Sir Keir’s Kerfuffle

Originally Posted by Pierre

I didn’t see that, the CMO from the outset said comparisons were not helpful. They did compare themselves and our numbers included care homes whereas others didn’t. So they weren’t scared of showing themselves poorly against others.

They still aren’t as not everyone are using the same metrics.

No one could possibly know what a “good “ outcome for the U.K. would or could have been.

It’s like asking before Dday “how many people do you expect to die on the beach in Normandy? “ and then being critical if the under or over estimate the figure.

Originally Posted by Hugh

The U.K. didn’t include care homes in the deaths total until 29th April, whilst France, Belgium and Ireland reported their figures earlier.

The point is that U.K. Government were happy to report comparisons for a number of weeks, then decided not to.

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s as may be, but it doesn’t address the point of “what Number would Be a good outcome?”

Comparisons and how stats are recorded still differ from country to country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014

Can I recommend that you apply for a position with Dominic Cummings?

Your ability to spin from one subject to the next, ignoring any previous point you may have made, would fit right in with him...

And as Den said, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said 20,000 would be a good outcome, so your second point has been addressed as well.

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s as may be, but it doesn’t address the point of “what Number would Be a good outcome?”

Comparisons and how stats are recorded still differ from country to country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52311014

I think whichever way you look at it we're amongst the higher end of the death rates so in terms of 'keeping deaths down' it won't be seen as a success unless some dramatic change happens from here on out.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can I recommend that you apply for a position with Dominic Cummings?

Your ability to spin from one subject to the next, ignoring any previous point you may have made, would fit right in with him...

And as Den said, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said 20,000 would be a good outcome, so your second point has been addressed as well.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Far from obfuscation, your reply is one of the most lucid in this thread - well worth repeating in the Coronavirus thread.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Far from obfuscation, your reply is one of the most lucid in this thread - well worth repeating in the Coronavirus thread.

I actually thought I was in the corona thread

I'll copy it over there, and request that this line of discussion doesn't continue in this thread which is meant to be about the performance of the new Labour leader, not general discussion about coronavirus.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think many people are attracted by his personality and not his political credo. Certainly, even Johnson has had difficulty in deciding what his views on Brexit leading to him writing two opposing opinion pieces on it and selecting the one he felt would maxximise his chances of becoming PM.

Or, in another interpretation, selecting the argument that had the most merit.

Boris wrote two articles so he could judge the credibility of each argument. Typical Boris. Most people, faced with a difficult choice to make, just write a list of advantages and disadvantages of each option. Boris writes full blown articles. There might even be Shakespearean versions!

---------- Post added at 12:33 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Well he's failed on the first, and the economy is nose diving. ( Last thing he needs at the moment is something like Brexit). He won't last 5 years, if nothing else he'll get bored and move on to the next jolly caper.

You won't know whether he has failed on the first until this is all over. He's been following advice, and you would be the first to criticise him if he hadn't.

[Carth]

something wicked this way comes?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The Govt were happy to compare themselves to other European countries in a chart in their daily briefings. Until they became top of it and the chart was suddenly dropped. A fact Sir Keir mentioned when he wiped the floor with Bozzo at PMQs again.

Except he didn't. He appears to have failed to mention the context of that comment. I'm surprised at Sir Kier, being a lawyer and all. The context was set out in the sentence before.

Sounds more like Corbyn tactics to me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except he didn't. He appears to have failed to mention the context of that comment. I'm surprised at Sir Kier, being a lawyer and all. The context was set out in the sentence before.

Sounds more like Corbyn tactics to me.

I'm confused, the chart comparing the UK to other countries was dropped. What other context is there?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Don't want to go too far off track, but an FT article I read suggested that internal right-wing Conservative Party criticism of Johnson's handling of the crisis will result in Johnson placating the right-wingers by going hard on Brexit. with the economic repercussions hidden by a CV-19 recession.

Economic repercussions! What these measures have guaranteed is that we will have a huge deficit and major problems with the economy with the size of the debt we have to pay back - nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. Also, the longer this lockdown goes on, the more companies will collapse, taking away jobs forever.

It's a pity this has muddied the waters, because I was looking forward to getting undeniable proof that Brexit was good for the economy. I guess we may now have an uphill struggle to prove that, but I am confident that being outside the EU will help us to build back rather faster than would otherwise have been the case.

---------- Post added at 13:54 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I think whichever way you look at it we're amongst the higher end of the death rates so in terms of 'keeping deaths down' it won't be seen as a success unless some dramatic change happens from here on out.

Boris made very clear in the early days that you could only slow down the course of this virus. It cannot be stopped without a vaccine or a total lock down over many months - even years. Somehow, the population seems to be running away with the idea that we are avoiding more deaths altogether. We are not.

Watch what happens in other countries as measures are eased.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Getting back to the subject of this thread (sorry, Chris, just read your request to get back on topic), I will be very interested in seeing just how supportive he is going to be in working out how to get the country back on its feet. He could play a useful role in getting the co-operation of the teachers in re-opening the schools.

[jfman]

An utterly laughable notion that a Labour leader should play a useful role in the workers risking their lives in the absence of adequate safety measures or controls. However, there's a thread for that one so I'll move onto the Rt. Hon. Sir Keir here...

Finding himself a bit conflicted. He wants a 4 nation approach at the same time as "radical federalism". Pick a side, eh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-52683789

First point being that what's appropriate for one nation, or indeed region, may not be appropriate for another. A point noted by the Government.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...-new-analysis/

Labour won't solve their Scotland problem with pushing '4 nation' thinking against the evidence available. If they can't solve their Scotland problem, then efforts solving their north of England are an irrelevance.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jfman

An utterly laughable notion that a Labour leader should play a useful role in the workers risking their lives in the absence of adequate safety measures or controls. However, there's a thread for that one so I'll move onto the Rt. Hon. Sir Keir here...

Finding himself a bit conflicted. He wants a 4 nation approach at the same time as "radical federalism". Pick a side, eh?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-52683789

First point being that what's appropriate for one nation, or indeed region, may not be appropriate for another. A point noted by the Government.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...-new-analysis/

Labour won't solve their Scotland problem with pushing '4 nation' thinking against the evidence available. If they can't solve their Scotland problem, then efforts solving their north of England are an irrelevance.

Yes utterly laughable that a labour leader would support labour voters working for a living especially when they are being paid to sit at home and do nothing

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Yes utterly laughable that a labour leader would support labour voters working for a living especially when they are being paid to sit at home and do nothing

i thought they had mostly voted Tory at the last election?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Yes utterly laughable that a labour leader would support labour voters working for a living especially when they are being paid to sit at home and do nothing

Yes, the key word there being living not dying.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

i thought they had mostly voted Tory at the last election?

The core voters still vote labour.