Body & Soul1 min ago
Time For Boris And Hancock To Go?
86 Answers
This is getting ridiculous now. Chopping changing rules here rules there but never anything done when left wing protests happen. Who won the election, was it Jezza after all?
The other day Rishi hands out cash to try to get people to go out. Compulsory face-masks (far too late now so clearly just a Government control thing) will put many off going out - it could well be the end of the high street.
So for me Boris needs to go along with Hancock. Let Rishi step up to the plate.
https:/
The other day Rishi hands out cash to try to get people to go out. Compulsory face-masks (far too late now so clearly just a Government control thing) will put many off going out - it could well be the end of the high street.
So for me Boris needs to go along with Hancock. Let Rishi step up to the plate.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Johnson is saying that, as far as I am concerned, to cover his own indecision. Scientifically speaking, nothing can possibly have changed in terms of evidence since last week/Gove's appearance on the Andrew Marr show. This is political, not scientific.
I'm not complaining about the mandatory policy on mask-wearing, I hasten to add. What bothers me is the utter chaos surrounding the making of that policy.
I'm not complaining about the mandatory policy on mask-wearing, I hasten to add. What bothers me is the utter chaos surrounding the making of that policy.
I can hardly prove a hypothetical wrong, but what intrigues me about that last post is that you are, in effect, holding me to a higher standard than you do the Government. It's the Government's job to make decisions, ideally guided by scientific advice; but if the evidence on the effectiveness of wearing masks is inconclusive, or at least difficult to quantify -- which it is -- then the Government can hardly be expected to wait until it *is* definitive. That may take months or years, requiring potentially long-term studies of communities that wear/don't wear masks but are otherwise identical in their behaviours, etc etc. As a matter of good science, strictly speaking, there would never be a conclusion reached on a policy like this.
So the Government has to be decisive. It has to lead. That is its job. It is manifestly failing to do so, if it dithers over something like this.
As a separate point, suppose that the health benefits of masks were demonstrated. What are the economic consequences? We've heard here that some people would refuse to shop if they were obliged to wear masks, but perhaps other people would feel more comfortable shopping with them than without. Do these two effects balance out? If not, which is more dominant? I cannot take seriously the suggestion that the answers to these questions are definitively known. Again, the Government has to reach a decision over which side to back *before* the full picture is understood. That does indeed risk getting things wrong -- and, perhaps, risk them being blamed by me for rushing, although I can't see why they should care about my opinion anyway. But the Government can't hide behind scientific and economic uncertainty in order to protect itself from inaction and incompetence.
So the Government has to be decisive. It has to lead. That is its job. It is manifestly failing to do so, if it dithers over something like this.
As a separate point, suppose that the health benefits of masks were demonstrated. What are the economic consequences? We've heard here that some people would refuse to shop if they were obliged to wear masks, but perhaps other people would feel more comfortable shopping with them than without. Do these two effects balance out? If not, which is more dominant? I cannot take seriously the suggestion that the answers to these questions are definitively known. Again, the Government has to reach a decision over which side to back *before* the full picture is understood. That does indeed risk getting things wrong -- and, perhaps, risk them being blamed by me for rushing, although I can't see why they should care about my opinion anyway. But the Government can't hide behind scientific and economic uncertainty in order to protect itself from inaction and incompetence.
I share youngmafbog's frustration with the preoccupation over facecoverings/masks but unlike him I find the discussion of who should hold the office of Prime Minister feature a similar level of irrelevance. I disagree with others that nobody could do better - there are places which have done far better, but all of them are abroad. I am baffled by the tendency toward resignation - that this is as good as it gets in spite of what is achieved elsewhere. Let's not ask the hard questions.
Elsewhere it has been established that residents (nationals and/or settled foreigners) returning from abroad pose by far the worst risk due to the high level of interaction at close quarters with the resident population, generally tourists have not infected locals there (only very rarely and in exceptional circumstances). From the beginning testing has been the key together with tracing of contacts. Another interesting discovery is that young children hardly ever infect adults or their peers but adults have infected children, which underpinned the decision elsewhere not to close primary schools and/or pre-school facilities. As for the question of whether Covid should have been left to run its course to the same extent as other recent pandemics, would the resulting far worse outcome have been acceptable/justifiable ?
Surely the main question is what is to be done to constrain the ongoing crisis and to do that lessons need to be learned. From whom do we learn ? Why not from those who have demonstrated how to handle the situation (copy-paste) - in my view anything else is irresponsible at best and at worst it is criminal. Is there really no prospect of the UK getting a grip ?
Elsewhere it has been established that residents (nationals and/or settled foreigners) returning from abroad pose by far the worst risk due to the high level of interaction at close quarters with the resident population, generally tourists have not infected locals there (only very rarely and in exceptional circumstances). From the beginning testing has been the key together with tracing of contacts. Another interesting discovery is that young children hardly ever infect adults or their peers but adults have infected children, which underpinned the decision elsewhere not to close primary schools and/or pre-school facilities. As for the question of whether Covid should have been left to run its course to the same extent as other recent pandemics, would the resulting far worse outcome have been acceptable/justifiable ?
Surely the main question is what is to be done to constrain the ongoing crisis and to do that lessons need to be learned. From whom do we learn ? Why not from those who have demonstrated how to handle the situation (copy-paste) - in my view anything else is irresponsible at best and at worst it is criminal. Is there really no prospect of the UK getting a grip ?
// The 1968 pandemic killed around 4 million people worldwide (the Covid toll so far is 576,000). //
I've made this point before but NJ is comparing Apples to Oranges in trying to make this point. The 1968 pandemic killed an *estimated* 1-4 million worldwide across a period of 18 months, meaning that (a) NJ has picked the upper bound of deaths, (b) ignored the increased time period, and (c) ignored the fact that the 1968 pandemic's toll is an estimated mortality, rather than a confirmed mortality. By comparison, the Covid-19 toll is from about six months (1/3 of the time), based only (or at least mainly) on confirmed cases and confirmed Covid-19-related deaths, and doesn't have some range since it is a literal count of known deaths.
It is difficult at the moment to find an estimate of the 1968-style death toll of Covid-19, most obviously because the pandemic is still ongoing, but it is reasonable to assume based on various sources tracking excess mortality that the total so far is something close to half as many deaths again, giving an estimated death toll in the region of 750,000-1,000,000. Since the disease is still spreading, and killing, this total will only grow still further.
I've made this point before but NJ is comparing Apples to Oranges in trying to make this point. The 1968 pandemic killed an *estimated* 1-4 million worldwide across a period of 18 months, meaning that (a) NJ has picked the upper bound of deaths, (b) ignored the increased time period, and (c) ignored the fact that the 1968 pandemic's toll is an estimated mortality, rather than a confirmed mortality. By comparison, the Covid-19 toll is from about six months (1/3 of the time), based only (or at least mainly) on confirmed cases and confirmed Covid-19-related deaths, and doesn't have some range since it is a literal count of known deaths.
It is difficult at the moment to find an estimate of the 1968-style death toll of Covid-19, most obviously because the pandemic is still ongoing, but it is reasonable to assume based on various sources tracking excess mortality that the total so far is something close to half as many deaths again, giving an estimated death toll in the region of 750,000-1,000,000. Since the disease is still spreading, and killing, this total will only grow still further.
//...and (c) ignored the fact that the 1968 pandemic's toll is an estimated mortality, rather than a confirmed mortality.//
So is Covid. I know two people who have died with Covid on their death certificates and so are counted among the UK's 44k. Neither of them displayed any symptoms; neither of them had been tested. I doubt the two I know of are the only ones. The UK's death toll is not those who definitely died of the virus and is probably little more reliable than the 1968 figures. Then of course there is the "of" vs "with" argument.
So is Covid. I know two people who have died with Covid on their death certificates and so are counted among the UK's 44k. Neither of them displayed any symptoms; neither of them had been tested. I doubt the two I know of are the only ones. The UK's death toll is not those who definitely died of the virus and is probably little more reliable than the 1968 figures. Then of course there is the "of" vs "with" argument.
That's no answer, NJ, as it remains a different measure. Granted it is possible that the official number of Covid-19 deaths is mistaken for one reason or another, but then again the same is true for every disease, so in this regard why is Covid-19 the only disease for which that question is ever raised? Except, of course, in an attempt to minimise, or dismiss altogether, its impact, despite the evidence of massive spikes in mortality in those countries who have been worst-affected so far.
Even if, then, the official death toll is inaccurate, it is still a completely different measure from the one you are abusing in the 1968 flu. It is a clear and blatant misuse of figures, for the reasons I have highlighted and many others.
Even if, then, the official death toll is inaccurate, it is still a completely different measure from the one you are abusing in the 1968 flu. It is a clear and blatant misuse of figures, for the reasons I have highlighted and many others.
// Let Rishi step up to the plate. //
Sunak’s stock is seriously over valued. All he has done so far is borrow an eye-watering amount of money and haphazardly dished it out to all and sundry.
We won’t see any value from most of the largess, but we will feel the pain of having to pay it back for the next 15 years.
Sunak’s stock is seriously over valued. All he has done so far is borrow an eye-watering amount of money and haphazardly dished it out to all and sundry.
We won’t see any value from most of the largess, but we will feel the pain of having to pay it back for the next 15 years.
gulliver1
Magic Money is in theory limitless and won’trun out.
The Government planned to borrow £55bn this year, but Sunak has already borrowed £350bn. (For the first time since the early 1960s, the size of government debt will exceed the size of the UK economy).
It’s funny that the same people who bemoaned Gordon Brown spending out of the last World crisis are actively supporting Sunak, for doing exactly the same (with knobs on).
Magic Money is in theory limitless and won’trun out.
The Government planned to borrow £55bn this year, but Sunak has already borrowed £350bn. (For the first time since the early 1960s, the size of government debt will exceed the size of the UK economy).
It’s funny that the same people who bemoaned Gordon Brown spending out of the last World crisis are actively supporting Sunak, for doing exactly the same (with knobs on).
