Follow the science eh?

Silver-I’ve cut them all a bit of slack. Unprecedented times. I just think that number is astronomical, unacceptable and was avoidable to at least some degree.

I think this latest lockdown was unfortunately needed, but I don’t think we should need another. The rate cases are falling, the roll out of the vaccination programme (and the UK government especially deserve a lot of recognition for the speed of the rollout so far) and the possibility of covid being seasonal all mean we should be able to have more adult debate about managing this going forward.

comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 3 minutes ago
If we’d have locked down a week earlier what’s to say those people that died wouldn’t have died a few months later. It’s all speculation. Sure some lives could’ve been saved but the idea it’s a simple on off switch is silly. Easy to say they failed badly - but reality is you don’t know how long lives could’ve been saved for. It’s a pandemic.

It’s the virus that’s shocking. Reality is lockdown is hurting people too, no one knows what impact it’ll have. 100,000 deaths is obviously something no one wants to see - but how many more will die as a result of lockdowns in long term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just a fairly meandering, contradictory reply.

How do you know it could have saved lives, followed by sure it saved some lives.

Then onto locking down will be the cause of more deaths further down the line-but you were praising them for locking down before.

Like I said, I don’t know how you can argue with logic, and also that I don’t think any scientist has disagreed with the locking down earlier argument.

The virus is shocking. The fact that any preparations we had in place were stopped years ago is shocking. The fact that governments ignored scientific advice so early on in this pandemic is shocking. I don’t have a problem with them changing stance and doing what they feel they need to in order to deal with the virus. We didn’t need to have such a high and abysmal number though-and there were simple steps which absolutely could have helped-to use the arguments you are is pretty poor to be honest. We all will die-there’s a significant number of those that did that didn’t have to. Some of them were avoidable-that is absolutely undeniable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

say it’s contradictory, while point is I don’t know - and you don’t know.

The point of lockdown was to protect the nhs - not stop all deaths. Death is never avoidable - can delay it, but then what over 80% of COVID deaths are those over 80. Doesn’t make their death any less shocking, but every has their day.

There’s other people dieing because they’ve not received treatment because of COVID, I find that shocking. The virus is shocking, but I’m not shocked that it’s killed people and that the government haven’t had a bulletproof plan the whole way as we’ve never faced a pandemic like this before.

Easy to sit yourself on a pedestal in hindsight, reality is neither of us know how many lives could’ve been saved.

You’re literally denying logic, and also contradicting science though. Literally.

And I’ve no idea what you’re trying to debate. That there was nothing else they could have done?! That we should just turn the place into an episode of Logan’s run?! People died early and needlessly. You can’t just say ‘meh’.

And again, this isn’t hindsight. The 2 things I’ve mentioned-lockdown earlier and close borders-were mentioned, discussed and cried out for before we locked down, and the issue of the borders has been an ongoing debate.

I have absolute sympathy for governments where they have made decisions based on advice and the situation at the time. I’ll criticise them for not doing the right and obvious thing at that time though.

Not saying it's right POV but furlough alone cost £14bn a month. The estimated extra borrowing for covid is £280bn. The treasury estimate is that tax will have to rise by £40bn annually.

To put that in perspective we can raise £5bn give or take by raising either of income tax, VAT or NI by 1%. So, the equivalent of raising income tax by 8% for two whole gov terms, again give or take just to pay covid debts, nit the other £1.7trn? Then consider that the Lib Dems are routinely routed at the polls for proposing a 1% rise to improve our lot

Of course they will hit corporate tax first but that will be inflationary and becomes both a stealth tax and a debt reduction lever but too much and companies will just domicile elsewhere anyway. There really is no easy fix.

I know Heed was slapped down on his offended HS2 thread but another big saving will be cost avoidance of benefits if people are not employed. It almost becomes a no-brainer project.

Anyway, difficult times, difficult decisions that the scientists won't have to make.

I remember when this broke out a few people were estimating the price of a life. Pointless exercise because it is zero to some and infinite to others.

comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 16 minutes ago
You’re literally denying logic, and also contradicting science though. Literally.

And I’ve no idea what you’re trying to debate. That there was nothing else they could have done?! That we should just turn the place into an episode of Logan’s run?! People died early and needlessly. You can’t just say ‘meh’.

And again, this isn’t hindsight. The 2 things I’ve mentioned-lockdown earlier and close borders-were mentioned, discussed and cried out for before we locked down, and the issue of the borders has been an ongoing debate.

I have absolute sympathy for governments where they have made decisions based on advice and the situation at the time. I’ll criticise them for not doing the right and obvious thing at that time though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m saying you don’t know how many lives could’ve been saved. Just as you don’t know how many lives lockdown will kill. I’m saying it’s pointless to look back. and wrong to suggest there was a clear correct path at the time.

Also ridiculous to suggest I’m saying meh. I’m saying looking backwards achieves nothing - it’s an unprecedented pandemic. Looking back, a week before the pandemic the Governments scientists were not supporting lockdown in the UK. Science isn’t perfect.

Think it’s maybe coming across that I’m a massive advocate of lockdowns and to hell with the financial cost-I’m not. If anything, I feel that by locking down earlier we could have started the process of coming out of it earlier. I’ve also said that we shouldn’t need another lockdown after this, and I honestly thing looking at the numbers then there’s no reason why in a couple of months we can’t come out of this lockdown a lot quicker than is being suggested.

On top of that, I also said we need to have a more sensible and realistic debate about how we manage this going forward. Jumping in and out of lockdown isn’t a way to deal with this over a longer term for a raft of different reasons.

comment by RenegadeOF (U9457)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by My Partially Peeved POV (U10636)
posted 16 minutes ago
You’re literally denying logic, and also contradicting science though. Literally.

And I’ve no idea what you’re trying to debate. That there was nothing else they could have done?! That we should just turn the place into an episode of Logan’s run?! People died early and needlessly. You can’t just say ‘meh’.

And again, this isn’t hindsight. The 2 things I’ve mentioned-lockdown earlier and close borders-were mentioned, discussed and cried out for before we locked down, and the issue of the borders has been an ongoing debate.

I have absolute sympathy for governments where they have made decisions based on advice and the situation at the time. I’ll criticise them for not doing the right and obvious thing at that time though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m saying you don’t know how many lives could’ve been saved. Just as you don’t know how many lives lockdown will kill. I’m saying it’s pointless to look back. and wrong to suggest there was a clear correct path at the time.

Also ridiculous to suggest I’m saying meh. I’m saying looking backwards achieves nothing - it’s an unprecedented pandemic. Looking back, a week before the pandemic the Governments scientists were not supporting lockdown in the UK. Science isn’t perfect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said I did know-I said it was logical though that steps could have been taken to lower the number of deaths ffs! I’ve never even hinted it could have been zero or anything like it-just lower.

There was an obvious path at the time-again, that’s logical and not argued by any scientist I’ve read.

Of course we’re going to look back. We have to, otherwise we’re not going to learn and potentially end up making the same mistakes when-not if-another pandemic happens.

And they were supporting lockdown:

‘ While The BMJ was unable to locate any minutes from 14 March, SAGE minutes from 13 March5 suggest that the government was explicitly advised not to delay any appropriate measures owing to concerns over “difficulty maintaining behaviours.”

The minutes state, “There is some evidence that people find quarantining harder to comply with the longer it goes on. The evidence is not strong but the effect is intuitive. There is no comparable evidence for social distancing measures, but experience suggests it is harder to comply with a challenging behaviour over a long period than over a short period.”

They continue, “Difficulty maintaining behaviours should not be treated as a reason for not communicating with the public about the efficacy of the behaviours and should not be taken as a reason to delay implementation where that is indicated epidemiologically. Where the UK does not adopt measures seen in other countries, government should clearly explain its reasoning.”

What’s the verdict?

It seems that the government did not follow the science or the scientists.’

From the BMJ.

Don't think anyone expects any gov to follow the science without exception? Least of all Boris! He big picture guy, no detail. He want to be popular.

His 'follow the science' was yes but obviously the general direction.You give him the directions to Scotland you know he's veering off the M6 to get some spiffing cream muffins at Mrs Miggins splendid emporium in theCotswolds.

comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't think anyone expects any gov to follow the science without exception? Least of all Boris! He big picture guy, no detail. He want to be popular.

His 'follow the science' was yes but obviously the general direction.You give him the directions to Scotland you know he's veering off the M6 to get some spiffing cream muffins at Mrs Miggins splendid emporium in theCotswolds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NZ, Taiwan and South Korea all did, although I’ll grant you I don’t think there are many others.

And Boris being a total and utter tadger isn’t and shouldn’t be used as an excuse for the failings of a full government. Same applies in Scotland.

An independent view of countries' comparative performance in dealing with the Covid pandemic.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9195491/UKs-coronavirus-pandemic-response-SIXTY-SIXTH-place-world-think-tank-claims.html