Next time ?

[the black fox]

After watching a few interviews on t.v with piers Morgan and numerous gov. Ministers .. I think the new go to phrase has got to be

Based on scientific evidence !

This has got to be the ultimate get out of jail free card expression ,and I think it will be used more and more frequently to cover ,lies. Mistruths , I haven’t got a clue , I’m spouting b******t ,etc etc

love it

 

[supergeeman]

Also, there will be plenty of "lessons must be learnt" once the inevitable inquiry happens......

 

[woof woof]

I have some sympathy for politicians as how can they know what to do in a situation like this? They are the ones who must decide the policy to be followed and in this social media instant knee jerk reaction world many people feed off and live in they'll get it in the neck no matter what they do. Remember that even some experts have flip flopped and done it quickly so I'm not sure it's fair to single out the hated politicians and only them as the obvious and easy target. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it's hindsight and not available until some point in the future.

I don't think there's any denying that today it looks as if some countries have done better, like Germany, and who did what better and why it was better is something that needs to be looked at. In the case of Germany it seems that they have capacities and capabilities that the UK doesn't have. See my next comment.

When the UK gets time for a breath what I'd like to see is less reliance on the global market and more stuff made and done in the UK with the ability to increase capacity should it be needed. I'd rather the UK had too much stuff and unused capacities than not enough and have to rely on shipments from China or Turkey clearing customs. If we have too much stuff and too much capacity we can do the decent thing and make it available to whoever needs it.

 

[dod]

I have some sympathy for politicians as how can they know what to do in a situation like this? They are the ones who must decide the policy to be followed and in this social media instant knee jerk reaction world many people feed off and live in they'll get it in the neck no matter what they do. Remember that even some experts have flip flopped and done it quickly so I'm not sure it's fair to single out the hated politicians and only them as the obvious and easy target. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it's hindsight and not available until some point in the future.

I don't think there's any denying that today it looks as if some countries have done better, like Germany, and who did what better and why it was better is something that needs to be looked at. In the case of Germany it seems that they have capacities and capabilities that the UK doesn't have. See my next comment.

When the UK gets time for a breath what I'd like to see is less reliance on the global market and more stuff made and done in the UK with the ability to increase capacity should it be needed. I'd rather the UK had too much stuff and unused capacities than not enough and have to rely on shipments from China or Turkey clearing customs. If we have too much stuff and too much capacity we can do the decent thing and make it available to whoever needs it.

But we had forewarning, both from observance of what was happening and previous role play exercises. We chose to ignore it. We chose to sing Happy Birthday, twice and "take it on the chin".

Our three point strategy was doomed to failure when we immediately abandoned stage 1. You really can't make it up, it's indefensible.

However, it was a situation that, in fairness, they were never going to do the right thing. If they'd continued to quarantine people from infected areas they'd have run out of accommodation as the flights weren't restricted. Testing was, and still is, totally inadequate. If they'd cancelled the flights and implemented lock down on day one they'd have been panned by the public, some of whom still don't see it as a problem.

I really don't see the issue with globalisation. That didn't cause the issue we have today and to be honest re-engineering the economy to suit more production in the UK along with the higher costs, wage bills, taxation etc required I'm not sure that's even desirable now.

 

[woof woof]

But we had forewarning, both from observance of what was happening and previous role play exercises. We chose to ignore it. We chose to sing Happy Birthday, twice and "take it on the chin".

Our three point strategy was doomed to failure when we immediately abandoned stage 1. You really can't make it up, it's indefensible.

However, it was a situation that, in fairness, they were never going to do the right thing. If they'd continued to quarantine people from infected areas they'd have run out of accommodation as the flights weren't restricted. Testing was, and still is, totally inadequate. If they'd cancelled the flights and implemented lock down on day one they'd have been panned by the public, some of whom still don't see it as a problem.

I really don't see the issue with globalisation. That didn't cause the issue we have today and to be honest re-engineering the economy to suit more production in the UK along with the higher costs, wage bills, taxation etc required I'm not sure that's even desirable now.

I suppose it depends who the "we" were who chose to do things or not and on the advice they took, if any.

The issue with globalisation is clear enough to me. The UK doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities needed to produce ventilators, PPE, test kits and analysis and all the rest. They're all made elsewhere and the UK is scrambling for the same supplies everyone else is scrambling for. If we had the manufacturing capabilities in the UK we wouldn't be waiting for a flight from Turkey would we? I don't care about the costs and it'd be interesting to see how the costs would stack up, supporting UK manufacturing v paying for millions to be furloughed. If that's how you spell it.

That's all mho, and unless I'm missing something obvious.

I don't know what the truth is about testing. We've been told that the test everyone was screaming for the government to buy missed three out of four positive results and I assume it was an expert who carried out the tests on the test and came to that conclusion rather than a politician. If that's true then I don't know how other countries have managed or what tests they're using.

One thing I found interesting was the mobile phone tracking and contact tracing that's happened in other parts of the world. I just can't see the paranoid UK population buying into that, or at least I can see many frothing at the mouth and burning down phone masts at the very mention of it.

 

[woof woof]

A ps to the above.

From the BBC, on phone tracking apps...

"And hundreds of scientists and researchers have signed a statement warning "mission creep" could eventually lead to "unprecedented surveillance of society at large"."

What was I saying about the paranoid public frothing at the mouth at the very thought?

This is one area in which one party states may have an easier time of it.

 

[nilagin]

I suppose it depends who the "we" were who chose to do things or not and on the advice they took, if any.

The issue with globalisation is clear enough to me. The UK doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities needed to produce ventilators, PPE, test kits and analysis and all the rest. They're all made elsewhere and the UK is scrambling for the same supplies everyone else is scrambling for. If we had the manufacturing capabilities in the UK we wouldn't be waiting for a flight from Turkey would we? I don't care about the costs and it'd be interesting to see how the costs would stack up, supporting UK manufacturing v paying for millions to be furloughed. If that's how you spell it.

That's all mho, and unless I'm missing something obvious.

I don't know what the truth is about testing. We've been told that the test everyone was screaming for the government to buy missed three out of four positive results and I assume it was an expert who carried out the tests on the test and came to that conclusion rather than a politician. If that's true then I don't know how other countries have managed or what tests they're using.

One thing I found interesting was the mobile phone tracking and contact tracing that's happened in other parts of the world. I just can't see the paranoid UK population buying into that, or at least I can see many frothing at the mouth and burning down phone masts at the very mention of it.

Ventilators are made in this country, but partly because of previous demand for them and probably producing other medical equipment, production numbers were counted in hundreds. Now with help from companies used to producing stuff in higher numbers and by adding extra manufacturing facilities, the ventilators produced each week will be counted in thousands.

 

[dod]

I suppose it depends who the "we" were who chose to do things or not and on the advice they took, if any.

The issue with globalisation is clear enough to me. The UK doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities needed to produce ventilators, PPE, test kits and analysis and all the rest. They're all made elsewhere and the UK is scrambling for the same supplies everyone else is scrambling for. If we had the manufacturing capabilities in the UK we wouldn't be waiting for a flight from Turkey would we? I don't care about the costs and it'd be interesting to see how the costs would stack up, supporting UK manufacturing v paying for millions to be furloughed. If that's how you spell it.

That's all mho, and unless I'm missing something obvious.

I don't know what the truth is about testing. We've been told that the test everyone was screaming for the government to buy missed three out of four positive results and I assume it was an expert who carried out the tests on the test and came to that conclusion rather than a politician. If that's true then I don't know how other countries have managed or what tests they're using.

One thing I found interesting was the mobile phone tracking and contact tracing that's happened in other parts of the world. I just can't see the paranoid UK population buying into that, or at least I can see many frothing at the mouth and burning down phone masts at the very mention of it.

The current government is the "We".

Take your point about ventilators although that wasn't immediately clear from your original post, "When the UK gets time for a breath what I'd like to see is less reliance on the global market and more stuff made and done in the UK with the ability to increase capacity should it be needed. ". That implies to me when/if we get past this virus although I should have twigged reading the Turkey reference.

It also totally ignores the fact that we simulated this in 2016, knew then that there was a problem and did nothing about it. We've had four years, unencumbered, when we COULD have done something to build up stocks and avoid the costs of furlough etc. What is debatable though is whether or not any other party would have been prepared to put in the investment for such an occurrence and whether or not the public would have been prepared to accept the tax cost of that investment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/

Testing: I don't know about the tests you refer to but it sounds very much like Govt deflection and hiding behind the "science".

 

[bass_junkie83]

If they can flip-flop between "based on scientific evidence" and "we have had enough of listening to experts" then that should cover any potential situation quite nicely.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Nothing ever changes, decision makers have always relied on "experts" but have always been very selective about which experts to rely upon.
It's been the case for a very long time with the Roman Catholic church, they always manage to find a few scientists who support their theories even though the vast majority don't. At a more local level, planning committees follow the advice of their own expert officers and large businesses and governments obtain advice from consultants.

And they do it because it works for them. When things go wrong, nobody ever has to take responsibility - it isn't the fault of the experts because all that they have done is to provide their expertise - they didn't make the decision. And it isn't the fault of the decision makers because they carried out all due diligence and obtained expert advice.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

If they can flip-flop between "based on scientific evidence" and "we have had enough of listening to experts" then that should cover any potential situation quite nicely.

Especially now that we know Cummings attends SAGE meetings, so the "scientific advice" and "ignoring experts" are actually one and the same...

 

[woof woof]

The current government is the "We".

Take your point about ventilators although that wasn't immediately clear from your original post, "When the UK gets time for a breath what I'd like to see is less reliance on the global market and more stuff made and done in the UK with the ability to increase capacity should it be needed. ". That implies to me when/if we get past this virus although I should have twigged reading the Turkey reference.

It also totally ignores the fact that we simulated this in 2016, knew then that there was a problem and did nothing about it. We've had four years, unencumbered, when we COULD have done something to build up stocks and avoid the costs of furlough etc. What is debatable though is whether or not any other party would have been prepared to put in the investment for such an occurrence and whether or not the public would have been prepared to accept the tax cost of that investment.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/

Testing: I don't know about the tests you refer to but it sounds very much like Govt deflection and hiding behind the "science".

It doesn't to me.

I can't remember the test details but it was specifically mentioned during one of the daily updates that the c19 test people were screaming for the government to buy missed a high proportion of positive results. Doubtless that fact has now been airbrushed from the minds of those who didn't want to hear it. I can't remember the numbers but I and anyone watching if free from bias should have formed the opinion that that c19 test in question wasn't very good. Maybe a bad test is still some use? I don't know. What other countries are using and why some are doing better and some are doing worse will need to be looked at. We may learn lessons today that'll help us today but we're nowhere near over this yet and maybe it's too early to make a final judgement and blame the tories and only the tories for everything.

The 2016 simulation afaik related to flu and one result of this was that although some ppe was stockpiled gowns were not as gowns aren't needed for flu. That's what was reported and discussed on one radio piece I heard. I don't know much about c19 but I gather that it's different enough to flu pandemics to matter. I therefore don't know if the simulations carried out in 2016 are directly and 100% relevant and applicable to c19. Maybe lessons could and should have been learned, I just don't know. I suspect probably.

Gowns and no doubt other things are needed and in short supply now and now we need them we find that everyone else does too and we'll all competing for the same limited supply. Having a UK based supply chain could ease that in future pandemics and I don't care if capacity is expensive and under used most of the time as if and when we need it it'll more than pay for itself in human terms.

It's interesting that the Trump and wider US critics are jumping on the death figures in the US whilst forgetting that it's not the total death toll that we should be looking at if we want to point fingers and make league tables but the number per 100, 1,000 or whatever of population. Viewed like that the country hit hardest in the world is I believe Belgium. Where we are in the league table I don't know but I do suspect that some countries are doing worse and some appear to be doing better at least at the moment.

It's a field day for conspiracy theorists and those who want to make political gain. I try to stay away from both but I've no doubt some revel in one or both. I've no doubt that the inquiries and finger wagging will go on for decades.

I do think that we're now moving into a more political or even social media driven world and I don't see that as good news. What we'll no doubt see in coming days is increasing pressure to ease the lock down or at least the publication of a roadmap to that end. Personally I'd rather priority was given to saving lives and generally reducing the life and health related effects of c19 and the lockdown and everything else we're going through and to hell with looking at purely the financial cost or getting sick of being stuck at home. I see roadmaps as pointless speculation at this point generating nothing but hot air between political opponents who are never going to agree and a social media crowd who flip flop at the drop of a hat.

 

[woof woof]

Especially now that we know Cummings attends SAGE meetings, so the "scientific advice" and "ignoring experts" are actually one and the same...

And if Cummings or someone didn't attend the headline could be "Tories absent from crucial c19 SAGE meetings."

I'm much more interested in the views of those who attended. If they felt under any form of political pressure or interference that's one matter or maybe they felt that the attendance of govt figures was a help or at least not disruptive? Personally I think that some outside presence is probably necessary if only to fully understand what the experts are saying but it shouldn't get to the point of politicising what should mainly be a medical/scientific process.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

And if Cummings or someone didn't attend the headline could be "Tories absent from crucial c19 SAGE meetings."

I'm much more interested in the views of those who attended. If they felt under any form of political pressure or interference that's one matter or maybe they felt that the attendance of govt figures was a help or at least not disruptive? Personally I think that some outside presence is probably necessary if only to fully understand what the experts are saying but it shouldn't get to the point of politicising what should mainly be a medical/scientific process.

Not really, it's supposed to be a committee of scientists. I doubt anyone cares what political leanings those scientists have, but no non-experts should have any input influence.

 

[woof woof]

Not really, it's supposed to be a committee of scientists. I doubt anyone cares what political leanings those scientists have, but no non-experts should have any input influence.

I did post that I wan't in favor of attendees politicising the process. I do think that there could well be a case for some political representative to be there to provide input if warranted and to make sure that what the experts are saying is understood and relayed to those making the final decisions and implementing measures. Scientists may be experts in their field but without outside involvement may recommend things which may for whatever reason not be possible.

If we ban all non scientists I can imagine a scenario in which the scientists produce a report which isn't understood or otherwise generates questions back and forth. Surely involvement of non scientist reps from govt or even ministers could be an advantage and save time? Obviously if there's political interference then that's a bad thing but surely the attendance of more departments is a good thing?

In my own experience the obvious example of outside people being necessary would be with product design and approval. The engineers can't be left to their own devices and can't just make something and pass it to sales to sell as they don't necessarily know what the market wants. They'll need to be given some input or brief from sales/marketing and the bean counters need to be involved to make sure the costings are real world. If no one was allowed to be a part of the process other than the expert engineers the project would very probably be a disaster as they'd make something very good, very expensive, late to market and wanted by no one.

That may not be a perfect analogy but I can see a need for non scientists being at SAGE meetings as long as it's a constructive presence and not just pushing a party line. To have only scientists present seems daft and a recipe for confusion and delay to me.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

That may not be a perfect analogy but I can see a need for non scientists being at SAGE meetings as long as it's a constructive presence and not just pushing a party line. To have only scientists present seems daft and a recipe for confusion and delay to me.

I think the point in the current situation is that there's never been political appointees involved in SAGE before now, and the minutes are supposed to be published as soon as they're available. The Govt have appointees there and are ignoring their own best practice and choosing not to publish the minutes.

Those two things combined make it look suspicious

I do get what you're saying in the first place, but SAGE's roll is just to provide the scientific evidence and they won't produce a single answer, they'll produce a range of scenarios and models based on certain approaches and then the Govt will choose which they follow (hence Prof Cox saying there's no such thing as "THE science"). SAGE don't make decisions and that decision making process can be political, it doesn't need any input into the science part of it as politics can't change any of the findings.

 

[Garry Edwards]

It doesn't to me.

Gowns and no doubt other things are needed and in short supply now and now we need them we find that everyone else does too and we'll all competing for the same limited supply. Having a UK based supply chain could ease that in future pandemics and I don't care if capacity is expensive and under used most of the time as if and when we need it it'll more than pay for itself in human terms.
.

The problem does exist, but it's nowhere near as bad as the government would have us think.

The main source of supply is China, they've had their own problems, partly because they needed PPE for themselves and partly because their lockdown cut production - Chinese factories rely heavily on migrant labour from distant provinces, the Covid 19 problem appeared when many of these workers had gone home for their annual holidays (Chinese New Year) and couldn't get back to work.

But that ended some time ago, factories have been at full production for some time now and of course are working very efficiently. They can easily cope with all demand, domestic and foreign, and can more than double production simply by running 24/7. which their factories are able and happy to do.

Costs have gone up because of the laws of supply and demand, but the increase is generally very small. Or at least, it's small when private buyers talk to them, but of course our government has left procurement to the British embassies, they employ loads of native Mandarin speakers and so there are no language problems, but there is a real culture problem and because they aren't business people they can end up paying far more than the amounts paid by business customers.

Air freight costs have increased, dramatically - about 40% - and very little can be done about this because of the reduced air traffic and the fact that demand greatly exceeds supply, but air only has to be used for emergency supplies. If we had ordered PPE in the right quantities and at the right time we would have brought it in by sea, avoiding the bottleneck and costs of air supply.

And of course it's worth pointing out that the Chinese are more than capable of providing the quality needed, they've been doing it for years. Stories about below standard goods aren't always false, but the large factories that have always manufactured PPE to the required standards have continued to do so.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

I did post that I wan't in favor of attendees politicising the process. I do think that there could well be a case for some political representative to be there to provide input if warranted and to make sure that what the experts are saying is understood and relayed to those making the final decisions and implementing measures. Scientists may be experts in their field but without outside involvement may recommend things which may for whatever reason not be possible.

If we ban all non scientists I can imagine a scenario in which the scientists produce a report which isn't understood or otherwise generates questions back and forth. Surely involvement of non scientist reps from govt or even ministers could be an advantage and save time? Obviously if there's political interference then that's a bad thing but surely the attendance of more departments is a good thing?

In my own experience the obvious example of outside people being necessary would be with product design and approval. The engineers can't be left to their own devices and can't just make something and pass it to sales to sell as they don't necessarily know what the market wants. They'll need to be given some input or brief from sales/marketing and the bean counters need to be involved to make sure the costings are real world. If no one was allowed to be a part of the process other than the expert engineers the project would very probably be a disaster as they'd make something very good, very expensive, late to market and wanted by no one.

That may not be a perfect analogy but I can see a need for non scientists being at SAGE meetings as long as it's a constructive presence and not just pushing a party line. To have only scientists present seems daft and a recipe for confusion and delay to me.

Seems the other attendees are also concerned: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tings-worried-by-presence-of-dominic-cummings

 

[munch]

After watching a few interviews on t.v with piers Morgan and numerous gov. Ministers .. I think the new go to phrase has got to be

Based on scientific evidence !

This has got to be the ultimate get out of jail free card expression ,and I think it will be used more and more frequently to cover ,lies. Mistruths , I haven’t got a clue , I’m spouting b******t ,etc etc

love it

Would you prefer our politicians to do what they feel is right, and ignore the scientists?

 

[arclight]

Also, there will be plenty of "lessons must be learnt" once the inevitable inquiry happens......

I just hope that the inevitable enquiry will be all embracing and not confined to the current problems that have bedevilled this country's attempts to deal with the pandemic.

Whilst all the relative ministers are ultimately responsible for departmental shortcomings it will be interesting to see what is exposed on the procurement aspect.

However, all that is for the future.

 

[woof woof]

There's been an interesting twist in the controversy surrounding the presence of Cummings at SAGE meetings. It's now being reported (by Bloomberg) that he "asked tough questions" and "swayed the discussion towards faster action."

Whilst some will no doubt always see his presence as a bad thing I could be persuaded towards the view sometimes experts need some external input and at least a degree of questioning and prodding.

If this is indeed true it'll be interesting to see if the sections of the political landscape and wider media who were screaming for faster government action will praise Cummings for his tough questions and sway towards faster action? I won't hold my breath

 

[woof woof]

I think the point in the current situation is that there's never been political appointees involved in SAGE before now, and the minutes are supposed to be published as soon as they're available. The Govt have appointees there and are ignoring their own best practice and choosing not to publish the minutes.

Those two things combined make it look suspicious

I do get what you're saying in the first place, but SAGE's roll is just to provide the scientific evidence and they won't produce a single answer, they'll produce a range of scenarios and models based on certain approaches and then the Govt will choose which they follow (hence Prof Cox saying there's no such thing as "THE science"). SAGE don't make decisions and that decision making process can be political, it doesn't need any input into the science part of it as politics can't change any of the findings.

This could well be a convenient get out for people who want to play political games as they can blame the government no matter what the scenario, It's the governments fault! They make the final decision! Easy peasy.

I wouldn't jump to that as I presume the experts will at least produce recommendations. Again from my own experience, I'd produce reports running in hundreds of pages including technical stuff that no one in the room would even pretend to understand. I used to go through every salient point but I'd also give them a summary which ran to at the most three or four pages including possible paths for them to take and possible decisions for them to make and the possible implications and ramifications. Yes the directors made the final decision but it was my party, they merely signed the invites and paid the bill. Who's to blame? Well, them obviously, they appointed me