The reason why the government got it wrong?

comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 56 minutes ago
You do know that up until less than 3 weeks ago there where regular flights from the UK to the Netherlands,France,Germany,Spain and most EU countries.

_______

This is simply not true. Furthermore, I suspect you already know it. You're trying to point-score.

There have been no "regular flights" to any of those countries for well over six weeks - emergency rescue flights only.

If it were otherwise, I would not be stuck here alone in Spain and my wife stuck all alone in the West Midlands.

I bet you haven't even TRIED to book a flight since February, so please just do shut up about things you clearly don't have a clue about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 7 hours, 20 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyIntheUK (U11181)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyIntheUK (U11181)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyIntheUK (U11181)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Colemanballs (U22246)
posted 31 seconds ago
comment by CurrentlyIntheUK (U11181)
posted 9 minutes ago
What makes no sense is seeing that happen to your neighbours a d decide to take no action in preparing for it.

Daft argument to use in defence of the actions of this government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to agree with you there,Belgium,France,Spain And the UK seen what was happening in Italy and they basically sleepwalked into it.

Meanwhile the Netherlands were preparing their response to desperate pleas from one of their own by refusing to agree to release funds to the desperate Italians when they were at the apex of deaths.

Totally unforgivable by all concerned

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought the Brexitiers didn't think countries were independent from the EU and all decisions are made by the EU in Belgium? The Dutch actions shows that not to be the case then.

And the UK decided to do something different from all the other countries in staying open, and something that they decided to do from the beginning and didn't change track until it was too late.

Trying to defend our government by listing the failures of others, who we all saw suffer before it was an issue here, seems to point to how much more incompetent our government is. Because if it isn't incompetence, then this is what the government wanted all along while seeing Italy, Spain, France, the actions taken by Germany, etc. And think "We'll let it past through the population and stay open for business. Some people may day, so what".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You do know that up until less than 3 weeks ago there where regular flights from the UK to the Netherlands,France,Germany,Spain and most EU countries.

You do also know that there where many flights between these EU countries also.Free movement within these EU countries was also going unchecked up until about 3 weeks back.

So stop saying the UK 'did things differently' because that is untrue,most of Europe had flights still operating in and out to other European countries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK did do things differently. They said they were following the science - somehow out scientists came to a different conclusion from the scientist from the rest of the world. Suddenly the science changed...to what the rest of the world were saying.

Flights that land in the UK have no checks or measures in place even now (flights are still running from what I know, I know someone who flew out to Malta about a week ago). Until March 28th, China still had incoming flights that allowed everyone in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the UK government were given advise by their top scientists in their field and they acted upon the advice given.

What is wrong in that,should they have ignored the advice?

You are saying that other European countries were weeks ahead of the UK and the death tolls were rising,why would the UK government follow their lead when many were dying and scientists were telling them to follow a different path.

What government would go against the advice of it's top scientists when they have data that other countries have gone down a different route to what your scientists are saying and the death tolls in those countries are out of control.

What the fook should they have done?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe they followed the science. They decided to go one way (as we can see from the video in the link in my OP) and conveniently for the "science" to follow what the politicians had already decided to do.

Report says "dire warnings were ignored from scientists - and the UK lost 'a crucial five weeks in the fight to tackle the dangerous threat of coronavirus despite being in a perilously poor state of preparation for a pandemic'." - So we have the politicians saying they" followed the science and then the science changed" and we have whisleblowers saying scientists were ignored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't believe then it must be true then.

Fair enough,I believe they followed the advice given by the top scientists,so we have an impasse.

You are going on a hunch I'm going on what's been reported.

The Eu nations are doing much better that the UK in this crises,it must be so pleasing to be a Belgian or an Italian in this situation.Led not only by your own government but also having the EU watching your back.

I so wish I was living in Brussels,feeling so much safer than here in the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not going by just a hunch. I'm going by reports myself. Heck, I linked to some in the OP. It's not my fault you're only listening to what the government is saying and ignoring other reports.

And no one but you bring in the EU nations, nations who we should have looked at and thought of preparing for what's to come. We can see the the UK government already set out its agenda in February on how to face the pandemic. And then said the science suits it.

You bring up Belgium. Unlike our government, they count deaths in care homes and all other deaths that could be Covid-19. Even reports state they may have overestimated the number of deaths related to it. Reports of the UK cases and death say we're understating the number of deaths and cases due to lack of testing and what deaths are counted. We know they're well be inconsistencies within the numbers as each country counts differently. We can look how they count it and then compare the stats.

comment by Blue in the face (U22288)
posted 6 hours, 18 minutes ago
https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/

Rebuttal. from government
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I read that. Some of their rebuttal is quite weak. For instance:

"The WHO did not formally declare that coronavirus was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) until 30 January, and only characterised it as a global pandemic more than a month later, on 11 March."

By January 30th we didn't put in any measures in airports (still haven't) while the government says it has and we were told by Hancock we had enough PPE to deal with the pandemic.

Also the response relies on the public's ignorance on how WHO characterises and calls a pandemic (and that's partly due to what happen with the h1n1 swine flu). By the time it calls somethingaa pandemic it's already too late. The warning at the end of January was there to avert a pandemic.

=====
Why is it being called a pandemic now?

By Philippa Roxby, BBC Health

The use of the p-word by the WHO to describe the global spread of this new coronavirus is not a huge surprise.

Up until now, it has talked merely of the "threat" or the "potential" for a pandemic. But with cases in more than 100 countries, and increasing numbers not linked to travel, the language has changed.

The WHO no longer 'declares' a pandemic the way it used to, so this is as official as it gets. Yet this doesn't mean the pandemic cannot be controlled, it explains.

Practically, countries are being told to continue to do what they have been advised to do.

But the WHO is not changing what it's doing or the threat level of the virus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51839944

The WHO has final say on whether worldwide epidemics have reached pandemic proportions. But that is not a cut-and-dry issue. SARS in 2003 was never declared a pandemic, though it spread to 26 countries because it was relatively quickly contained.

The highest declaration level in an infectious disease outbreak is a public health emergency of international concern. The WHO declared that for COVID-19 on Jan. 30.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/what-does-it-mean-when-the-who-declares-a-pandemic-1.4848535
=====

I tried to book a flight out of curiosity in March to Italy and was able to get them for 35 quid return. My manager went to Portugal end of February and was allowed back to work. Another friend of mine travelled to Macedonia mid February.

Defending this Governement just makes people look silly now.

Even on 606 you can see that every poster that does so it a borderline moron.

Yeah I read that. Some of their rebuttal is quite weak. For instance:

......

It wasn’t that weak. What it clearly showed was an article with a very clear agenda where it was either appalling research or they were just blatantly lying.

I have never seen a rebuttal from the Government with that many rebuttals in it.

Even on 606 you can see that every poster that does so it a borderline moron.

......

You could say exactly the same for people who continually attack the Government. A lot of them don’t even manage borderline.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 37 minutes ago
Yeah I read that. Some of their rebuttal is quite weak. For instance:

......

It wasn’t that weak. What it clearly showed was an article with a very clear agenda where it was either appalling research or they were just blatantly lying.

I have never seen a rebuttal from the Government with that many rebuttals in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll only know if there was an agenda when an inquiry happens and is (if ever) completed.

My own point about the rebuttal was that some were weak. I mentioned a specific example.

And of course the government will have its own agenda, anyone to take their rebuttal for the truth you be extremely naive.