The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
I think (think) it came to light during Chris Whitty's (?) evidence that the then Chancellor (one R Sunak) initiated the "Eat Out to Help Out" scheme without consulation with "the science" - this seems particularly irresponsibleTheBigBean said:
Eat Out to Help Out was widely supported by Cake Stop experts. I'm also not sure it made much difference. It was done in the public interest though which was trying to restore a sector of the economy. Of course, you can argue it was against another public interest.Pross said:
Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.TheBigBean said:
Such as?Pross said:
Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.kingstongraham said:
To a degree, sure, but to what end?rick_chasey said:Documenting on record what actually happened.
Wilier Izoard XP0 -
.TheBigBean said:
Eat Out to Help Out was widely supported by Cake Stop experts....Pross said:
Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.TheBigBean said:
Such as?Pross said:
Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.kingstongraham said:
To a degree, sure, but to what end?rick_chasey said:Documenting on record what actually happened.
This was my take.
.pblakeney said:In a similar vein, I’ve just spent a holiday refund on a fancy new BBQ. May be our best option for eating out this summer.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I agree with most of what you say, but I think it misses that there were multiple sciences putting forward proposals (e.g. behavioural psychologists) as well as economic considerations.First.Aspect said:
The whole thing is post match analysis at this stage. Yes, the idea is to inform future decisions, but whilst the assessment is correct that the required measures were specific to the R0 and death rate, the requirement not to ignore the science as and when it became available is universal.TheBigBean said:
My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.First.Aspect said:
That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.TheBigBean said:Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.
You point relates more to the post-match analysis.
Hindsight would be more about expecting all counties to have mass testing available, or the correct form of PPE. Foresight is don't dither when presented with the facts.0 -
I'm setting myself up for a quote showing I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I was consistent in questioning it and criticising the hospitality industry for the pressure they were putting on Government to be allowed to re-open. Having pubs re-opening before things like clothes shops (if my memory serves me correctly) also suggests the industry was having too much input in the decisions. I definitely said at the time that Boris seemed to listen to whoever was shouting loudest and was making decisions based on what would be popular.TheBigBean said:
Eat Out to Help Out was widely supported by Cake Stop experts. I'm also not sure it made much difference. It was done in the public interest though which was trying to restore a sector of the economy. Of course, you can argue it was against another public interest.Pross said:
Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.TheBigBean said:
Such as?Pross said:
Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.kingstongraham said:
To a degree, sure, but to what end?rick_chasey said:Documenting on record what actually happened.
0 -
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/timeline-coronavirus-lockdown-december-2021.pdfPross said:
I'm setting myself up for a quote showing I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I was consistent in questioning it and criticising the hospitality industry for the pressure they were putting on Government to be allowed to re-open. Having pubs re-opening before things like clothes shops (if my memory serves me correctly) also suggests the industry was having too much input in the decisions. I definitely said at the time that Boris seemed to listen to whoever was shouting loudest and was making decisions based on what would be popular.TheBigBean said:
Eat Out to Help Out was widely supported by Cake Stop experts. I'm also not sure it made much difference. It was done in the public interest though which was trying to restore a sector of the economy. Of course, you can argue it was against another public interest.Pross said:
Eat Out To Help Out? Spending public money encouraging people to get back out in crowded venues when the virus was still at its peak and no vaccine had been developed just to stop the hospitality industry whinging always seemed a stupid move and it is very hard to see how it could have been made in the public interest when other, arguably less risky activities, were still not allowed. Sending old people back to care homes is also highly questionable although you could possibly argue it freed up hospital beds for others. School closures seemed to be done on a fairly ad hoc and inconsistent basis.TheBigBean said:
Such as?Pross said:
Holding the decision makers to account? There certainly seemed to be decisions made that it will be hard to argue were made in the public interest.kingstongraham said:
To a degree, sure, but to what end?rick_chasey said:Documenting on record what actually happened.
Shops opened on 15th June 2020. Wales may have been different.
Not many quotes from youPross said:Anyone see the news report from Cornwall the other day where locals were moaning about the numbers of tourists (seems like only yesterday they were moaning about a lack of tourists)? The one woman was complaining that the grockles were walking around the streets not wearing masks. The irony was she wasn't wearing one for the interview despite talking directly towards the reporter which I suspect is more likely to spread the virus than someone walking around the streets
0 -
Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years0 -
I'm just going to go with "the virus was a bit shit"surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years0 -
TheBigBean said:TheBigBean said:
Eat out to help out restaurant finder. It seems that far from every restaurant signed up.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-discount-with-the-eat-out-to-help-out-schemekingstongraham said:My nearest is 0.04 miles away and has outdoor seating. I may participate!
kingstonian said:It is a good initiative. We'll be using ours when we go on holiday.
TheBigBean said:
4 in 100,000 had it last week in my area. That's why I'm tempted.coopster_the_1st said:
Depending on where you live, as you are not in a locked down area, somewhere in the region of 1 in 10,000 people will be out and about asymptomatic with C19, so what is the chance you are in the same restaurant as that person and then close enough to catch it?TheBigBean said:
I'm tempted.surrey_commuter said:
unsurprisingly I think that it is stupidity of the highest order but then I did not like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband either.rick_chasey said:
Yeah it’s fine.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, I just approve of going out a for good cut price curry - bit of a one off as it finishes in 4 weeks, so go easy on the leftie jibes here. Thought you would approve of the govt spraying free money around?rick_chasey said:
So I guess you approve of “socialist” measures when they’re not just aimed at poor people, is that about right?Stevo_666 said:Wahey, 100 registered establishments within striking distance of my house, including some of my regular spots. Thanks Uncle Rishi.
I’d rather they’d have made it simpler and just given them the cash but it’s fine.
I just find it remarkable you are in favour of this. If I could be bothered I’d dig all your posts espousing why this sort of thing is so awful but I can’t and you won’t play ball anyway.
I would propose a man of your self proclaimed means pays the savings as a tip to the staff who will have had it very tough recently.
You may not like my opinions but at least they tend to be consistent.
and what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?
Encouraging people to be outdoors would have absolutely been a good thing.kingstongraham said:we'll know in a few weeks whether encouraging more people to get together indoors is a good thing. If you're going to allow that risk, it's probably a good thing to help spread it out across the week.
And thank god for the weather meaning people want to be outdoors.0 -
One would hope that the people running a country would be able to sift through that particular decision tree.TheBigBean said:
I agree with most of what you say, but I think it misses that there were multiple sciences putting forward proposals (e.g. behavioural psychologists) as well as economic considerations.First.Aspect said:
The whole thing is post match analysis at this stage. Yes, the idea is to inform future decisions, but whilst the assessment is correct that the required measures were specific to the R0 and death rate, the requirement not to ignore the science as and when it became available is universal.TheBigBean said:
My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.First.Aspect said:
That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.TheBigBean said:Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.
You point relates more to the post-match analysis.
Hindsight would be more about expecting all counties to have mass testing available, or the correct form of PPE. Foresight is don't dither when presented with the facts.
For example, based on the epidemiology, the behavioural psycologists' advice would be relevant to how we locked down and the messaging, since there really was no other option but to lock down.
The economic dilemma I understand, but it's binary. Either you don't lock down and weigh the economics of carrying on Vs deaths, or you lock down and suffer the short term economic consequences.
Shouldn't have taken long to figure out based on R0 and death rate that the latter was the only option, which means the economic and public health consequences are both worse the longer you wait, because more people die and the longer you are locked down. That's what the maths said.
Put another way, it doesn't take a genius to realise if you wait and then do it, you end up with the worst of all worlds.
And yet that's what happened.
The reason it happened, is that there was only one option and they didn't like it, so they started cherry picking and disregarding advice. This is understandable, but it doesn't make it okay and we shouldn't be afraid to look back and decide we expect better next time.
1 -
I'm going to go with -surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years
Finally, but who cares now?
Filed.
Forgotten.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What about Scottish and Welsh exceptionalism? There was plenty of that going around.0
-
It's not as simple as that though. They recognised that a lockdown was the only option, but they thought there would be fatigue and poorer adoption of the rules if it was done too earlier (behavioural psycologists) . They were also concerned about the subsequent wave and when that would happen.First.Aspect said:
One would hope that the people running a country would be able to sift through that particular decision tree.TheBigBean said:
I agree with most of what you say, but I think it misses that there were multiple sciences putting forward proposals (e.g. behavioural psychologists) as well as economic considerations.First.Aspect said:
The whole thing is post match analysis at this stage. Yes, the idea is to inform future decisions, but whilst the assessment is correct that the required measures were specific to the R0 and death rate, the requirement not to ignore the science as and when it became available is universal.TheBigBean said:
My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.First.Aspect said:
That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.TheBigBean said:Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.
You point relates more to the post-match analysis.
Hindsight would be more about expecting all counties to have mass testing available, or the correct form of PPE. Foresight is don't dither when presented with the facts.
For example, based on the epidemiology, the behavioural psycologists' advice would be relevant to how we locked down and the messaging, since there really was no other option but to lock down.
The economic dilemma I understand, but it's binary. Either you don't lock down and weigh the economics of carrying on Vs deaths, or you lock down and suffer the short term economic consequences.
Shouldn't have taken long to figure out based on R0 and death rate that the latter was the only option, which means the economic and public health consequences are both worse the longer you wait, because more people die and the longer you are locked down. That's what the maths said.
Put another way, it doesn't take a genius to realise if you wait and then do it, you end up with the worst of all worlds.
And yet that's what happened.
The reason it happened, is that there was only one option and they didn't like it, so they started cherry picking and disregarding advice. This is understandable, but it doesn't make it okay and we shouldn't be afraid to look back and decide we expect better next time.
Because of the lack of testing, the virus spread quicker than they expected and knew about, so they locked down too late. This timing point was a known issue and part of the 2011 report, so I'm not sure how it gets fixed for next time.
I also don't think that locking down just in case is a viable plan either.
I find Chris Whitty really interesting on this subject and generally dismiss the view point that they were all a bit stupid.0 -
The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.0 -
You don't think that buying a TV and learning some humilitywould help with the next one?TheBigBean said:
I'm just going to go with "the virus was a bit censored "surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years0 -
I am intrigued enough to ask you to add a few words as I have no comprehension of how that relates to my postpblakeney said:
I'm going to go with -surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years
Finally, but who cares now?
Filed.
Forgotten.0 -
Yes on this point you were right, but you were also keen to use the scheme which implied some level of support (although perhaps that is unfair). I used it twice - once outdoors and once effectively for takeaway, but then case levels at the time were at the a very low level - perhaps the lowest since covid began - so I don't think it was necessarily crazy.kingstongraham said:TheBigBean said:TheBigBean said:Eat out to help out restaurant finder. It seems that far from every restaurant signed up.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-discount-with-the-eat-out-to-help-out-schemekingstongraham said:My nearest is 0.04 miles away and has outdoor seating. I may participate!
kingstonian said:It is a good initiative. We'll be using ours when we go on holiday.
TheBigBean said:
4 in 100,000 had it last week in my area. That's why I'm tempted.coopster_the_1st said:
Depending on where you live, as you are not in a locked down area, somewhere in the region of 1 in 10,000 people will be out and about asymptomatic with C19, so what is the chance you are in the same restaurant as that person and then close enough to catch it?TheBigBean said:
I'm tempted.surrey_commuter said:
unsurprisingly I think that it is stupidity of the highest order but then I did not like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband either.rick_chasey said:
Yeah it’s fine.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, I just approve of going out a for good cut price curry - bit of a one off as it finishes in 4 weeks, so go easy on the leftie jibes here. Thought you would approve of the govt spraying free money around?rick_chasey said:
So I guess you approve of “socialist” measures when they’re not just aimed at poor people, is that about right?Stevo_666 said:Wahey, 100 registered establishments within striking distance of my house, including some of my regular spots. Thanks Uncle Rishi.
I’d rather they’d have made it simpler and just given them the cash but it’s fine.
I just find it remarkable you are in favour of this. If I could be bothered I’d dig all your posts espousing why this sort of thing is so awful but I can’t and you won’t play ball anyway.
I would propose a man of your self proclaimed means pays the savings as a tip to the staff who will have had it very tough recently.
You may not like my opinions but at least they tend to be consistent.
and what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?
Encouraging people to be outdoors would have absolutely been a good thing.kingstongraham said:we'll know in a few weeks whether encouraging more people to get together indoors is a good thing. If you're going to allow that risk, it's probably a good thing to help spread it out across the week.
And thank god for the weather meaning people want to be outdoors.
0 -
I think the answer to that is they did for the first lockdown, but didn't for the circuit breaker in September 2020, but the more important question is whether it made any difference - something Whitty noted.rick_chasey said:The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.
It was pretty disappointing to see them using flawed death league tables in evidence.
0 -
I think that's just saying they were all a bit stupid which is no doubt your view, but it's not one I agree with.surrey_commuter said:
You don't think that buying a TV and learning some humilitywould help with the next one?TheBigBean said:
I'm just going to go with "the virus was a bit censored "surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years0 -
I've heard Van Tam give a talk on the subject. He's fairly clear on who was and wasn't stupid.TheBigBean said:
It's not as simple as that though. They recognised that a lockdown was the only option, but they thought there would be fatigue and poorer adoption of the rules if it was done too earlier (behavioural psycologists) . They were also concerned about the subsequent wave and when that would happen.First.Aspect said:
One would hope that the people running a country would be able to sift through that particular decision tree.TheBigBean said:
I agree with most of what you say, but I think it misses that there were multiple sciences putting forward proposals (e.g. behavioural psychologists) as well as economic considerations.First.Aspect said:
The whole thing is post match analysis at this stage. Yes, the idea is to inform future decisions, but whilst the assessment is correct that the required measures were specific to the R0 and death rate, the requirement not to ignore the science as and when it became available is universal.TheBigBean said:
My post related to the lessons learned aspect and what should be done next time i.e. it is unlikely a lockdown will be the answer.First.Aspect said:
That defense of actions vanished once this information was available, and can't explain the 2-3 week delay between our lockdown and those elsewhere, based on comparable infection rates. It also can't explain how we failed to learn from others' misfortune as the wave crossed Europe.TheBigBean said:Part of the problem is something that Chris Whitty flagged - a lockdown was only the right solution for this particular virus with its combination of R0 and asymptomatic spread, and those things are hard to establish when the virus appears.
You point relates more to the post-match analysis.
Hindsight would be more about expecting all counties to have mass testing available, or the correct form of PPE. Foresight is don't dither when presented with the facts.
For example, based on the epidemiology, the behavioural psycologists' advice would be relevant to how we locked down and the messaging, since there really was no other option but to lock down.
The economic dilemma I understand, but it's binary. Either you don't lock down and weigh the economics of carrying on Vs deaths, or you lock down and suffer the short term economic consequences.
Shouldn't have taken long to figure out based on R0 and death rate that the latter was the only option, which means the economic and public health consequences are both worse the longer you wait, because more people die and the longer you are locked down. That's what the maths said.
Put another way, it doesn't take a genius to realise if you wait and then do it, you end up with the worst of all worlds.
And yet that's what happened.
The reason it happened, is that there was only one option and they didn't like it, so they started cherry picking and disregarding advice. This is understandable, but it doesn't make it okay and we shouldn't be afraid to look back and decide we expect better next time.
Because of the lack of testing, the virus spread quicker than they expected and knew about, so they locked down too late. This timing point was a known issue and part of the 2011 report, so I'm not sure how it gets fixed for next time.
I also don't think that locking down just in case is a viable plan either.
I find Chris Whitty really interesting on this subject and generally dismiss the view point that they were all a bit stupid.
For the avoidance of doubt. He was in the not stupid category.
I know lockdown fatigue was an issue, but the emphasis was I believe due to the aforementioned cherry picking. And it was from memory more about the subsequent waves over subsequent years, than when to do the first one.
I.e. if the maths said that locking down sooner made it shorter, the psychology supported locking down sooner.
Perhaps we are talking about a different week. Very,very early on there was still this belief that somehow a short lockdown would knock it all on the head, in which case was it really needed. This was before the full gravity became apparrent and while there were widely variable guestimates of R0 being bandied about.
I think a lot of the world was stil in a state of incredulity at that point.
0 -
Although I posed this 11th March 2020 on page one.TheBigBean said:Some analysis. Message is to go home now.
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99caWith everything that’s happening about the Coronavirus, it might be very hard to make a decision of what to do today. Should you wait for more information? Do something today? What?
Here’s what I’m going to cover in this article, with lots of charts, data and models with plenty of sources:
How many cases of coronavirus will there be in your area?
What will happen when these cases materialize?
What should you do?
When?
When you’re done reading the article, this is what you’ll take away:
The coronavirus is coming to you.
It’s coming at an exponential speed: gradually, and then suddenly.
It’s a matter of days. Maybe a week or two.
When it does, your healthcare system will be overwhelmed.
Your fellow citizens will be treated in the hallways.
Exhausted healthcare workers will break down. Some will die.
They will have to decide which patient gets the oxygen and which one dies.
The only way to prevent this is social distancing today. Not tomorrow. Today.
That means keeping as many people home as possible, starting now.
As a politician, community leader or business leader, you have the power and the responsibility to prevent this.
You might have fears today: What if I overreact? Will people laugh at me? Will they be angry at me? Will I look stupid? Won’t it be better to wait for others to take steps first? Will I hurt the economy too much?
But in 2–4 weeks, when the entire world is in lockdown, when the few precious days of social distancing you will have enabled will have saved lives, people won’t criticize you anymore: They will thank you for making the right decision.
Ok, let’s do this.0 -
This debate is why the inquiry is happening. I am of the view the government either listened or acted too late to the advice in round one, and round two they were off their rocker.TheBigBean said:
I think the answer to that is they did for the first lockdown, but didn't for the circuit breaker in September 2020, but the more important question is whether it made any difference - something Whitty noted.rick_chasey said:The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.
It was pretty disappointing to see them using flawed death league tables in evidence.
As for the death tables - in the middle of a crisis, perfection is the enemy of good and the same applies to data. You have to draw the line somewhere and make a decision.0 -
We are not going to be "and be open to learning from jonny foreigner."surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued enough to ask you to add a few words as I have no comprehension of how that relates to my postpblakeney said:
I'm going to go with -surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years
Finally, but who cares now?
Filed.
Forgotten.
Not every post has to be an argument.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They are using those death tables in the enquiry going on at the moment e.g. "Why did the UK have the worst level of excess deaths in Western Europe?" It didn't, it just kept better stats on deaths than most countries as has been subsequently shown, and its performance was pretty middling. This is a hugely important point, because it means that Germany's earlier lockdown didn't really matter in the end.rick_chasey said:
This debate is why the inquiry is happening. I am of the view the government either listened or acted too late to the advice in round one, and round two they were off their rocker.TheBigBean said:
I think the answer to that is they did for the first lockdown, but didn't for the circuit breaker in September 2020, but the more important question is whether it made any difference - something Whitty noted.rick_chasey said:The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.
It was pretty disappointing to see them using flawed death league tables in evidence.
As for the death tables - in the middle of a crisis, perfection is the enemy of good and the same applies to data. You have to draw the line somewhere and make a decision.
0 -
You're reading too much into me saying I might use it to eat outdoors. If there's a discount (paid for by me) for something I was going to do anyway, then I'm not turning it down. For outdoors dining, I don't think it was crazy.TheBigBean said:
Yes on this point you were right, but you were also keen to use the scheme which implied some level of support (although perhaps that is unfair). I used it twice - once outdoors and once effectively for takeaway, but then case levels at the time were at the a very low level - perhaps the lowest since covid began - so I don't think it was necessarily crazy.kingstongraham said:TheBigBean said:TheBigBean said:Eat out to help out restaurant finder. It seems that far from every restaurant signed up.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-discount-with-the-eat-out-to-help-out-schemekingstongraham said:My nearest is 0.04 miles away and has outdoor seating. I may participate!
kingstonian said:It is a good initiative. We'll be using ours when we go on holiday.
TheBigBean said:
4 in 100,000 had it last week in my area. That's why I'm tempted.coopster_the_1st said:
Depending on where you live, as you are not in a locked down area, somewhere in the region of 1 in 10,000 people will be out and about asymptomatic with C19, so what is the chance you are in the same restaurant as that person and then close enough to catch it?TheBigBean said:
I'm tempted.surrey_commuter said:
unsurprisingly I think that it is stupidity of the highest order but then I did not like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband either.rick_chasey said:
Yeah it’s fine.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, I just approve of going out a for good cut price curry - bit of a one off as it finishes in 4 weeks, so go easy on the leftie jibes here. Thought you would approve of the govt spraying free money around?rick_chasey said:
So I guess you approve of “socialist” measures when they’re not just aimed at poor people, is that about right?Stevo_666 said:Wahey, 100 registered establishments within striking distance of my house, including some of my regular spots. Thanks Uncle Rishi.
I’d rather they’d have made it simpler and just given them the cash but it’s fine.
I just find it remarkable you are in favour of this. If I could be bothered I’d dig all your posts espousing why this sort of thing is so awful but I can’t and you won’t play ball anyway.
I would propose a man of your self proclaimed means pays the savings as a tip to the staff who will have had it very tough recently.
You may not like my opinions but at least they tend to be consistent.
and what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?
Encouraging people to be outdoors would have absolutely been a good thing.kingstongraham said:we'll know in a few weeks whether encouraging more people to get together indoors is a good thing. If you're going to allow that risk, it's probably a good thing to help spread it out across the week.
And thank god for the weather meaning people want to be outdoors.
As it happens, I think I only used it once, for a coffee in Cardiff Bay.
I'm with whoever it was in the quotes who said "what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?"0 -
surrey_commuterkingstongraham said:
You're reading too much into me saying I might use it to eat outdoors. If there's a discount (paid for by me) for something I was going to do anyway, then I'm not turning it down. For outdoors dining, I don't think it was crazy.TheBigBean said:
Yes on this point you were right, but you were also keen to use the scheme which implied some level of support (although perhaps that is unfair). I used it twice - once outdoors and once effectively for takeaway, but then case levels at the time were at the a very low level - perhaps the lowest since covid began - so I don't think it was necessarily crazy.kingstongraham said:TheBigBean said:TheBigBean said:Eat out to help out restaurant finder. It seems that far from every restaurant signed up.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-a-discount-with-the-eat-out-to-help-out-schemekingstongraham said:My nearest is 0.04 miles away and has outdoor seating. I may participate!
kingstonian said:It is a good initiative. We'll be using ours when we go on holiday.
TheBigBean said:
4 in 100,000 had it last week in my area. That's why I'm tempted.coopster_the_1st said:
Depending on where you live, as you are not in a locked down area, somewhere in the region of 1 in 10,000 people will be out and about asymptomatic with C19, so what is the chance you are in the same restaurant as that person and then close enough to catch it?TheBigBean said:
I'm tempted.surrey_commuter said:
unsurprisingly I think that it is stupidity of the highest order but then I did not like Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband either.rick_chasey said:
Yeah it’s fine.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, I just approve of going out a for good cut price curry - bit of a one off as it finishes in 4 weeks, so go easy on the leftie jibes here. Thought you would approve of the govt spraying free money around?rick_chasey said:
So I guess you approve of “socialist” measures when they’re not just aimed at poor people, is that about right?Stevo_666 said:Wahey, 100 registered establishments within striking distance of my house, including some of my regular spots. Thanks Uncle Rishi.
I’d rather they’d have made it simpler and just given them the cash but it’s fine.
I just find it remarkable you are in favour of this. If I could be bothered I’d dig all your posts espousing why this sort of thing is so awful but I can’t and you won’t play ball anyway.
I would propose a man of your self proclaimed means pays the savings as a tip to the staff who will have had it very tough recently.
You may not like my opinions but at least they tend to be consistent.
and what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?
Encouraging people to be outdoors would have absolutely been a good thing.kingstongraham said:we'll know in a few weeks whether encouraging more people to get together indoors is a good thing. If you're going to allow that risk, it's probably a good thing to help spread it out across the week.
And thank god for the weather meaning people want to be outdoors.
As it happens, I think I only used it once, for a coffee in Cardiff Bay.
I'm with whoever it was in the quotes who said "what sort of moron does not go out to eat because he may contract a potentially fatal infection but to save a fiver decides it is a risk worth taking?"1 -
You quoted yourself posting something that echoes my point, except it was not hypothesis, we could literally see it (on TV) coming across the globe at us...TheBigBean said:
I think that's just saying they were all a bit stupid which is no doubt your view, but it's not one I agree with.surrey_commuter said:
You don't think that buying a TV and learning some humilitywould help with the next one?TheBigBean said:
I'm just going to go with "the virus was a bit censored "surrey_commuter said:Surely the overarching learn fro it all is to stop the English Exceptionalism and be open to learning from jonny foreigner.
That goes doubly for covid enquiries where in many cases Jonny has publishd the outcome of his enquiry whereas we will not publish the results of ours for an estimated 4 years
... and yet we did not even take the most basic or easy mitigating actions.
I accept that saying that is because our decision makers were stupid is an easy answer but why do you think they did not stop the planes landing from China, or test the passengers or put them in quarantine?
If they owned a brain and a TV would they not have watched what was happening in Italy and locked down sooner? Assuming they have access to a TV then the evidence would suggest that they were brainless.0 -
I think Germany was still tracking about 30% better for a long time, and the longer you leave it, the larger the total numbers will be Vs the initial pandemic phase, which itself is misleading.TheBigBean said:
They are using those death tables in the enquiry going on at the moment e.g. "Why did the UK have the worst level of excess deaths in Western Europe?" It didn't, it just kept better stats on deaths than most countries as has been subsequently shown, and its performance was pretty middling. This is a hugely important point, because it means that Germany's earlier lockdown didn't really matter in the end.rick_chasey said:
This debate is why the inquiry is happening. I am of the view the government either listened or acted too late to the advice in round one, and round two they were off their rocker.TheBigBean said:
I think the answer to that is they did for the first lockdown, but didn't for the circuit breaker in September 2020, but the more important question is whether it made any difference - something Whitty noted.rick_chasey said:The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.
It was pretty disappointing to see them using flawed death league tables in evidence.
As for the death tables - in the middle of a crisis, perfection is the enemy of good and the same applies to data. You have to draw the line somewhere and make a decision.
And by "didn't matter" I assume you are refering purely to numbers, rather than the economic cost and the enormous trauma a few million people felt about it all happening at once and not being able to say goodbye. Because if someone died of COVID in 2022, their family could visit and attend the funeral. Not so in 2020.
0 -
It is quite handy to have a record of what was said at the time. 😉
My first post on the subject in this thread, March 12th 2020 at 06:17.
.pblakeney said:Trump did change his tune.
No travel to the USA from Europe, except the UK. I expect this to escalate sooner than 2 weeks. I'd suggest that while this is not the time to panic, it is the time to prepare. Which will introduce panic......😱🤔😉🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I meant that the excess deaths per capita were roughly the same in both countries, but yes maybe some people got to live 9 months longer.First.Aspect said:
I think Germany was still tracking about 30% better for a long time, and the longer you leave it, the larger the total numbers will be Vs the initial pandemic phase, which itself is misleading.TheBigBean said:
They are using those death tables in the enquiry going on at the moment e.g. "Why did the UK have the worst level of excess deaths in Western Europe?" It didn't, it just kept better stats on deaths than most countries as has been subsequently shown, and its performance was pretty middling. This is a hugely important point, because it means that Germany's earlier lockdown didn't really matter in the end.rick_chasey said:
This debate is why the inquiry is happening. I am of the view the government either listened or acted too late to the advice in round one, and round two they were off their rocker.TheBigBean said:
I think the answer to that is they did for the first lockdown, but didn't for the circuit breaker in September 2020, but the more important question is whether it made any difference - something Whitty noted.rick_chasey said:The issue TBB is really around whether the decision makers were listening and understanding what Whitty was saying at the time, and acting accordingly.
The reason this inquiry is lacking in sensation is because it is not revealing anything we didn't know at the time.
It was pretty disappointing to see them using flawed death league tables in evidence.
As for the death tables - in the middle of a crisis, perfection is the enemy of good and the same applies to data. You have to draw the line somewhere and make a decision.
And by "didn't matter" I assume you are refering purely to numbers, rather than the economic cost and the enormous trauma a few million people felt about it all happening at once and not being able to say goodbye. Because if someone died of COVID in 2022, their family could visit and attend the funeral. Not so in 2020.
The point Whitty was making was that it is not just about the first wave, you need to deal with all the future ones too.1 -
6/7th Marchpblakeney said:It is quite handy to have a record of what was said at the time. 😉
My first post on the subject in this thread, March 12th 2020 at 06:17.
.pblakeney said:Trump did change his tune.
No travel to the USA from Europe, except the UK. I expect this to escalate sooner than 2 weeks. I'd suggest that while this is not the time to panic, it is the time to prepare. Which will introduce panic......😱🤔😉🤣pblakeney said:I voted "go" for pretty much the reasons that the Coopster gave.
FFS! I agree with the Coopster! 🤣🤣🤣🤣pblakeney said:
Bliss. I'd much prefer that to a bank holiday weekend.rjsterry said:It would be like visiting a British seaside town in January.
pblakeney said:
And what exactly do the WHO recommend for travel to Rome?TheBigBean said:There is an unheathly amount of overconfidence on show with regard to corona. It seems to rest on the unproven iceberg theory.
Better to take advice from China and the WHO.1
