Do You Agree With Labour Calls For Transparancy?

[youngmafbog]

On Sky just now with the shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds, so no link, labour are calling for more facts and figures on the decisions being mad.

I totally agree with labour. The Government cannot just continue with the 'we and the so called experts' know better so we are not going to give you the exact reason we came to our actions.

Sir Kiers opportunity to shine here I think. I am sure I am not the only one to question the current Governments actions.

[dannyk13]

FF, I believe Diane Abbott is no longer a member of the shadow cabinet.

[gulliver1]

I think it is an excellent Idea to have " Sir Keir " Sit in on the Cabinet Meetings, at least we would get sensible and truthful answers , Because he would not be gagged by the Treacherous Tories

[dannyk13]

Gulliver, Keir Starmer has enough on his plate at the moment with hos on party.
https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1703219.html

[fiction-factory]

Yes, one more multi millionaire in the cabinet room- he'd be at home. It would help the Tories more than Labour though.

I'd be interested to see a list of the sorts of facts and figures they think we are not getting.

[Ellipsis]

> Now is not the time for party politics or point scoring. Labour under Corbyn would have been diabolically shambolic

Hey, not fair, I was drinking hot coffee when I read that.

[AuntPollyGrey]

I would like transparency for the following:
Deaths where patient have died WITH C 19
Deaths where patients have died OF C19
Figures taken from the last quarter for non C19 related deaths (excluding accidental deaths)averaged out weekly
Total number of weekly deaths including non C19 related deaths to make a comparison and perhaps get things into perspective a bit more,
This way we may be able to see just how many deaths that would have occurred naturally anyway, have been recorded as C19 deaths

[Prudie]

I'd certainly like a clearer distinction on what people are dying of. It's my perception (which could be entirely wrong) that masses of people are dying of Covid but on the brighter side the daily death rate from non-covid causes has halved (loose estimation). How come?

[fiction-factory]

Chris Witty talks about that- the difference between the usual underlying death rate and the actual rates. You can see that from the ONS statistics if you want to plough through them . I'm sure there is a website somewhere where Covid sceptics have analysed this data. Or you could ask the media to ask the question in the briefings.
There is easy answer to the died with/died of- all we can do is look at overall deaths compared to the norm. But that's distorted by the fact that RTA deaths and flu deaths will have fallen due to lockdown and social distancing/shielding.
I think we could all tie ourselves in knows with the data, however good we are with numbers, and all figures could be interpreted in different ways

[Ken4155]

I didn't see the Channel 4 interview but i did see Kier Starmer interviewed on BBC a few days back and, from what YMF says, his message was similar. A lack of transparency could lead to a lack of trust in the Government. And, in this particular moment in time, we really do need to trust our leaders implicitly. Rather than trying to rock anyone's boat, it sounded to me as if he were just making a valid point.

[fiction-factory]

^tie ourselves in KNOTS (not 'knows')

[Ken4155]

Soz, I meant the 'Sky' interview.

[grumpy01]

Perhaps we should ask Paul Gambaccini if Keir Starmer should be involved in anything.I'm pretty sure of the answer.

[woofgang]

What else do you want to know?

[vulcan42]

If you were told everything,
How would you know it was the complete truth?
What difference would it make to you?
Who else should make the decisions if it's not the experts
on contagious diseases?

[jim360]

Supporting the government doesn't mean giving a rubber stamp to everything it does. It means helping it to fix any mistakes you think it's making.

Here's an OP from someone who is very much not Labour, has been on Johnson's side for years, and *still* criticism is interpreted as "petty politics". Unbelievable.

[jim360]

Meanwhile. the ONS figures for provisional total deaths, week ending April 3rd, were released, and it doesn't make for pretty reading. Background deaths a shade over 10,000/week at this time of year. Actual deaths, 16,000.

[woofgang]

APG I think that Jim has answered several of your points about usual death rates in one go. Usual 10,000 ish first week of April, this year 16,000 ish. yes there will be slight adjustments due to potentially less RTA's and industrial deaths but that will raise the difference and not lower it. The died with/died of discussion has happened on several threads on here. Reporting lag has been pointed out quite clearly several times in the briefings, also the deaths in hospital reporting is the same measure as used in other countries in order to validate comparison.
So what else?

[jno]

///Now is not the time for party politics or point scoring. Labour under Corbyn would have been diabolically shambolic///

nice little U-turn there.

[jim360]

Returning to the OP, I clearly agree with calls for transparency, but it's also important to acknowledge that the government is hampered by the inevitable delays in reporting of some deaths. Referring to the stats from earlier (link at the end of this post), one thing I've picked up on is that deaths registered by a given date -- deaths the Government could be said to be aware of -- appear to be significantly lower than deaths that actually occurred by that date. There's always going to be some level of lag between what the Government says has happened and what has *actually* happened. I think the Government has tried to be clear about this, and this is therefore not a criticism, but calls for transparency have to be tempered by the fact that we're all operating with incomplete information.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales

[jim360]

Still, the main point I want to make is that "supporting the Government" needs must include finding mistakes it makes. We have to get our approach to this right. That means criticising when appropriate to do so, not for the sake of politics but for the sake of avoiding mistakes. Full support includes constructive criticism, and, as far as I can see, that's the spirit in which calls for transparency are meant.