[Politics] Dominic Cummings v H&SC and S&T select committees *Official Match Thread*

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

one of the worst and weirdest things about this government is their lack of communication. even when they do something they dont say so. there is surge testing and vaccinations, advise for local areas. we may not think thats sufficient, it is something of a plan, things are happening on the ground. so its odd they dont mention it. its as if if they dont give an answer or information they cant be challenged on it.

They may not know about it. As has been pointed out, others are in charge of what's happening on the ground, and the likes of Handincock are primarily 'leading' on policy. Think of him as like General Douglas Haig, back in his tent, issuing directives, albeit taking at least a week to respond to changes in circumstances. Working incredibly hard. What a guy

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I really have no idea what your comment means!

[MENTION=617]Jim D[/MENTION] is referring to a video from a film about the last days of Hitler that has been repurposed countless times with subtitles to mock people or events where the boss finally realises there is no plan. There are numerous versions on youtube. Perhaps someone will post a link.

 

[Randy McNob]

Everyone? Really?

It may come as a surprise to you, but there's a whole load of people - some very clever and some otherwise - who still believe that there should not have been any lockdowns whatsoever.

One of them, David Paton, still retains this view as he expressed just yesterday during the Cummings Show...

[tweet]1397491066685829123[/tweet]

A Stanford University study suggests lockdown benefits are very marginal:

While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.​

(Note: these are not my views, but I think it's a big stretch to suggest everyone thinks we should have locked down earlier, when there is a considerable number of people who don't think lockdowns work at all. And all of these competing voices must have made it ridiculously difficult for governments of all persuasions and competencies to try and come up with a best approach)

Really? Well since these debates tend to be right wing blowhards v facts, here's some facts...

The fair comparison is of a country who took a liberal approach, Sweden, and similar neighbouring countries who locked down. I think the article and graph say it all

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21240381/coronavirus-sweden-death-rate-cases-new-york

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Really? Well since these debates tend to be right wing blowhards v facts, here's some facts...

The fair comparison is of a country who took a liberal approach, Sweden, and similar neighbouring countries who locked down. I think the article and graph say it all

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21240381/coronavirus-sweden-death-rate-cases-new-york

View attachment 137132

From a quick search it seems that the Swedish Government is formed from a coalition of the Social Democrats and the Greens. So turns out this isn’t right wing/left wing after all. That’s a fact isn’t it ? Albeit a bit inconvenient.

 

[blue-shifted]

Really? Well since these debates tend to be right wing blowhards v facts, here's some facts...

The fair comparison is of a country who took a liberal approach, Sweden, and similar neighbouring countries who locked down. I think the article and graph say it all

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21240381/coronavirus-sweden-death-rate-cases-new-york

View attachment 137132

And it's funny that on the feed of every lockdown agitant on twitter, there's alarmist tweets about immigration, anti BBC, anti "woke" and just about every other right wing trope you can think of.

Incredible to me that after all this time, after all these deaths there are some still advocating we shouldn't have locked down and there are still those stupid enough to repeat it.

 

[A1X]

@<u><a href="http://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/member.php?u=617" target="_blank">Jim D</a></u> is referring to a video from a film about the last days of Hitler that has been repurposed countless times with subtitles to mock people or events where the boss finally realises there is no plan. There are numerous versions on youtube. Perhaps someone will post a link.

 

[schmunk]

[MENTION=617]Jim D[/MENTION] is referring to a video from a film about the last days of Hitler that has been repurposed countless times with subtitles to mock people or events where the boss finally realises there is no plan. There are numerous versions on youtube. Perhaps someone will post a link.

The film is called Downfall, but the right wing dribble on this thread is Durchfall.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Everyone? Really?

It may come as a surprise to you, but there's a whole load of people - some very clever and some otherwise - who still believe that there should not have been any lockdowns whatsoever.

One of them, David Paton, still retains this view as he expressed just yesterday during the Cummings Show...

[tweet]1397491066685829123[/tweet]

A Stanford University study suggests lockdown benefits are very marginal:

While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less-restrictive interventions.​

I see that you’re trying to introduce an element of academic authenticity to your claim that ‘not everyone agrees’ with lockdowns but I realise that you’re essentially playing Devil’s advocate here.

Do you have anything better than the views of an outspoken economist or a paper arguing for ‘less-restrictive’ lockdowns rather than no lockdowns? The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that lockdowns work. A comparison would be climate change where you’ll find some studies or academics questioning the affect (if any) mankind has but the general academic view is that there is a man made problem here. There will always be outliers and you’ve managed to find a couple, I just don’t see the relevance?

It’s obvious that the lockdowns were crude, clumsy and poorly targeted but in defence of the scientists & governments who recommended or enacted them, there was no other way of countering the virus’s and saving lives unless they already had a detailed pandemic plan like some of the countries in south east Asia.

It’s also obvious that Mr Johnson has been fighting lockdowns ever since February last year resulting in thousands and thousands of lives lost needlessly. Not because he thinks people should be free to come and go as they please, but rather, because he believes that he should be free to come and go as he pleases.

If the body start piling up with the Indian variant (and these will surely be younger people but on a lesser scale than we seen before), how big will the pile have to be before the PM eventually gives in to lockdown 3?

 

[Deleted member 2719]

I see that you’re trying to introduce an element of academic authenticity to your claim that ‘not everyone agrees’ with lockdowns but I realise that you’re essentially playing Devil’s advocate here.

Do you have anything better than the views of an outspoken economist or a paper arguing for ‘less-restrictive’ lockdowns rather than no lockdowns? The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that lockdowns work. A comparison would be climate change where you’ll find some studies or academics questioning the affect (if any) mankind has but the general academic view is that there is a man made problem here. There will always be outliers and you’ve managed to find a couple, I just don’t see the relevance?

It’s obvious that the lockdowns were crude, clumsy and poorly targeted but in defence of the scientists & governments who recommended or enacted them, there was no other way of countering the virus’s and saving lives unless they already had a detailed pandemic plan like some of the countries in south east Asia.

It’s also obvious that Mr Johnson has been fighting lockdowns ever since February last year resulting in thousands and thousands of lives lost needlessly. Not because he thinks people should be free to come and go as they please, but rather, because he believes that he should be free to come and go as he pleases.

If the body start piling up with the Indian variant (and these will surely be younger people but on a lesser scale than we seen before), how big will the pile have to be before the PM eventually gives in to lockdown 3?

Love your whataboutery.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

 

[blue-shifted]

I see that you’re trying to introduce an element of academic authenticity to your claim that ‘not everyone agrees’ with lockdowns but I realise that you’re essentially playing Devil’s advocate here.

Do you have anything better than the views of an outspoken economist or a paper arguing for ‘less-restrictive’ lockdowns rather than no lockdowns? The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that lockdowns work. A comparison would be climate change where you’ll find some studies or academics questioning the affect (if any) mankind has but the general academic view is that there is a man made problem here. There will always be outliers and you’ve managed to find a couple, I just don’t see the relevance?

It’s obvious that the lockdowns were crude, clumsy and poorly targeted but in defence of the scientists & governments who recommended or enacted them, there was no other way of countering the virus’s and saving lives unless they already had a detailed pandemic plan like some of the countries in south east Asia.

It’s also obvious that Mr Johnson has been fighting lockdowns ever since February last year resulting in thousands and thousands of lives lost needlessly. Not because he thinks people should be free to come and go as they please, but rather, because he believes that he should be free to come and go as he pleases.

If the body start piling up with the Indian variant (and these will surely be younger people but on a lesser scale than we seen before), how big will the pile have to be before the PM eventually gives in to lockdown 3?

A very generous interpretation

 

[Chicken Run]

I see that you’re trying to introduce an element of academic authenticity to your claim that ‘not everyone agrees’ with lockdowns but I realise that you’re essentially playing Devil’s advocate here.

Do you have anything better than the views of an outspoken economist or a paper arguing for ‘less-restrictive’ lockdowns rather than no lockdowns? The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that lockdowns work. A comparison would be climate change where you’ll find some studies or academics questioning the affect (if any) mankind has but the general academic view is that there is a man made problem here. There will always be outliers and you’ve managed to find a couple, I just don’t see the relevance?

It’s obvious that the lockdowns were crude, clumsy and poorly targeted but in defence of the scientists & governments who recommended or enacted them, there was no other way of countering the virus’s and saving lives unless they already had a detailed pandemic plan like some of the countries in south east Asia.

It’s also obvious that Mr Johnson has been fighting lockdowns ever since February last year resulting in thousands and thousands of lives lost needlessly. Not because he thinks people should be free to come and go as they please, but rather, because he believes that he should be free to come and go as he pleases.

If the body start piling up with the Indian variant (and these will surely be younger people but on a lesser scale than we seen before), how big will the pile have to be before the PM eventually gives in to lockdown 3?

Do you genuinely think “the bodies are going to start piling up” as a rest of the Indian variant, is that what your saying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bozza]

Really? Well since these debates tend to be right wing blowhards v facts, here's some facts...

The fair comparison is of a country who took a liberal approach, Sweden, and similar neighbouring countries who locked down. I think the article and graph say it all

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21240381/coronavirus-sweden-death-rate-cases-new-york

1. All I was doing is countering your statement that "it's clear we should have locked down earlier, everyone agrees" because, simply, not everyone does agree. For the record I DO agree. From my layman's position, it seems to make sense that if a virus spreads when people are close together, then getting people to spend time apart will help reduce spread, illness, hospitalisations and deaths.

But regardless of what I think and, again, I'm a mere layman, I'm well aware that there are a lot of people who think differently which is why I would not claim that my own view on this is shared by everyone.

2. Picking just one country and comparing it against one other is never going to conclusively prove anything at all. However, for the record, if you delve into the depths of the Covid forum you will find many posts from me stating that the Swedish approach was very much NOT the way to do things. These posts were in response to others amongst the NSC community who believed lockdowns were wrong and Sweden validated their viewpoint.

I see that you’re trying to introduce an element of academic authenticity to your claim that ‘not everyone agrees’ with lockdowns but I realise that you’re essentially playing Devil’s advocate here.

Do you have anything better than the views of an outspoken economist or a paper arguing for ‘less-restrictive’ lockdowns rather than no lockdowns? The overwhelming consensus in the academic world is that lockdowns work. A comparison would be climate change where you’ll find some studies or academics questioning the affect (if any) mankind has but the general academic view is that there is a man made problem here. There will always be outliers and you’ve managed to find a couple, I just don’t see the relevance?

It’s obvious that the lockdowns were crude, clumsy and poorly targeted but in defence of the scientists & governments who recommended or enacted them, there was no other way of countering the virus’s and saving lives unless they already had a detailed pandemic plan like some of the countries in south east Asia.

It’s also obvious that Mr Johnson has been fighting lockdowns ever since February last year resulting in thousands and thousands of lives lost needlessly. Not because he thinks people should be free to come and go as they please, but rather, because he believes that he should be free to come and go as he pleases.

If the body start piling up with the Indian variant (and these will surely be younger people but on a lesser scale than we seen before), how big will the pile have to be before the PM eventually gives in to lockdown 3?

I've made my point above. As you say, a devil's advocate position of sorts. I've long stated my dismay at Johnson being the leader of our country, a sentiment that remains to this day.

A very generous interpretation

I'll pick up on this though: what the **** is that supposed to mean?

 

[Giraffe]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Government was totally unprepared for this, I do feel it is hard to blame the current Government for this. I don't believe any Government in this country or other countries have been prepared for this. That's the problem.

I therefore think those that voted this Government in on a large majority will vote for them based on their record beyond Covid, as to judge what they did is very much Johnny hindsight. It is also important to highlight the other issues at play here. I'm personally shocked and surprised by the frankly MASSIVE amounts of money the GOvernment put into saving jobs. A truly eye watering amount, far beyond what I would expected initially. Had labour done this I suspect we would all have said there is no way would do this. They have to be given credit for that. The fact that elected MPs are not experts on dealing with a pandemic, the like of which we haven't seen in our lifetime or for 100 years, should not really come as a surprise to anyone.

If you look back at various crises I am sure all Governments struggle with the unknown from world wars to new terrorism threats. Every disaster comes with its own challenge and this one in particular is a total minefield. Could they have done better, of course. And maybe next time (lets hope there isn't one) they would do better. But would anyone else have done better, I doubt it. And I feel that is how they will be judged by enough people. When people come to vote next time it will be about their record on recovering the economy and nothing else.

 

[Glawstergull]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Government was totally unprepared for this, I do feel it is hard to blame the current Government for this. I don't believe any Government in this country or other countries have been prepared for this. That's the problem.

I therefore think those that voted this Government in on a large majority will vote for them based on their record beyond Covid, as to judge what they did is very much Johnny hindsight. It is also important to highlight the other issues at play here. I'm personally shocked and surprised by the frankly MASSIVE amounts of money the GOvernment put into saving jobs. A truly eye watering amount, far beyond what I would expected initially. Had labour done this I suspect we would all have said there is no way would do this. They have to be given credit for that. The fact that elected MPs are not experts on dealing with a pandemic, the like of which we haven't seen in our lifetime or for 100 years, should not really come as a surprise to anyone.

If you look back at various crises I am sure all Governments struggle with the unknown from world wars to new terrorism threats. Every disaster comes with its own challenge and this one in particular is a total minefield. Could they have done better, of course. And maybe next time (lets hope there isn't one) they would do better. But would anyone else have done better, I doubt it. And I feel that is how they will be judged by enough people. When people come to vote next time it will be about their record on recovering the economy and nothing else.

I concur with the Honourable gentleman.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Do you genuinely think “the bodies are going to start piling up” as a result of the Indian variant, is that what your saying?

Honestly, I think we’ve got it beaten in terms of the numbers of people who will die. The problem I see with the Indian variant is the types of people who could die. If it’s allowed to rip through the population, it’ll be younger people who catch and spread it and ultimately younger people who die of infection rates reach the numbers they have previously (under tougher restrictions). Even a single vaccine jab does not give you much over a 30% efficacy against this new strain.

Do we want to see 10 or 20 young people (under 40s) dying per day in this Country because the Indian variant has been allowed to run free? Is that the price of freedom? I’m 100% certain that most young people won’t be fully protected by a vaccine come June 21st, I’d prefer it if they were before we start the parties.

 

[TugWilson]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Government was totally unprepared for this, I do feel it is hard to blame the current Government for this. I don't believe any Government in this country or other countries have been prepared for this. That's the problem.

I therefore think those that voted this Government in on a large majority will vote for them based on their record beyond Covid, as to judge what they did is very much Johnny hindsight. It is also important to highlight the other issues at play here. I'm personally shocked and surprised by the frankly MASSIVE amounts of money the GOvernment put into saving jobs. A truly eye watering amount, far beyond what I would expected initially. Had labour done this I suspect we would all have said there is no way would do this. They have to be given credit for that. The fact that elected MPs are not experts on dealing with a pandemic, the like of which we haven't seen in our lifetime or for 100 years, should not really come as a surprise to anyone.

If you look back at various crises I am sure all Governments struggle with the unknown from world wars to new terrorism threats. Every disaster comes with its own challenge and this one in particular is a total minefield. Could they have done better, of course. And maybe next time (lets hope there isn't one) they would do better. But would anyone else have done better, I doubt it. And I feel that is how they will be judged by enough people. When people come to vote next time it will be about their record on recovering the economy and nothing else.

Bloody brilliant post , just exactly how is anyone supposed to know how to cope completely with a situation never faced before by anyone anywhere within a modern highly populated very transient world ? .
Only the most stupid of individuals would be so completely arrogant as to claim full and absolute insight after the event . Taken as a whole i would say we were damned lucky to have someone who not only acted as best as anyone could have , but who actually learnt from any mistakes and acted to correct them . All the while getting us out of the utter shambles which is the EU , and we were miles ahead of all the other 27 member states because we didn`t have to jump through their hoops . In fact while they were trying to score political points against the UK their own people were suffering and dying because it was more important to them to spread lies about the AZ vaccine than save their own citizens , you still think they are better than us on our own ? .

 

[blue-shifted]

1. All I was doing is countering your statement that "it's clear we should have locked down earlier, everyone agrees" because, simply, not everyone does agree. For the record I DO agree. From my layman's position, it seems to make sense that if a virus spreads when people are close together, then getting people to spend time apart will help reduce spread, illness, hospitalisations and deaths.

But regardless of what I think and, again, I'm a mere layman, I'm well aware that there are a lot of people who think differently which is why I would not claim that my own view on this is shared by everyone.

2. Picking just one country and comparing it against one other is never going to conclusively prove anything at all. However, for the record, if you delve into the depths of the Covid forum you will find many posts from me stating that the Swedish approach was very much NOT the way to do things. These posts were in response to others amongst the NSC community who believed lockdowns were wrong and Sweden validated their viewpoint.



I've made my point above. As you say, a devil's advocate position of sorts. I've long stated my dismay at Johnson being the leader of our country, a sentiment that remains to this day.



I'll pick up on this though: what the **** is that supposed to mean?

Pretty obviously that you weren't playing devil's advocate at all with your previous post

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Billy the Fish]

Honestly, I think we’ve got it beaten in terms of the numbers of people who will die. The problem I see with the Indian variant is the types of people who could die. If it’s allowed to rip through the population, it’ll be younger people who catch and spread it and ultimately younger people who die of infection rates reach the numbers they have previously (under tougher restrictions). Even a single vaccine jab does not give you much over a 30% efficacy against this new strain.

Do we want to see 10 or 20 young people (under 40s) dying per day in this Country because the Indian variant has been allowed to run free? Is that the price of freedom? I’m 100% certain that most young people won’t be fully protected by a vaccine come June 21st, I’d prefer it if they were before we start the parties.

Where's the evidence that younger people are more likely to die from this variant?

The numbers from India are not comparable for a number of reasons.

 

[dadams2k11]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Government was totally unprepared for this, I do feel it is hard to blame the current Government for this. I don't believe any Government in this country or other countries have been prepared for this. That's the problem.

I therefore think those that voted this Government in on a large majority will vote for them based on their record beyond Covid, as to judge what they did is very much Johnny hindsight. It is also important to highlight the other issues at play here. I'm personally shocked and surprised by the frankly MASSIVE amounts of money the GOvernment put into saving jobs. A truly eye watering amount, far beyond what I would expected initially. Had labour done this I suspect we would all have said there is no way would do this. They have to be given credit for that. The fact that elected MPs are not experts on dealing with a pandemic, the like of which we haven't seen in our lifetime or for 100 years, should not really come as a surprise to anyone.

If you look back at various crises I am sure all Governments struggle with the unknown from world wars to new terrorism threats. Every disaster comes with its own challenge and this one in particular is a total minefield. Could they have done better, of course. And maybe next time (lets hope there isn't one) they would do better. But would anyone else have done better, I doubt it. And I feel that is how they will be judged by enough people. When people come to vote next time it will be about their record on recovering the economy and nothing else.

I thought there was a review of the NHS back in 2015 to see how it would cope if there was a pandemic?

I think I saw it in this from Sky news.

https://youtu.be/W3sisz6FA6A

Edit: It was 2016, From 36:20 mins in of the above video.

 

[drew]

Whilst I acknowledge that the Government was totally unprepared for this, I do feel it is hard to blame the current Government for this. I don't believe any Government in this country or other countries have been prepared for this. That's the problem.

I therefore think those that voted this Government in on a large majority will vote for them based on their record beyond Covid, as to judge what they did is very much Johnny hindsight. It is also important to highlight the other issues at play here. I'm personally shocked and surprised by the frankly MASSIVE amounts of money the GOvernment put into saving jobs. A truly eye watering amount, far beyond what I would expected initially. Had labour done this I suspect we would all have said there is no way would do this. They have to be given credit for that. The fact that elected MPs are not experts on dealing with a pandemic, the like of which we haven't seen in our lifetime or for 100 years, should not really come as a surprise to anyone.

If you look back at various crises I am sure all Governments struggle with the unknown from world wars to new terrorism threats. Every disaster comes with its own challenge and this one in particular is a total minefield. Could they have done better, of course. And maybe next time (lets hope there isn't one) they would do better. But would anyone else have done better, I doubt it. And I feel that is how they will be judged by enough people. When people come to vote next time it will be about their record on recovering the economy and nothing else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Cygnus

Think you're being too generous. Part of being in charge is disaster planning.