think that is what was supposed to be the method as advised during the initial wave.

I would go as far to say 3-5 year average comparisons would probably be better.

Regardless of what the final numbers may be I doubt it’ll tell you much and I doubt comparisons to other countries stats will be helpful either

If you're looking for perfection in stats, you won't find it but that shouldn't rule out benchmarking against peers.

During the initial wave, many Covid-related deaths were not identified as such as people were not tested so an excess deaths comparison is likely a more accurate indicator.

Back on topic, please - we already have a Coronavirus thread.

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy the UK stats don't include everyone who dies of Covid - as you well know - it only includes those with a positive test within 28 days.

Not exactly true, they also provide a count of those with covid 19 on the death certificate.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

Not exactly true, they also provide a count of those with covid 19 on the death certificate.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

....And our stats include deaths in care homes and in the community. The inclusiveness of our figures compared with others is bound to result in a higher number.

Anyway, back on topic, Sir Kier has been more in favour of locking everyone down and being much more generous to everyone with payouts, which would certainly please some but I'm sure would frustrate many others, and make the state of the economy ten times worse.

In the good times, Labour squander the money and in bad times they squander the money we don't have.

Some people, bless them, find that an attractive proposition.