Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, RoverDom said:

Bang on. 

Some people will want an inquiry that concludes e.g. PPE was inadequate, sack hancock, bash the tories, job done. What I'm more interested in is the changes to infrastructure that means we can quickly ramp up procurement and distribution of PPE in the event of another pandemic. 

Yes , pretty much this . Blame blame blame . Gets us nowhere and there’s a good chance it goes way above those we think it does 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t see how you can have an enquiry without looking at the cause of any failures. Failures of Individuals/departments should be made public.

would an inquiry about the Iraq war have been appropriate if it hadn’t looked at the Government, prime minister or any other individuals involved in decision making?

Edited by den

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Bang on. 

Some people will want an inquiry that concludes e.g. PPE was inadequate, sack hancock, bash the tories, job done. What I'm more interested in is the changes to infrastructure that means we can quickly ramp up procurement and distribution of PPE in the event of another pandemic. 

One of the changes I would like to see is making and producing our own PPE for NHS and Social care sector in Britain and secure in proper security warehouse site. Maybe even in a army base so we dont have another incident like people breaking into the warehouse like what happened in Salford. Many care homes and home care agencies are private businesses so they have to order their PPE themselves not through a centre body like NHS. 

Also Health and Social care committee will be looking into seeing what was wrong and right. Whitty and Vallance have said they will look at what they got right and wrong when the time is right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

And what was the worst outcome if we didnt bring in the lockdown measures, social distancing rules and other things? Plus Bazzanotsogreat has posted a number of different things which would affect our death rate more severely than other countries. 

Wasnt 500,000 deaths?

 

Sorry. Can you just clarify this comment please as I think I must be reading it incorrectly. 

It seems like you are saying in response to the comment that the target of 20k deaths was missed is that it could have been worse had the government not done anything. Is this the case? I think (and hope!) that my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When will footballers like Kyle Walker realise that the restrictions are in place for a reason, to nick one off Jim - He's as thick as mince:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52587293

He doesn't know if he's carrying the virus, meeting family members/elderly parents could potentially kill them, you thick swine.

Edited by Gav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Perhaps Australia might be a better comparison banning all international and interstate flights they cracked down on this quickly and are now emerging on the other side. Are we expected to accept around 500 deaths a day moving forward as having to be normal to allow flights to continue into the country with resultant risk of importation which is clearly demonstrated as a driver of this. You would have expected after seven weeks of a lockdown more significant progress would have been made in reducing the death toll

Australia is not a good comparison or example imo. It is possibly for its size the most natural resource rich and sparsely populated nation on earth. It is a major exporter. The UK is a major importer

If we close our borders entirely, we starve and the economy dies. NZ and Australia have so many natural advantages that is moot to make any comparison to the UK. Better comparisons are with the belelux nations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, den said:

I don’t see how you can have an enquiry without looking at the cause of any failures. Failures of Individuals/departments should be made public.

would an inquiry about the Iraq war have been appropriate if it hadn’t looked at the Government, prime minister or any other individuals involved in decision making?

An enquiry will come, as it should, you can always learn lessons, but thats not for now den, this is a marathon not a sprint, lots more heartache still to come for many sadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue blood said:

Sorry. Can you just clarify this comment please as I think I must be reading it incorrectly. 

It seems like you are saying in response to the comment that the target of 20k deaths was missed is that it could have been worse had the government not done anything. Is this the case? I think (and hope!) that my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. 

 

 

 

Our death total is appalling as I said on Wednesday. Did you see that comment? 

but the scientists were saying it could 500k deaths If we didnt bring the measures we did and if it disease inflect 80% of the country

Here a link

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-news-latest-deaths-uk-infection-flu-a9360271.html

This is new virus and it affects different people depending on a number of different factors which other posters have posted on here. 

Vallance was wrong for suggesting 20k with be good figure but I dont know how or the context he said it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, den said:

I don’t see how you can have an enquiry without looking at the cause of any failures. Failures of Individuals/departments should be made public.

would an inquiry about the Iraq war have been appropriate if it hadn’t looked at the Government, prime minister or any other individuals involved in decision making?

Oh - those who are proven negligent should feel the full force. But you do that once you've got all the evidence. Trying to focus on blame in the middle of the event is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, joey_big_nose said:

Oh - those who are proven negligent should feel the full force. But you do that once you've got all the evidence. Trying to focus on blame in the middle of the event is pointless.

Are you talking about people on a message board attaching blame - I guess so because there isn’t an enquiry yet?

dont see anything wrong with that TBH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Our death total is appalling as I said on Wednesday. Did you see that comment? 

but the scientists were saying it could 500k deaths If we didnt bring the measures we did and if it disease inflect 80% of the country

 

No didn't see that comment. Do you mean appalling as in terribly sad (of which there is no argument) or appalling as in appallingly managed so it is that high. I'd say appalling on both counts - tragic and mismanagement. 

Don't think we can praise the government for saying if they had done nothing it would have been worse! If they had done nothing it would have been a complete dereliction of duty. To praise them for doing something is damning with faint praise because of course they had to do something - that was their role. We shouldn't praise them for doing what they are required to do. Although if they do a good job of it sure, they deserve praise, but just for doing something when that's their responsibility is really scraping the barrel for defending them. 

Not a perfect analogy - as Silas pointed out - but if I was a teacher and on a school trip I had three or four serious accidents or fatalities - and my response was if I hadn't done anything we would have lost half the class, you would not be praising me. Similarly just for doing something the government don't deserve praise. That's a terrible defence. 

 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

Here a link

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-news-latest-deaths-uk-infection-flu-a9360271.html

This is new virus and it affects different people depending on a number of different factors which other posters have posted on here. 

Vallance was wrong for suggesting 20k with be good figure but I dont know how or the context he said it. 

Why. You champion our scientists and listen to the experts all the time, until a stat or quote makes the government look bad. Why is he right on everything else but not on this? 

Also am not sure whether it was a good or bad figure tbh. But if he is an expert you would think maybe there is something behind it? It sounds (although don't know the science) to be realistic that the pandemic is going to cost lives but equally keeping it down. Point is, you don't like it because it makes the government look bad. That said so have the testing targets as well. 

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gav said:

When will footballers like Kyle Walker realise that the restrictions are in place for a reason, to nick one off Jim - He's as thick as mince:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52587293

He doesn't know if he's carrying the virus, meeting family members/elderly parents could potentially kill them, you thick swine.

What shocks me most is the entitlement of Walker. He feels he has been harassed because he has been caught breaking the rules numerous times. These pillocks really think the world revolves around them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

Oh - those who are proven negligent should feel the full force. But you do that once you've got all the evidence. Trying to focus on blame in the middle of the event is pointless.

Exactly. You need all the evidence together to even start an inquiry. Which we dont have at this point. As Vallance, Whitty and Van Tam have said. 

Plus we are just leaving the 1st point of this. We could have a second peak which is massive problem if it happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bazzanotsogreat said:

I was waiting for NZ to creep into this conversation. NZ Population 4.8 million, UK 66 million. NZ area is around 20% larger

I'm actually comparing attitudes.  Governer Cuomo in NY has a fantastic attitude and gives a toss, you can tell.  Our leaders rolled out George Eustace for a very important QT last night, he had no idea of data, numbers, anything, a proper embarrassment and it says everything about this particular administration.  

They don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, chaddyrovers said:

More BS from you yet again  

More personal attacks from you

Not a personal attack, just a viewpoint.  You never look beyond what Boris tells you, same way trump supporters behave in America . It wasn't a personal attack and I apologise if you took it that way. 

Edited by Sparks Rover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Bazzanotsogreat said:

most natural resource rich and sparsely populated nation on earth.

In fact, the vast majority of Austalia's population are living in densely populated urban conurbations on the East Coast.

Australia's biggest 6 cities contain about 16 million of Australia's entire population of about 20 million.

What being resource-rich has to do with it you'll have to explain.

Edit---Perth has nearly 3 million and its of course on the West coast!

Edited by 47er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, den said:

I don’t see how you can have an enquiry without looking at the cause of any failures. Failures of Individuals/departments should be made public.

would an inquiry about the Iraq war have been appropriate if it hadn’t looked at the Government, prime minister or any other individuals involved in decision making?

Causes of failures are absolutely what we should be looking for but it's what you do with that information that matters. I would prefer for systems and processes to be put in place to stop it happening again, whereas I think some people would like Bojo in the stocks for each and every mistake made. 

I don't think any mistakes are deliberate. Many failures are likely to be systemic, so fix the system rather than punish the person who happens to be in charge at the very second it blew up. If genuine negligence or malicious intent is found then by all means punish them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RoverDom said:

Causes of failures are absolutely what we should be looking for but it's what you do with that information that matters. I would prefer for systems and processes to be put in place to stop it happening again, whereas I think some people would like Bojo in the stocks for each and every mistake made. 

I don't think any mistakes are deliberate. Many failures are likely to be systemic, so fix the system rather than punish the person who happens to be in charge at the very second it blew up. If genuine negligence or malicious intent is found then by all means punish them. 

There are enquires in to some aspect of government administration all the time. It would be very odd if there wasn't one over something this big. Even Conservative ministers are accepting there will be one.

I think you are getting carried away with remarks about punishments. There will be findings handed down and presumably some findings of negligence depending on who is appointed to chair it of course and whether or not its finding's are handed down in our lifetimes!

No punishments as such will follow, we are not talking about criminal conduct here.

If, during the course of an enquiry someone was, say, found to have taken a bribe from a supplier for example, that would be a criminal matter handed over to the police for investigation.

The enquiry would not deal with it.

I'm not one banging on about an enquiry by the way, I'm just accepting there will be one at some point.

You're wrongly giving the impression there's a lynch-mob mentality about. I don't think there is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

35 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

Why. You champion our scientists and listen to the experts all the time, until a stat or quote makes the government look bad. Why is he right on everything else but not on this? 

Also am not sure whether it was a good or bad figure tbh. But if he is an expert you would think maybe there is something behind it? It sounds (although don't know the science) to be realistic that the pandemic is going to cost lives but equally keeping it down. Point is, you don't like it because it makes the government look bad. That said so have the testing targets as well. 

Well Sir Patrick Vallance said the 20,000 being a good outcome during a meeting with a committee of MP's on 17th March. 

Ive took politics out of this debate in the thread, so your point is pointless. I made my comments by on the comments of Scientists during press conferences, commons select committees and other interviews.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

 You never look beyond what Boris tells you, same way trump supporters behave in America . It wasn't a personal attack and I apologise if you took it that way. 

wrong again. I listened what the CSO, CMO and other scientists plus other experts at the daily press conferences, select committee hearings and other interviews mostly. 

haven't listened to Trump for a while. If you actually knew me properly you would my favourite presidents are Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy. Plus one of my favourite films is All the president's men. I also asked for a list potential young Democratic candidates in the Donald Trump thread on 1st May. 

Edited by chaddyrovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Well Sir Patrick Vallance said the 20,000 being a good outcome during a meeting with a committee of MP's on 17th March. 

Ive took politics out of this debate in the thread, so your point is pointless. I made my comments by on the comments of Scientists during press conferences, commons select committees and other interviews.

 

Horse manure. The lack of criticism seems very political.

Also this is another plain evasion of your poor logic of championing most of what Vallance says but not the 20k figure. You've yet to give a good reason why this inconsistency in your opinion exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 47er said:

In fact, the vast majority of Austalia's population are living in densely populated urban conurbations on the East Coast.

Australia's biggest 6 cities contain about 16 million of Australia's entire population of about 20 million.

What being resource-rich has to do with it you'll have to explain.

Edit---Perth has nearly 3 million and its of course on the West coast!

Australia's cities are significantly less in terms of density than the UK. Take Sydney and London as examples. London has double the population. Sydney is nearly 12 times larger in terms of city boundaries 

If you are resource rich, you are not reliant on imports. As such you can close your borders. Australia has 100s of billions more arable and agricultural land to sustain itself. It also has vast amount of metals, coals and gas. To build stuff. 

The UK on the other is the polar opposite. 

Trying to compare the UK to Australia or NZ is pointless. As much as it fits a certain narrative 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

I'm actually comparing attitudes.  Governer Cuomo in NY has a fantastic attitude and gives a toss, you can tell.  Our leaders rolled out George Eustace for a very important QT last night, he had no idea of data, numbers, anything, a proper embarrassment and it says everything about this particular administration.  

They don't care.

Ardern has the luxury of knowing that due to its size and popation distribution she can make certain promises and probably get away with it

As for Cuomo, he has done a great job, in terms of presentation and communication. Top marks, still dosent hide the fact that NY state has as many deaths as the UK, has had chronic shortages of PPE and ventilators. If he was the UK pm you would of still hammered him irrespective of his communication skills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bazzanotsogreat said:

I was waiting for NZ to creep into this conversation. NZ Population 4.8 million, UK 66 million. NZ area is around 20% larger

NZ is possibly better placed that any nation in the world to fight coronavirus as social distancing is so much easier for them. There cities are relatively small and density in their cities makes it easier to social distance. 

NZ economy is also not commerce and finance based. They are blessed with lots of fertile land and export lots of products. In this country we don't the ability to close the borders for sustained periods. NZ can be self sufficient for a long period both economically and in terms of foods. We are somewhat the opposite due to the overpopulation of our Isles and over reliance on imports and international commerece

And yet back in February and early March, we were 2nd best on the Global Health Security Index:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/prepared-britain-coronavirus-pandemic-sophisticated-analysis/

For 2nd best, we've badly failed, and according to the Government's own targets we've also badly failed. That's assuming there's only one wave of this 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bazzanotsogreat said:

As for Cuomo, he has done a great job, in terms of presentation and communication. Top marks, still dosent hide the fact that NY state has as many deaths as the UK, has had chronic shortages of PPE and ventilators. If he was the UK pm you would of still hammered him irrespective of his communication skills 

 

The Govenor isn't responsible for the procurement of PPE and Ventilators in the US - That responsibility lies with the Federal Government which has failed spectacularly, and putting the governers in competition with each other in sourcing PPE, resulted in inflating the prices and reducing availability rather than having a central supply.

 

 

Edited by Jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.