Coronavirus - the political argument

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

If you want me to be really pedantic then here you are - in order to become the PM he had to be an MP.  In order to be an MP he had to be voted in by his constituents at an election.  Even before that stage, in order to stand as a candidate for that election he had to be voted in by the Conservative members of that constituency.

So he's been democratically elected by a majority at all stages, just to be even there to become the PM in the first place.

So stick that in your pipe!

We all know what I was talking about - Boris was seen to be the lesser of two evils by the electorate at the GE and the same in America with Trump over Hilary.

Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

Unfortunately.

(Probably why I'm non political and don't vote).

None of which alters the fact that you did say it! Just admit you didn't express yourself clearly and we can all move on.

Of course those are some of the words I wrote - they're there in black and white after all - but I set them in a context that your selective quoting has deliberately removed from it.

What I did say if you put it back into the context in which they were written was that Boris was only electable as PM to the people (rather than his party) because Corbyn was even less electable to them.

That's is why the first thing I replied to you when you decided to make something out of nothing was -

Sluffy wrote:
Nah, not what I said.

Have a nice day.

Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

wessy wrote:
I accept that that the UK voted for BJ, but not quite true in America Clinton received 2.86 million more individual votes than Trump, however the system they use in the States put the chump in the White House.

And that is exactly why I said this...

Sluffy wrote:Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

The system was exactly the same for both of them - Hilary 'could' have won with less votes too - no one had an unfair advantage.

At the end of the day the people spoke and we ended up with Trump, Brexit and Boris whether we as individuals wanted them or not - they all had an equal chance and the electorate had a free choice to vote for whoever/whatever they wanted.

All fair contests (in terms of the systems and rules) but not the results some of us (including myself) would have wished for.

Green Party are neither communist or ideologically socialist. So not sure what you mean.

xmiles wrote:Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

Yes I know what you've wrote but why would I want the last word - I'm certain not like some I know on social media?

I said what I said, you picked me up on something, then for whatever reason you chose not to accept my clarification and dig a bigger hole for yourself.

I put you straight and wished you a good day.

Not me insisting on anything?

I accepted that they both won by the system in place, not in question, was just pointing out that whilst in the UK The Consevatives won on all counts.

In America that was not the case he won by the rules and i acknowleding she new the rules and must abide by them, However the statistics show that HC recieved more individual votes, a fact that had no impact on the result, but still a fact.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Green Party are neither communist or ideologically socialist. So not sure what you mean.

EH???

I'm not saying the Green Party is either???

What I am saying is that a number of political party's are/have been driven by idealism.

I'm saying the Green Part is ideologically driven also - it seeks a world perfect world where man and nature is in balance (nothing wrong in having such a dream - wouldn't most of us wish for something like that?).

What I am saying is that idealism and reality doesn't often fit well together and gave examples of communism ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") and a socialist utopia sought in Venezuela ended up being unworkable and causing more harm than any good it ever achieved.

(I could have mention Nazism as well but thought it would be far too contentious with its Aryan ideology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race ).

At the end of the day any ideology has to pragmatically fit within the world we chose to live in - and some will never accept that - no matter what harm it may well end up causing.

The road to hell and all that I guess.

But yes, if I did have to vote and had a choice of Trump, Boris, Hilary, Brexit, Corbyn or being 'green', I'd go for the last one - but only doing so because I know they wouldn't win anyway because people have far bigger agendas for everyone of the others.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:Do you have teeth like shergar?

Do you have a face like Eric's bellend?

wessy wrote:I accepted that they both won by the system in place, not in question, was just pointing out that whilst in the UK The Consevatives won on all counts.

In America that was not the case he won by the rules and i acknowleding she new the rules and must abide by them, However the statistics show that HC recieved more individual votes, a fact that had no impact on the result, but still a fact.

Them are the rules though.

It didn't stop Labour forming the government in February 1974 when they won less votes than the Conservatives nor visa versa in 1951 when the reverse was true.

Fwiw Trump winning with less votes than his rival was the fifth time that had happened in America - Al Gore being the unlucky loser last time -

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

Another sort of own goal by the government (although I do have some sympathy if the intention was really to deal with lorry drivers etc coming in from France (and presumably just dropping there loads in quarantine zones and going back without otherwise getting out of their cabs?)

Posted at 19:13

France not exempt from UK quarantine - PM's spokesman

The UK has denied that travellers from France will be exempted from its planned quarantine measures.
Under the plans - announced last weekend - people arriving in the UK from abroad will be obliged to isolate themselves for 14 days.
Initially, the two governments said the exemption would apply to any travellers between France and the UK, and any future steps would be taken in a concerted and reciprocal manner.
The policy attracted criticism from other governments and the EU. Some experts suggested it would be unworkable.
But today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's spokesman said there was no French exemption, and that the original statement referred to co-operation to manage the common border.
It now appears that those exempted from the policy could include freight drivers - to allow the flow of goods to continue - and people working on Covid-19 research, but not ordinary travellers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52671694

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

Yes I know what you've wrote but why would I want the last word - I'm certain not like some I know on social media?

I said what I said, you picked me up on something, then for whatever reason you chose not to accept my clarification and dig a bigger hole for yourself.

I put you straight and wished you a good day.

Not me insisting on anything?

So there you go insisting on having the last word.

Sluffy wrote:Another sort of own goal by the government (although I do have some sympathy if the intention was really to deal with lorry drivers etc coming in from France (and presumably just dropping there loads in quarantine zones and going back without otherwise getting out of their cabs?)

Posted at 19:13

France not exempt from UK quarantine - PM's spokesman

The UK has denied that travellers from France will be exempted from its planned quarantine measures.
Under the plans - announced last weekend - people arriving in the UK from abroad will be obliged to isolate themselves for 14 days.
Initially, the two governments said the exemption would apply to any travellers between France and the UK, and any future steps would be taken in a concerted and reciprocal manner.
The policy attracted criticism from other governments and the EU. Some experts suggested it would be unworkable.
But today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's spokesman said there was no French exemption, and that the original statement referred to co-operation to manage the common border.
It now appears that those exempted from the policy could include freight drivers - to allow the flow of goods to continue - and people working on Covid-19 research, but not ordinary travellers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52671694

Or you could read the link I posted at 18.19.

This is the sort of political game playing we should be kicking off about. Journalism likes this pokes holes in crap policy making, anyone in the government putting their career before the crisis needs to be exposed so voters can get shot of them when the time comes.

U.K. Coronavirus Testers Pay Price for a Day of Triumph

‘leaked documents and interviews with doctors, lab directors and other experts show that the push to hit the April 30 deadline — and arguably salvage Mr. Hancock’s career — placed a huge strain on public laboratories and exposed other problems that are now slowing efforts to further expand coronavirus testing.

Days before the deadline, some hospitals in England were given 48 hours to rapidly expand testing to thousands of health care workers and patients, even though they were not exhibiting any symptoms of the virus, the documents show.

At the same time, public labs across the country raced through limited supplies of the chemical reagents needed to carry out a flood of tests after the government promised to replenish their supplies. Two weeks later, some labs still haven’t received the stocks they need, forcing some to reduce the number of new tests they can process, several lab managers said.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/world/europe/coronavirus-tests-uk.html

T.R.O.Y. wrote:This is the sort of political game playing we should be kicking off about. Journalism likes this pokes holes in crap policy making, anyone in the government putting their career before the crisis needs to be exposed so voters can get shot of them when the time comes.

U.K. Coronavirus Testers Pay Price for a Day of Triumph

‘leaked documents and interviews with doctors, lab directors and other experts show that the push to hit the April 30 deadline — and arguably salvage Mr. Hancock’s career — placed a huge strain on public laboratories and exposed other problems that are now slowing efforts to further expand coronavirus testing.

Days before the deadline, some hospitals in England were given 48 hours to rapidly expand testing to thousands of health care workers and patients, even though they were not exhibiting any symptoms of the virus, the documents show.

At the same time, public labs across the country raced through limited supplies of the chemical reagents needed to carry out a flood of tests after the government promised to replenish their supplies. Two weeks later, some labs still haven’t received the stocks they need, forcing some to reduce the number of new tests they can process, several lab managers said.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/world/europe/coronavirus-tests-uk.html

And they didn't even hit the target! Posting testing kits is not the same thing as testing.

But what do expect from a government led by a serial liar?

More unbelievable lies from Hancock as he insists that ministers had “tried to throw a protective ring around” care homes “right from the start” of the outbreak.

https://www.ft.com/content/6afb06d6-abd6-4281-ac16-74f500f096d0

xmiles wrote:More unbelievable lies from Hancock as he insists that ministers had “tried to throw a protective ring around” care homes “right from the start” of the outbreak.

https://www.ft.com/content/6afb06d6-abd6-4281-ac16-74f500f096d0

The clue is in his name really. 

Last time I heard it was just over 11,000 deaths in care homes?

Absolutely disgusting.

I can't see either of the articles as I deny third party trackers from links I don't often use or subscribe to.

However the text you posted of the first article says increased testing leads to lack of chemical reagents - well we knew that even before all this, as that was the problem why little testing wasn't being done in the first place - and led to the journalism 'scrutiny' of the 'scandal' of so little testing being carried out being put in the public domain and the 'political' pressure/demand to do something about it 'immediately'!

As the government hasn't got a magic wand to wave it was forced into giving the only answer that would 'fob' things off until they could source the reagents from abroad (in competition with everybody else across the world) by 'fudging' their reply to set a target they presumably/hopefully thought they'd reach at a later date - namely the 100,000 target.

We all now know how that ended.

Would the public had been better off not knowing and let testing increase and be priority targeted as and when stocks were secured than having such a meaningless and ongoing media shit storm and hoo-ha in the sense the government couldn't test without the chemical reagents and they obviously were trying to manage and prioritise what stocks they had whilst seeking restocking from abroad - as they simple couldn't do anything else?

I would say they would - ignorance is bliss at times - and why create a situation that can't be resolved in the short term and was obviously being sorted as best as it could as quickly as it could (unless of course your point of view is that the government were deliberately wanting people to die through lack of testing and through limiting what stocks they had for front line staff only and did not intend to test anyone else ever?)

I did warn at the very start that political games/media 'scrutiny' lead to bad and unnecessary situations at times like this and clearly this is a direct manifestation of this with a 'storm' being created over lack of testing in the 'here and now', even though no one could do anything about it at the time, and false promises/wishful targets being set (and 'politically' had to be seen to met') to buy themselves a bit more time and to 'calm' the 'storm' for then,

Also to underline that really this is a non story is the fact that the article is from an American paper.  If it was a big issue over here don't you thing our papers would have the same article splashed over their papers too?

As for the FT story I'm sure the bottom line will end up being care homes were simply the second priority on the list and remained so until the NHS was secured and until it had, all resources were sent to them and there simply wasn't surplus for those in the care homes.

What else could have been done?

There was only a finite amount of resources to hand when this thing hit and given the stark choice of the NHS collapsing or the care home system they, they prioritised the NHS - which anyone given the same situation would have done.

Care home coronavirus deaths are around 11,000 I guess (this said 9,700 from a few days ago - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52631604 ) but a number of these people would have died within the year through underlying conditions and as such total deaths in care homes will fall under the national average in the coming months - only then the net difference between the two will show the actual deaths resulting from the virus.

It is also worth pointing out that deaths in hospital not resulting from Corona-19 have significantly dropped and that is because hospitals have stopped admissions of terminally ill patients from care homes whilst they have been dealing with the pandemic.

It is what it is unfortunately.

There was only so much stocks and systems in place when the virus struck and there simply wasn't enough to satisfy everybody's needs and demands.

Stocks couldn't be magically conjured up out of thin air and not everybody was going to be saved from this.

Unless you are of the view that the government deliberately set out to 'kill' people, then the only thing to be done is to prioritise where the best use of stocks could be made for the benefit of the population and acquire sufficient stocks for future need as quickly as they could in the face of world demand for the same goods.

It would have been helpful if they could have gone about this as best they could but that was never going to happen and as such unnecessary posturing and political point scoring ensued (by both sides - I've never limited it to just one side - but it is cause and effect - ie 'not enough tests' ok '100,000 tests by the end of the month' type thing).

Unfortunately this virus was always going to kill people and the government clearly (and rightly) prioritised the NHS over anything else - namely the care homes.

A future inquiry when all this is done and dusted will determine how good/bad a job was done.

Hope you all watched Charlie Brooker's Anti-viral wipe last Thursday.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j4bl/charlie-brookers-antiviral-wipe

okocha wrote:Hope you all watched Charlie Brooker's Anti-viral wipe last Thursday.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000j4bl/charlie-brookers-antiviral-wipe

Ye caught up on that last night. Very good, a horror show for the government though as you see their (lack of) response play out.

Sluffy wrote:I can't see either of the articles as I deny third party trackers from links I don't often use or subscribe to.

However the text you posted of the first article says increased testing leads to lack of chemical reagents - well we knew that even before all this, as that was the problem why little testing wasn't being done in the first place - and led to the journalism 'scrutiny' of the 'scandal' of so little testing being carried out being put in the public domain and the 'political' pressure/demand to do something about it 'immediately'!

As the government hasn't got a magic wand to wave it was forced into giving the only answer that would 'fob' things off until they could source the reagents from abroad (in competition with everybody else across the world) by 'fudging' their reply to set a target they presumably/hopefully thought they'd reach at a later date - namely the 100,000 target.

We all now know how that ended.

Would the public had been better off not knowing and let testing increase and be priority targeted as and when stocks were secured than having such a meaningless and ongoing media shit storm and hoo-ha in the sense the government couldn't test without the chemical reagents and they obviously were trying to manage and prioritise what stocks they had whilst seeking restocking from abroad - as they simple couldn't do anything else?

I would say they would - ignorance is bliss at times - and why create a situation that can't be resolved in the short term and was obviously being sorted as best as it could as quickly as it could (unless of course your point of view is that the government were deliberately wanting people to die through lack of testing and through limiting what stocks they had for front line staff only and did not intend to test anyone else ever?)

I did warn at the very start that political games/media 'scrutiny' lead to bad and unnecessary situations at times like this and clearly this is a direct manifestation of this with a 'storm' being created over lack of testing in the 'here and now', even though no one could do anything about it at the time, and false promises/wishful targets being set (and 'politically' had to be seen to met') to buy themselves a bit more time and to 'calm' the 'storm' for then,

Also to underline that really this is a non story is the fact that the article is from an American paper.  If it was a big issue over here don't you thing our papers would have the same article splashed over their papers too?

As for the FT story I'm sure the bottom line will end up being care homes were simply the second priority on the list and remained so until the NHS was secured and until it had, all resources were sent to them and there simply wasn't surplus for those in the care homes.

What else could have been done?

There was only a finite amount of resources to hand when this thing hit and given the stark choice of the NHS collapsing or the care home system they, they prioritised the NHS - which anyone given the same situation would have done.

Care home coronavirus deaths are around 11,000 I guess (this said 9,700 from a few days ago - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52631604 ) but a number of these people would have died within the year through underlying conditions and as such total deaths in care homes will fall under the national average in the coming months - only then the net difference between the two will show the actual deaths resulting from the virus.

It is also worth pointing out that deaths in hospital not resulting from Corona-19 have significantly dropped and that is because hospitals have stopped admissions of terminally ill patients from care homes whilst they have been dealing with the pandemic.

It is what it is unfortunately.

There was only so much stocks and systems in place when the virus struck and there simply wasn't enough to satisfy everybody's needs and demands.

Stocks couldn't be magically conjured up out of thin air and not everybody was going to be saved from this.

Unless you are of the view that the government deliberately set out to 'kill' people, then the only thing to be done is to prioritise where the best use of stocks could be made for the benefit of the population and acquire sufficient stocks for future need as quickly as they could in the face of world demand for the same goods.

It would have been helpful if they could have gone about this as best they could but that was never going to happen and as such unnecessary posturing and political point scoring ensued (by both sides - I've never limited it to just one side - but it is cause and effect - ie 'not enough tests' ok '100,000 tests by the end of the month' type thing).

Unfortunately this virus was always going to kill people and the government clearly (and rightly) prioritised the NHS over anything else - namely the care homes.

A future inquiry when all this is done and dusted will determine how good/bad a job was done.

Nobody is pretending that there were enough resources to do everything that needed to be done and hard choices clearly had to be made. What is unacceptable is the government lying rather than telling the truth. Nobody forced Hancock to come up with a target of 100,000 and he then chose to lie about hitting this target. Equally it is a lie to say that the government ministers had tried to put a protective ring around care homes right from the start of the outbreak. Why say it if it is not true?

I certainly hope there is an impartial inquiry after the crisis is over to consider how well or badly the government coped. However as far as I am aware the government has not even agreed in principle to this.

Sluffy wrote:

wessy wrote:I accepted that they both won by the system in place, not in question, was just pointing out that whilst in the UK The Consevatives won on all counts.

In America that was not the case he won by the rules and i acknowleding she new the rules and must abide by them, However the statistics show that HC recieved more individual votes, a fact that had no impact on the result, but still a fact.

Them are the rules though.

It didn't stop Labour forming the government in February 1974 when they won less votes than the Conservatives nor visa versa in 1951 when the reverse was true.

Fwiw Trump winning with less votes than his rival was the fifth time that had happened in America - Al Gore being the unlucky loser last time -

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

Yep no problem with any of that , other than Gore was more than unlucky he was up against Bush's brother in Florida and the floating chad. Not bent at all lol