Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Coronavirus - the political argument

Coronavirus - the political argument

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 ... 21  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 21]

91Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:58 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@Sluffy wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Agree with most of what you say there Sluffy, particularly around the selective quoting.

Side point being that what you’ve attributed as Labour’s Brexit policy is not even close to being factual (welcome to hold that view as your own if you’d like of course) - but let’s not get into Brexit now!

Seemed to me that Labour should have been at the forefront of the Remain campaign and was conspicuous by there absence and particularly that of their leader Corbyn - who was clearly not a pro-European.

Although most didn't believe 'Leave' would win it did lead to all sorts of political games thereafter certainly didn't contribute to Labour working towards a unified and orderly process for Brexit - presumably hoping for May/the Conservatives to not achieve the most optimum deal possible.

I could only conclude from that, that Corbyn/Momentum's strategy was for a 'bad' deal to be struck and consequently lead to voters turning to Labour at the next GE on the basis that the Conservatives had handled the situation 'badly'.

Hence the parallel I was alluding to in respect of dealing with the current situation.

All water under the bridge now though.

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

My point was that they clearly didn't campaign strongly to 'Remain' in the referendum and once the country voted Brexit, they didn't actively contribute much if anything to obtain the best deal possible.

Almost if they wanted Brexit under the government/May/Conservatives to be seen to have been badly enacted and leaving them to be swept back into power AFTER Brexit had been delivered.

I've not suggested Labour campaigned to overturn Brexit once the referendum decision was made.

As I say it doesn't matter now.

92Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:15 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Cross party collaboration was shut down by May until the very last minute so not sure what they could have contributed.

93Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:18 pm

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@okocha wrote: NHS staff still do not have the protective equipment they need to treat coronavirus patients, medics have said.


The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors were putting their lives at risk by working without adequate protection.


Personal protective equipment (PPE) in London and Yorkshire are at "dangerously low levels", according to the BMA.


Dr Chaand Nagpaul, BMA council chair, said doctors were being forced into a corner and faced "heart-breaking decisions" over whether to carry on without proper protection.
He said: "This is an immensely difficult position to be in, but is ultimately down to the government's chronic failure to supply us with the proper equipment."


The row over PPE has been growing ever more intense in recent days, as doctors become increasingly frustrated that they are not getting the supplies they feel they need.


Doctors working in close contact with Covid-19 patients should have at the very least a surgical face mask, disposable apron, disposable gloves and eye protection.


The BMA issued a snapshot survey of almost 2,000 responses on Tuesday. It said it showed more than half of doctors working in high-risk environments reporting either shortages, or no supply at all of adequate face masks, while 65% said they did not have access to eye protection. The figures were even higher among GPs in contact with Covid-19 patients.


The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has dismissed any suggestion that healthcare staff have been overusing PPE.


RCN chief executive Dame Donna Kinnair told the BBC no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker's life, a nurse's life, a doctor's life".


"I take offence actually that we are saying that healthcare workers are abusing or overusing PPE," she told BBC Breakfast, adding that nurses were still telling her they did not have adequate supply of protective equipment.

Okocha, this is a forum where people give their opinions. If I wanted to read the news I'd visit the BBC website.
I prefer to leave this subject open to discussion and debate on here.

You suggest that this forum is for people to give their opinions, yet, oddly, you do not take the opportunity to start the ball rolling.

 We've had enough recently of people not taking their own advice, have we not?

94Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:30 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

It states the fact, let alone suggests it.

The reason for that though is simple enough - and why I posted the second table - namely that Germany (EUR351,701m) and France (EUR257,194m) skew the average because of their vast spending compared to all other country's spend bar us.

In fact the second table shows our expenditure per head of population being higher than the EU average and in terms of both tables we spend more than both Italy and Spain do on their inhabitants

What the tables show is that despite everything we spend the third much on healthcare than any other country and almost as much as Spain and Italy combined do.

The mantra that ten years of austerity has ruined the NHS doesn't seem to be supported as such in comparison as to what the majority other EU country's were doing as per this report.

Of course we could have spent more on healthcare but so to we could spend more on everything else too.

At my age and condition I would love the NHS to have had more funding in the last ten years but what has been spent seems to be reasonable and inline with all the other EU country's according to the figures in 2016.





95Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:33 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

96Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 2:44 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Cross party collaboration was shut down by May until the very last minute so not sure what they could have contributed.

I don't recall Labour putting up a viable alternative to the government at the time?

In fact wasn't Labour undergoing it's usual internal battles under Corbyn/Momentum?

Fwiw It was a pity Cameron played needless internal politics to even have the referendum in the first place and equally the Labour had Corbyn heading the opposition since then.

Both as bad as each other to me and why I tend to keep out of politics the best I can.

Fwiw when I was required to study politics the very first lesson given to us, on the very first day was this.

There are only two rules in politics.

1 - To achieve power.
2 - To then remain in power.

It stood me in good stead ever since.

97Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 3:11 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

We are actually spending MORE on healthcare on average - see table two.

We could spend more, yes.

But what should we cut expenditure on instead to do this, education, welfare, the state pension, transport, environment, police - where???

I apologise for my inability to format the table below but these are the actual government expenditure for 2017/18 and can be viewed more clearly here -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

What it does show is that Health accounts for 20% of all expenditure and second only to welfare (24%).

If you were to add in the next two areas of expenditure - State Pensions (13%) and Education (12%) then over two thirds of all government expenditure is accounted for on just those four areas already.

Easy to say any government should spend more money but it is all about a balancing act between needs and the publics willingness to fund them from taxation or build up debt for our children and grandchildren to shoulder the burden of.

Tax summary description
Description of PESA source (See PESA Table 5.2)
Public Sector Expenditure (£bn)
%
Welfare
‘Social Protection’ excluding state pensions
174.4
23.8%

Health
Health
145.8
19.9%

State Pensions
Within ‘Social Protection’ 1
93.8
12.8%

Education
Education
87.8
12.0%

National Debt Interest
Within General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
44.5
6.1%

Defence
Defence
38.7
5.3%

Public Order & Safety
Public Order & Safety
31.6
4.3%

Transport
Economic Affairs, without Business and Industry but shown in more detail in table 5.2
31.2
4.3%

Business & Industry
Economic Affairs, without Transport
21.4
2.9%

Government Administration
Captured under General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
15.2
2.1%

Environment
Environment protection
11.4
1.6%

Culture (e.g. sports, libraries, museums)
Recreation, Culture & Religion
11.8
1.6%

Housing and utilities (e.g. street lights)
Housing & Community Amenities
12.1
1.6%

Overseas Aid
Captured under General Public Services, but shown in more detail in table 5.2
8.6
1.2%

UK Contributions to EU budget
EU Transactions
5.4
0.7%

98Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 3:20 pm

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

That is an amazing misuse of statistics. The overwhelming majority of Labour party members and voters were remain supporters. This was demonstrated repeatedly in numerous surveys and opinion polls. It was Corbyn and Momemtum that was out of step with grass roots Labour views.

99Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:01 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka

@Sluffy wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sorry if I’m missing something, but doesn’t your post suggest we’re spending less than the EU average on healthcare?

It states the fact, let alone suggests it.


@Sluffy wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Saying we spend less than average on healthcare is a really weak way of refuting that we’re underspending on healthcare.

We are actually spending MORE on healthcare on average - see table two.


Sorry, the above confused me - following you now.

If you're looking at comparative spends, you should be looking at similarly sized economies - such as Germany and France, and we spend less per head than either of them.

In answer to your question of how to fund it, we should increase taxes and the size of the budget not cut from elsewhere. More recent polls suggest the majority would be willing to pay more in tax to fund the NHS.

All of this has of course gone out the window now with Coronavirus and the economy is going to look completely different.

100Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:02 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
@xmiles wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

That is an amazing misuse of statistics. The overwhelming majority of Labour party members and voters were remain supporters. This was demonstrated repeatedly in numerous surveys and opinion polls. It was Corbyn and Momemtum that was out of step with grass roots Labour views.

If i'd said the majority of labour members had voted leave and quoted that statistic as evidence, that would have been a misuse of statistics - what I've said is actually completely accurate as to the source of information (I can't post links, but google the full fact article as per my op if you want to take a look).

101Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:04 pm

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:
@xmiles wrote:
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:

148 labour seats probably voted leave vs 84 to remain - there’s a full fact link explaining this I’m sure you’ll find on google once you read this. Campaigning to overturn a democratic decision taken by the country doesn’t strike me as a vote winner, so more likely (in my opinion) this was the line they went down. Of course you may be right and it was something more underhand than that.

That is an amazing misuse of statistics. The overwhelming majority of Labour party members and voters were remain supporters. This was demonstrated repeatedly in numerous surveys and opinion polls. It was Corbyn and Momemtum that was out of step with grass roots Labour views.

If i'd said the majority of labour members had voted leave and quoted that statistic as evidence, that would have been a misuse of statistics - what I've said is actually completely accurate as to the source of information (I can't post links, but google the full fact article as per my op if you want to take a look).


I am not saying that what you said is incorrect. However using this statistic gives the misleading impression that Labour voters supported leave which is very far from the truth.

102Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:43 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
There are 580,000 Labour members, 10,000,000 voted Labour at the last election. I’d say using members only data to reflect Labour voters views is misusing statistics.

103Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 7:01 pm

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:There are 580,000 Labour members, 10,000,000 voted Labour at the last election. I’d say using members only data to reflect Labour voters views is misusing statistics.

I actually said "Labour voters" not Labour party members. So you are deliberately misquoting me. There is plenty of evidence that Labour voters overwhelmingly supported remain. Here is just one example:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWz77G-ODoAhW_URUIHeB3DuoQFjAFegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fyougov.co.uk%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2016%2F06%2F27%2Fhow-britain-voted&usg=AOvVaw266rNW_gQsa65pM_iGNAEU

104Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 7:39 pm

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
You actually said both but apologies if I’ve misunderstood you, it certainly wasn’t intentional.

105Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 7:40 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:If you're looking at comparative spends, you should be looking at similarly sized economies - such as Germany and France, and we spend less per head than either of them.

Germany's economy is around a trillion dollars bigger than us, so they aren't similar size to us at all.

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/

https://www.businessinsider.in/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/articleshow/70547252.cms

France is around 10% less than us, Italy about 20% less.

I guess you can make statistics prove anything but based simply on those three country's Italy's spend per head on population IS around 20% less than us (2016 figures) whilst France is actually about 20% MORE than ours.

So if anything UK and Italy ARE in line with each other with France being significantly out of line.  So it would seem France is the anomaly by spending more on healthcare rather than the UK and Italy who are consistent to each other.

@T.R.O.Y. wrote:In answer to your question of how to fund it, we should increase taxes and the size of the budget not cut from elsewhere. More recent polls suggest the majority would be willing to pay more in tax to fund the NHS.

Pledging and paying up is not always the same thing.

Forgive me if you already know this but raising taxes leads to higher wage demands which in turn leads to higher prices for goods and services, which in turn leads to being less competitive in sales.

The world economy strategy since monetarism became mainstream at the end of 1970's is for low taxation and low prices for goods and services. Certainly Labour who up to that point had a history of raising taxation when in power, reverted to keeping taxes as low as they could in order to continue the stimulation of economic growth (and also to remain electable at the next GE it faced).

Clearly as per your last sentence above it would seem that once the virus is defeated most if not all economies will need central intervention to kick start/stimulate growth and recover back the many trillions of dollars/pounds/Euros/etc coronavirus has cost them - this obviously can't be done by the raising taxation - which would take money out of the economy.

Maybe it's time again for the Keynesian economic model that stimulated the world's economy after WWII, where basically governments plough vast fortunes into public infrastructure and services, to create jobs, to employ people, who earn a wage, who spend it on goods and services, which create more jobs, more employment, more wages and more demand.

I doubt the world will bounce back exactly to how it was before the virus came along.

My own daughter for instance has already planned a trip to go to LA, Vegas and NY for later on this year and thinks I'm well negative in saying that won't be happening this side of a vaccine and the various governments bailing out their country's airlines - and everything else, first!

The bliss of ignorance about such things though.

106Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sat Apr 11, 2020 7:55 pm

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:You actually said both but apologies if I’ve misunderstood you, it certainly wasn’t intentional.

OK.

107Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 10:26 am

T.R.O.Y.


Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka
Had to remove the URLs from this as im a new member

Doing the rounds on Twitter this morning. It's long but worth a read for those interested - particularly on the media's response (from @laiyneydoyle on Twitter):

I don't understand the British media. I really, really don't.

Basic things: Ireland and the UK started this pandemic with roughly the same number of ICU beds (6.5 per 100,000 for Ireland, 6.6 per 100,000 in the UK).

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 EVXGVdjWoAEr6VK

If anything, the UK was slightly better off.

As of today, there have been 320 deaths from the coronavirus in Ireland, and 9,875 deaths in the UK.

Ok, ok, but the UK has a ginormous population, right? Especially compared to Ireland.

So we adjust per capita - how many deaths per 100,000 people?
As of Saturday 11 April, there have been 6.5 deaths per 100,000 people in Ireland.

There have been 14.81 deaths per 100,000 people in the UK.

Guys, people have been dying at more than *twice the rate* in the UK.
You'd think, given the long *handwaves towards a complicated mess*... shared history... between the two regions, that this would be a massive news story, right?

I mean, it'd be a huge angle for the UK media, surely?

*crickets*

That the UK's closest neighbour, with almost the *exact* same starting line in terms of its health system, is having a wildly different outcome?

Not saying Ireland's a paragon of virtue! Loads to discuss & critique & make better!

And.
Nothing. At least, not much that I can see.
But wait, it's worse!

Because if you compare the per capita death rate between Ireland and *England*, rather than the UK as a whole, England has almost *2.5* times the number of deaths as Ireland (14.81 deaths per 100,000 vs 6.5 deaths per 100,000)
So you have two English-speaking countries, with close cultural and historical associations, both with underfunded health systems, & comparable levels of ICU beds (almost half the EU average) going into the pandemic.

But England has more than 2.5 times the deaths? Why?
If you're arguing over whether Boris & Co's 'herd immunity' policy (& the resulting delay in lockdown) had any effect on death rates - here's your angle, lads.

You have a real-time A/B test happening *right in front of you*.

Because Ireland closed down earlier. Much earlier.
While Boris was telling the British people to wash their hands, our Taoiseach was closing the schools.

While Cheltenham was going ahead, and over 250,000 people were gathering in what would have been a massive super-spreader event, Ireland had *cancelled St Patrick's Day*.
In Ireland, we watch a lot of British media and news, and let me tell you, it was like living in bizarro-world.

Because our Irish TV news was filled with very direct, serious pronouncements about what was coming. But when we switched to the British TV channels... *crickets*.
Particularly vivid for the weekend before Paddy's Day.

Rolling restrictions in Ireland, so no groups > 100, but pubs not yet closed. Video emerged of people singing in a pub in Temple Bar => public outcry, #shutthepubs trended, Health Minister comments, voluntary closure ensued.
Again, take a beat. There was a public outcry to close the pubs *the weekend before St Patrick's Day*.

The seriousness of the situation was very, very clear in Ireland, and there was massive public buy-in.
That same weekend, this was happening in Cardiff:


HYC
@HYC63257976
Lets blame China - UK version
Mar 16th# confirmed case 1372 # UK-Cardiff -Motorpoint Arena - Stereophonics

Embedded video
46
1:48 PM - Apr 5, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
25 people are talking about this
I remember watching that video being posted on Twitter that Saturday night, and feeling sick to my stomach. How many people were being infected, at that very moment, singing along to the Stereophonics? It was such a huge crowd.
I assume there were people in Cardiff who felt the same way I did. But the difference was: I was supported by my government. You weren't.

And that cost lives.
The Stereophonics gig was on the 14 March. Median 5-7 days to get sick, and let's allow another 14 days to get seriously ill. The people infected at the Stereophonics gig were in hospital last week.

The people *they* infected will start dying next week.
Pandemics roll along exponential curves. The NYT (using @brittajewell's calculations) showed it beautifully here:
The Exponential Power of Now
The explosive spread of coronavirus can be turned to our advantage, two infectious disease experts argue: “But only if we intervene early. That means now.”

NYT link i can't post

.@brittajewell used US figures, & showed that if you started to stay home *this week* (March 13, at the time of publication), you could prevent 2400 infections. But if you started to home *next week* instead, you prevented 600 infections.
It's weird, right? Exponential curves are really counter-intuitive. When they go up, they go up FAST. Timing matters, a lot.

By staying home *this week* rather than *next week*, one person could prevent an extra 1800 infections. One person!
And as @jkottke pointed out, assuming a 1% death rate, that's 18 lives saved.

18 lives saved, by the choices of one person to stay home for the week starting 13 March, rather than the following week.
That Stereophonics gig? Was on 14 March.
I'm not singling them out, honestly I'm not. They're a great band, I really like them! I'm not tagging them, because what use would that do?

And I'll say again: those figures were based on US infection numbers at that point, with 30% growth rate per day. It's not the UK.

And.
In a pandemic, every day counts. Every *hour* counts. And the UK government wasted two whole weeks.

Which weeks?
Ireland cancelled Paddy's Day on 9 March, initiating a series of rolling, controlled restrictions, from school closures & large group bans (12 March), to closure of non-essential businesses & social distancing, to full lockdown.

It was precise, clearly communicated, controlled.
The UK closed their schools on 20 March, a full week after we closed ours.

Full lockdown came to the UK on 23 March.
And while there was some muddied, confused advice in the UK between times (avoid non-essential travel from 16 March? don't go to the pub, but then again, they're still open, so maybe do?) - there was an abrupt about-turn, after the Imperial College report came out.
The comparisons aren't neat between the two countries, because the processes (and nomenclature) were different.

Technically, the UK went into lockdown *before* Ireland; but that's not a fair comparison, as we were already operating our 'Delay Phase' from 12-27 March.
But I would argue the crucial difference lies in that two-week period: from 9 March, when we cancelled Paddy's Day, to 23 March, when the UK govt finally (and abruptly) wheeled about, and went into lockdown.

Two weeks.
And because the UK government delayed, distorted and distracted for those two weeks, the UK people ended up on the wrong part of an exponential curve, when lockdown started.

And now, the UK has over twice the number of deaths per capita than Ireland.
But wait, it's worse!

HOW how HOW can it be worse.

Because: testing.
Because the UK figures only include deaths, in hospitals, from people who had already been tested positive for COVID-19.

That sentence has a whole pile of clauses and commas, doesn't it? Let's break it down.
It means that a person could die *in a UK hospital* of the coronavirus; and all their doctors could agree that yes, they definitely died of coronavirus; and their *death cert* says that yes, they did, in fact, die of coronavirus -

... and they wouldn't be included in UK figures
Because they weren't tested.

And you have to have a positive test, before death, to be counted in the UK deaths.
The UK isn't testing nearly as much as it needs to.

And Ireland is testing a *lot* more. We have a drive-through testing centre in the sacred sporting grounds of Croke Park - think turning Wembley Station into a testing centre, and you get somewhere close.
Ireland is still building its testing capacity, but we've been explicitly following the South Korean model of test, test, test (and contact trace). And we're using our time in lockdown to build our testing network.
The aim is to have 15,000 tests per day, or 105,000 tests per week - that is, testing 2% of the population a week.

15,000 tests is about 7 months of flu testing for Ireland – and we're planning this, every day, for months and months.
We're not there! We had to grab Germany for a dig-out, we fell so far behind! There's loads of teething problems! Like I said at the top of the thread: I'm not saying that Ireland is a paragon of virtue here.

And: we ARE building this testing network.
And to date, Ireland has performed 8.69 tests per 1,000 people.
To understand the global pandemic, we need global testing – the Our World in Data COVID-19 Testing dataset
Without testing for COVID-19 we cannot know how many people are infected with the disease. And without this data we cannot know what is happening. That is why we are bringing together the available d…
-- Data link --

The UK has performed 4 tests per 1,000 people.
To understand the global pandemic, we need global testing – the Our World in Data COVID-19 Testing dataset
Without testing for COVID-19 we cannot know how many people are infected with the disease. And without this data we cannot know what is happening. That is why we are bringing together the available d…
-- link

So: to my UK friends, let's lay it out there.

You're testing at half the rate that Ireland is, and your loved ones, your family, your friends are dying over twice as fast.
And that's still a wild underestimate of how bad things are, because your low testing rates are artificially depressing your death figures; whereas Ireland's high testing rate is (comparatively) inflating ours (or, more fairly, accurately recording them in our figures).
I say this not in some kind of coronavirus Olympics. I say this with a knot in my stomach.

I lived for long periods of time in the UK, and I have loved ones still living there, people whose safety I'm desperately afraid for.

I say this because: you are being failed.
Failed by your government, and failed by your media.

Failed, by news reports that (correctly!) talk about how horrific the death toll is in NYC, while eliding the horrors of nearly 1000 people dying in a single day at home.
Failed, because it didn't have to be like this.
Failed, because there are lessons and exchanges to be found here, but in those 2 weeks when so much could have been done, your media didn't pay any heed to what was happening beside it.

Because your media didn't report on the contrast between Boris' choices and ours.
Failed, because your media STILL isn't reporting on the contrasts in death rates between us, and why that might be the case.
Failed, because in this long-standing, complicated, skewed relationship between us, we can see you clearly, and you seem to barely see us at all.

And it breaks my heart.
But there's still time.

Time to flatten your curve. Time to build testing. Time to develop a robust contact tracing system.

Time to *use* your lockdown as it should be used, while we do the same.

Time to be our partners in this, as we all must be, in a globalised pandemic.
The best time to plant an oak tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.

The best time to stop this pandemic was last January. The second-best time is now.
And while we're working this ground together, remember that over the fence, in your neighbouring allotment, we're tackling the same tasks as you. It might be worth taking a peek over the fence sometime, to see what we can share.

108Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 11:09 am

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Statistics can be used to prove anything.

I can't find the tweet to link to as the only name you've posted to search for doesn't seem to exist?

@laiyneydoyle

This account doesn’t exist

Try searching for another.

https://twitter.com/laiyneydoyle

109Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:01 pm

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
I gave up after the third paragraph.

People should be banned from "cut & paste" posts.

110Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:23 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Natasha Whittam wrote:I gave up after the third paragraph.

People should be banned from "cut & paste" posts.
I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

111Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:29 pm

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.

112Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:33 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Natasha Whittam wrote:
@boltonbonce wrote:I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".

Very true.

If you spammed every thread with slipper chat you'd be looking at a ban.
I can't get out so I'm wearing slippers all day. They're beginning to bore me. I've tried wearing them on the wrong feet, but I'm not getting the required buzz. 
Back to my sneakers I think.

113Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:46 pm

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@boltonbonce wrote:
@Natasha Whittam wrote:I gave up after the third paragraph.

People should be banned from "cut & paste" posts.
I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".
How ungrateful of you, Boncey. Didn't you know that Dale 'Superman' Vince is the backbone of the NHS, the guardian angel of football and the unsung saviour of the planet? Why don't you want to hear about him?

Putting aside any politics, Lainey Doyle has amassed an array of powerful points that are deserving of serious attention and comment.

From a very different source, these comments landed in my in-tray this morning:

The current coronavirus crisis has highlighted the hard work and dedication of many front line staff who rightly deserve praise. They are doing a fantastic job and everyone at the TaxPayers' Alliance thanks them for their efforts.

At a higher level, the pandemic has shone a light on serious problems with the quangocracy, particularly Public Health England (PHE). There has been a noticeable unwillingness by this bloated agency - financed to the tune of £4.5 billion of taxpayers' money ever year - to involve private industry in preventing shortages of vital medical equipment.

Very high paid nanny state employees have been caught sleeping on the job. For too long they've focused on lecturing the public about what to eat and drink. At the same time, PHE has failed to heed the warnings from previous outbreaks such as SARS and Avian flu.

114Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 12:56 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Quangocracy. 78 points in scrabble. In the UK version at least.

115Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:11 pm

Ten Bobsworth


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Meanwhile I'm also indebted to the Taxpayers Alliance for informing me today that:

'scientists from Stirling university have been awarded £400,000 of taxpayers' cash to investigate why football fans get drunk'.

116Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:26 pm

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Carry on camping has just started on itv3...

117Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:35 pm

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@karlypants wrote:Carry on camping has just started on itv3...
Cockroaches have 18 knees!

118Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:52 pm

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@boltonbonce wrote:
@karlypants wrote:Carry on camping has just started on itv3...
Cockroaches have 18 knees!

Very Happy

119Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 2:19 pm

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
@boltonbonce wrote:
@Natasha Whittam wrote:I gave up after the third paragraph.

People should be banned from "cut & paste" posts.
I was happy enough not seeing the words 'Dale' or 'Vince".
How ungrateful of you, Boncey. Didn't you know that Dale 'Superman' Vince is the backbone of the NHS, the guardian angel of football and the unsung saviour of the planet? Why don't you want to hear about him?

Putting aside any politics, Lainey Doyle has amassed an array of powerful points that are deserving of serious attention and comment.

From a very different source, these comments landed in my in-tray this morning:

The current coronavirus crisis has highlighted the hard work and dedication of many front line staff who rightly deserve praise. They are doing a fantastic job and everyone at the TaxPayers' Alliance thanks them for their efforts.

At a higher level, the pandemic has shone a light on serious problems with the quangocracy, particularly Public Health England (PHE). There has been a noticeable unwillingness by this bloated agency - financed to the tune of £4.5 billion of taxpayers' money ever year - to involve private industry in preventing shortages of vital medical equipment.

Very high paid nanny state employees have been caught sleeping on the job. For too long they've focused on lecturing the public about what to eat and drink. At the same time, PHE has failed to heed the warnings from previous outbreaks such as SARS and Avian flu.

Ah yes the Taxpayers Alliance: a secretive organisation funded by right wing Americans and rich Tory party donors which (like Farage) wants to move towards an "insurance-based model of healthcare".

120Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 4 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument on Sun Apr 12, 2020 3:12 pm

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Have found it now.

The author is not 'authenticated' in anyway - just a twitter poster like you or me, posting their own opinions.

Twitter bollocks if you ask me, mere personal interpretation based on partial information on what she believes as gone on and why it has.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing the say.

Anyway -

Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 21]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 ... 21  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum