Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Coronavirus - the political argument

+13
observer
Sluffy
gloswhite
Ten Bobsworth
BoltonTillIDie
okocha
wessy
Cajunboy
xmiles
karlypants
Norpig
Natasha Whittam
boltonbonce
17 posters

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 23 ... 31  Next

Go down  Message [Page 15 of 31]

281Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Fri Apr 24 2020, 23:28

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I guess somewhat entwined with my last post - and however the government used Sage's advise was - that at the time the advise being given was modelled based solely on the 'facts' being given to them on the 'spread' and 'mortality' of Coronavirus from the Chinese.

As they used to say many years ago - Garbage in, garbage out.

Todays news on this -

Coronavirus: China rejects call for probe into origins of disease

"Almost from the start of the pandemic, there have been calls for international investigators to be allowed into China to find out how it all started.
On Thursday Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that he would push for an investigation at the annual meeting next month of the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO). Australia sits on the executive board of the assembly.
The body already plans to discuss calls for a "lessons learned" review of health emergencies".
But Ms Chen told the BBC her country could not agree to any international investigation."  The independent inquiry is politically motivated," she said.

Meanwhile an EU report accuses China of spreading disinformation about the crisis.

What does the EU report say?

It claims Chinese officials and state media have been trying to deflect blame for the outbreak, curtailing any mentions of Wuhan as the origin of the virus, with some state-controlled social media channels continuing to spread the theory that the outbreak was linked to visiting US military representatives.
The authors also say there is "significant evidence of covert Chinese operations on social media", citing reports of networks on Twitter with ties to the Chinese government.

Coronavirus: Europe 'wary of confronting China over deaths'

China is continuing to under-report the true levels of deaths from Covid-19, national security officials in London and Washington believe.
But European officials are wary about directly challenging China over the figures, sources told the BBC. That concern also extends to confronting Beijing over an information campaign to improve its standing and distract from blame in the crisis.
China has denied allegations of a cover up, saying it has been transparent about its efforts to battle the virus.
On 17 April, officials in Wuhan, the city where the outbreak is believed to have begun, raised the death toll from Covid-19 by 50 per cent overnight. They said the sharp increase reflected updated reporting and deaths outside hospitals, insisting there had been no cover-up.
But several officials in London and Washington say they still believe the picture is not an accurate reflection of the death toll, and that the central government in Beijing knows this. They do not however believe China knows the real figure for certain and is hiding it.

Western intelligence officials say that figures underplaying the toll are likely pushed up the chain from a local level by Chinese officials nervous of revealing the full truth, and these make their way up to Beijing, with officials at the top fully aware of this problem occurring along the chain.
"It is impossible to know what the figures are in China. What we do know is the figures are very likely to be wrong," Tom Tugendhat MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, told the BBC.
Many countries are struggling with quickly reporting precise figures and establishing which deaths are due to Covid-19, but China is different, Mr Tugendhat argued, because scientists there and others are "afraid of the state punishing them for telling the truth".
"In China you always have the problem of what the localities are reporting up to the centre," said Charles Parton, a former UK diplomat in China and now a senior associate fellow at the Rusi think-tank.
Beijing was also likely to be calibrating the figures for audiences inside and outside the country, Mr Parton said.
"The Chinese government is making a decision of what is the lowest number we can get away with to prop up the line that we have been far more successful in dealing with this than the West."

China denies cover-up

Governments in Europe have been wary of engaging in a diplomatic row with China at a sensitive time. One UK official, who like others declined to speak on the record, said there was a "nervousness" about confronting China and that relations were "delicate".
Countries are dependent on Beijing for deliveries of vital equipment in dealing with the crisis and want to keep the flow of information open to help understand what happened this time and prevent future outbreaks. Experts said the approach needed to be carefully calibrated.
"We need to dial down the rhetoric and the confrontation because we've got something more serious to deal with," Mr Parton said.
In the US, by contrast, the issue of China is becoming highly politicised in an election year, with competing calls for a tough line on Beijing and pressure to investigate the origins of the virus.
China has denied there was a cover up. "China has been open and transparent from the very beginning," Liu Xiaoming, the country's ambassador to the UK, said on Thursday.
He said China was on a mission to defend its reputation against criticism in the media and Western countries which did not portray its side of the story.

Report 'pulled'

Western officials say China is keen to play up its success in combating the virus and minimise any fallout from its role as the origin of the virus and early failures to be open. A report by the European External Action Service (EEAS) looking at the spread of disinformation was, according to one European official, pulled from publication because of concerns about Chinese reaction.
The report, which had already been circulated to member states and leaked to media, was reported to have said that China was running a global campaign to deflect blame for Covid-19 with the aim of improving the country's international standing and said there had been both overt and covert activity.
The EEAS denied a report was due to be published, saying an internal report was leaked.

Disinformation claims

Analysts say they have seen a push from Chinese media to emphasise the country's success and other's failings in dealing with the virus (Russia has also been emphasising the West's failings in its strategy).
China's messaging is believed to reflect fears from Beijing of a backlash once the crisis is over. A New York Times report this week also claimed that Chinese "agents" had been pushing misinformation in March about a lockdown in the US.
The agents were not alleged to have originated the information and the volume and extent of their activity is unclear. Sources in the UK have played down the extent to which they have seen similar activity and say they have not seen large-scale state disinformation campaigns but rather lower-level activity.
"Our priority is to protect UK citizens from disinformation by any actor, whether state or non-state," a spokesman said. "We are actively monitoring for disinformation narratives related to Covid-19 which could impact the UK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52404612
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52420536



Last edited by Sluffy on Fri Apr 24 2020, 23:35; edited 1 time in total

282Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Fri Apr 24 2020, 23:32

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

xmiles wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
I like to think I've always sought honesty and openness rather than having agenda's and prejudices like others often seem to have.  Of course not nailing my colours to any one particular political party makes life a great deal easier to do that than thinking/believing that one party is correct about everything and the other is just pure shite, all the time.


I don't believe anyone on this site thinks "that one party is correct about everything".

Maybe not but I don't see many of them holding their hands up when 'their' political party cocks-up, nor praise the opposition when they manage to do something right.

It's a lot easier to do when you are not sticking up for one side or the other.

283Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Fri Apr 24 2020, 23:47

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha

Sluffy wrote:
xmiles wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
I like to think I've always sought honesty and openness rather than having agenda's and prejudices like others often seem to have.  Of course not nailing my colours to any one particular political party makes life a great deal easier to do that than thinking/believing that one party is correct about everything and the other is just pure shite, all the time.


I don't believe anyone on this site thinks "that one party is correct about everything".

Maybe not but I don't see many of them holding their hands up when 'their' political party cocks-up, nor praise the opposition when they manage to do something right.

It's a lot easier to do when you are not sticking up for one side or the other.

I can't speak for others but I don't have an allegiance to any political party.

284Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sat Apr 25 2020, 09:32

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin


Coronavirus: Cummings attended meetings of key scientific group

A No 10 spokesman said Mr Cummings and Mr Warner had attended or listened in to Sage meetings in order to better understand the scientific debate around coronavirus.
He said they "occasionally" asked questions or offered help when "scientists mention problems in Whitehall", adding that others "also listen to meetings without being on, or a member of, Sage".
"The scientists on Sage are among the most eminent in their fields," the spokesman said. "It is factually wrong and damaging to sensible public debate to imply their advice is affected by government advisers listening to discussions."
He added: "'Public confidence in the media has collapsed during this emergency partly because of ludicrous stories such as this."

Much more here -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52421744

An odd thing to say about the media though, I would think the whole point has been to collapse the public confidence in the government, which I've warmed is the last thing we need being at this time with what the alternative would be - ie civil disobedience.

We need to get though this safely and point fingers afterwards.

It is however utterly stupid to have political advisors speaking/participating in any way on independent advisory bodies, there's no getting away from that key point.

285Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sat Apr 25 2020, 12:41

Guest


Guest

Main thing I’m not understanding is why we have such a lack of transparency over the policy and future strategy in this country. If they had said up front who was on the panel, and said Cummings was listening in then the press may have been more forgiving. Hiding it now suggests there was something to hide.

286Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sat Apr 25 2020, 17:19

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Main thing I’m not understanding is why we have such a lack of transparency over the policy and future strategy in this country. If they had said up front who was on the panel, and said Cummings was listening in then the press may have been more forgiving. Hiding it now suggests there was something to hide.

They kind of have, at least it's been reported to the Science and Technology Select Committee on the 4th April as to why the names were being kept secret by a letter to them by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chair of SAGE -

"In a letter to MPs this month, Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government's chief scientific adviser, who chairs SAGE, said membership was kept secret on advice from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
'This contributes towards safeguarding individual members' personal security and protects them from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder their ability to give impartial advice,' he added".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmsctech/correspondence/Patrick-Vallance-to-Greg-Clark-re-SAGE-composition.pdf

The Mail has posted that these are the members of it -

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 27636692-8254901-image-a-15_1587817931562

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8254901/Dominic-Cummings-member-secretive-SAGE-group-advising-government.html

287Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 00:55

Guest


Guest

Sluffy wrote:
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Main thing I’m not understanding is why we have such a lack of transparency over the policy and future strategy in this country. If they had said up front who was on the panel, and said Cummings was listening in then the press may have been more forgiving. Hiding it now suggests there was something to hide.

They kind of have, at least it's been reported to the Science and Technology Select Committee on the 4th April as to why the names were being kept secret by a letter to them by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chair of SAGE -

"In a letter to MPs this month, Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government's chief scientific adviser, who chairs SAGE, said membership was kept secret on advice from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
'This contributes towards safeguarding individual members' personal security and protects them from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder their ability to give impartial advice,' he added".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmsctech/correspondence/Patrick-Vallance-to-Greg-Clark-re-SAGE-composition.pdf

The Mail has posted that these are the members of it -

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 27636692-8254901-image-a-15_1587817931562

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8254901/Dominic-Cummings-member-secretive-SAGE-group-advising-government.html

I really don't want to get sucked into one of your back and forths Sluffy, but that publication does not provide transparency - it gives an official reason for not doing so.

288Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 10:02

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:
Sluffy wrote:
T.R.O.Y. wrote:Main thing I’m not understanding is why we have such a lack of transparency over the policy and future strategy in this country. If they had said up front who was on the panel, and said Cummings was listening in then the press may have been more forgiving. Hiding it now suggests there was something to hide.

They kind of have, at least it's been reported to the Science and Technology Select Committee on the 4th April as to why the names were being kept secret by a letter to them by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chair of SAGE -

"In a letter to MPs this month, Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government's chief scientific adviser, who chairs SAGE, said membership was kept secret on advice from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
'This contributes towards safeguarding individual members' personal security and protects them from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder their ability to give impartial advice,' he added".

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmsctech/correspondence/Patrick-Vallance-to-Greg-Clark-re-SAGE-composition.pdf

The Mail has posted that these are the members of it -

Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 27636692-8254901-image-a-15_1587817931562

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8254901/Dominic-Cummings-member-secretive-SAGE-group-advising-government.html

I really don't want to get sucked into one of your back and forths Sluffy, but that publication does not provide transparency - it gives an official reason for not doing so.

Eh?

You asked why "they" (Sage/the government) didn't say who was on the panel and I've produced a letter from the Chairman of Sage - to a government select committee - saying they were following the advice of The Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure - which is an arm of the governments M15 agency.

It operates alongside the National Cyber Security Centre which itself is an off-shoot of GCHQ

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

How much more transparent did you want the "publication" (Valence's letter to the Select Committee) to be under such circumstances?


Oh, and you are the one frequently pulling my tail with the "back and forth" business so cheeky of you to make out that I'm the pot stirrer!



Last edited by Sluffy on Sun Apr 26 2020, 10:10; edited 1 time in total

289Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 10:05

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

The country really needs an effective opposition. Labour under Corbyn were not seen as electable, but now are beginning to shape up as Keir shows a good balance between working with the present govt but still holding them to account, as necessary.

 Equally impressive was the appearance of shadow cabinet member, Rachel Reeves, this morning on the Andrew Marr show.....very fluent, articulate, poised and relevant. Not evasive or dissembling.

It will be interesting to see if Boris' brush with death and recognition of the work of the NHS will affect his policies and attitude. Will he be honest enough to acknowledge that the party needs to show itself as more open, less underhand and curb Cummings' shady influence, for example? 

I hope he follows good examples of how to govern effectively in this crisis by learning from good practices in South Korea and New Zealand etc.

290Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 12:52

Guest


Guest

Sluffy, I questioned why they didn’t reveal the names of who was on the panel at the beginning.

You replied to say ‘They kind of have...’ and a publication communicating the reason they wouldn’t be. This is not the same thing.

I’m not going to get dragged into this with you, please don’t try.

291Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 14:59

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, I questioned why they didn’t reveal the names of who was on the panel at the beginning.

You replied to say ‘They kind of have...’ and a publication communicating the reason they wouldn’t be. This is not the same thing.

I’m not going to get dragged into this with you, please don’t try.

Eh???

They COULDN'T reveal the names of who was on the panel at the beginning because it was advised (read that as instructed) NOT TO by MI5 (well a body that answers to MI5) to safeguard the security of the state.

The document was from THREE WEEKS ago and clearly the names have now been 'leaked' to the press (see the list of names and faces above) to defuse the situation whilst still (in all but name only) keep it as an official secret.

It's pretty clear that once again you simply don't read my replies in full otherwise you wouldn't be asking questions that I've already answered.

And again I point out that it's YOU who is always on MY case all the time and not me trying to drag you into anything!!!

God forbid I'd ever want to.

292Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 16:04

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

We will not publish who is on scientific advisory group, says Raab

Dominic Raab has said the government has no plans to publish the list of participants in the Sage committee of scientific experts, after the Guardian revealed that key meetings have been attended by Dominic Cummings.

“We don’t release as a matter of practice the names of all the members of Sage because the risk of them being subject to pressure, undue influence,” the first minister and foreign secretary said on Sunday.

He rejected the idea there had been a “lack of transparency” from the government over the group’s work.

“We’ve had the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief medical officer, Prof Chris Whitty, along with politicians like me standing up on a daily basis answering the questions, setting out their advice and making sure that we communicate as clearly as possible to the public what that advice is,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/raab-warns-britons-of-risk-of-second-spike-in-coronavirus-outbreak

293Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 19:18

Guest


Guest

Like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

294Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 19:59

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

The job of SAGE is to  co-ordinate and peer review scientific and technical advice to inform decision-making by the government. What the science says should not be influenced by the political options being considered.
Political decisions should be informed by the science; the science should not be informed by the politics. SAGE's independence is compromised when Cummings and Warner are in attendance, listening and contributing. Minutes need to be published.

295Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Sun Apr 26 2020, 22:16

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

okocha wrote:The job of SAGE is to  co-ordinate and peer review scientific and technical advice to inform decision-making by the government. What the science says should not be influenced by the political options being considered.
Political decisions should be informed by the science; the science should not be informed by the politics. SAGE's independence is compromised when Cummings and Warner are in attendance, listening and contributing. Minutes need to be published.

A meaningless statement if you don't quote the source and just copy something and paste it on here.

For example I can quite easily post statements completely opposite to yours for instance -

“As for Dominic Cummings being present, many scientists may not be familiar with policy decisions and how they are made – SAGE is not a fixed group, but flexible and adaptable depending on the expertise needed for the particular issue at hand. Having a politician there to help explain how the evidence will be utilised, what decisions it will help to inform and also advise when an outcome scientists suggest may not be politically prudent or feasible can help to work through the best alternatives. It should not be taken that he is seeking to influence the scientists, but rather to help them understand exactly what information government needs and how that can be best communicated to the policymakers.”

“In principle, SAGE offers a good system for evaluating scientific advice and clarifying the options available to ministers. As such it is envied elsewhere. For it to operate properly, however, it needs to assemble a diverse range of expertise on the areas of science relevant to the issues being discussed; on the likely social, economic and cultural impact of the various options available; and on the institutional and organizational constraints that would shape their enactment.
“There is a risk that eminent scientists are considered to be experts on every scientific issue, regardless of their particular discipline and expertise. This risk is compounded when it is thought that excellence in a laboratory science also makes one an expert on its social, economic or cultural impacts when the science is released into the wild.


Proves nothing though if you don't know who said them and in which context, does it?

296Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Mon Apr 27 2020, 14:32

Guest


Guest

Johnson's statement seems to indicate no lifting of restrictions - which I think is a good thing, can only go off reading the opinion's of experts of course, but they suggest any relaxing on this could be another catastrophe - so keeping the lockdown in place seems sensible to me. The government's response has been poor so far, but credit to the PM if he does stay strong on this.

He's also promised more transparency in line with other leaders in the coming days, so it will be interesting to see what that looks like.

Raab insisting there hasn't been a lack of transparency makes a mockery of the public.

297Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Mon Apr 27 2020, 18:33

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

I believe the governments done as good as it could and as open as was practical in view of the unprecedented circumstance we've faced.

I've worked in government for thirty years and have an understanding as how it works (and needs to work) in order to deliver the best service it can within a myriad of constraints and political pressures.

Let's look at 'transparency' for instance and ask yourself the question are you scrupulously honest at every single occasion?  If your 'wife' asks if her bum looked big in the new dress she's just bought - and it does what do you say?  Do you tell your kids about Father Christmas and the tooth fairy?  Have you never ever broken the speed limit when driving?  Have you never taken a few 'short cuts' when you know you really should do everything by the book?

We all have done something not exactly truthful, but nothing we do is intentionally to harm/deceive/cheat/deceive, they are sort of white lies indented to 'smooth' things along, to do the best in the situation you find yourself in rather face the alternative of telling your wife she's fat, telling the kids Father Christmas doesn't exist, drive at the legal speed whilst everyone is beeping their horns behind you, or read the instructions when you know how to boil an egg.

Well governments are like that too.

It's too enormous and complexed to explain every dotted 'i' and crossed 't' that it carries out - and which 99.99999% of people would not want to know about anyway but it is carried out as best it can to deliver the services to the public despite the lack of funds, the poor pay (think nurses), the political priorities (who had even heard of Brexit five years ago?), etc.

Not everything goes right - but that doesn't mean that there should a stewards inquiry at every time the ball is dropped.

For instance lets look at the big headlines recently -

Did we go into lockdown too late?

Looking back now we possibly did but why did we follow the 'herd immunity' plan initially - was that a 'political' decision or a decision taken on the wrong data fed into the modelling of what was going to happen?  China, who supplied the data to the world got off 'light', when you saw how the next major country who suffered it fared - Italy's health services were swamped and could not cope with the numbers.  We modelled on China but once the world found out the truth of the virus at Italy's expense we immediately change direction.

All country's now 'know' the truth but right now no-one is in a position to take China to task over it, maybe they never will - it might make things worse.

So is that 'transparency' or is it 'smoothing' over the circumstances for the better, at least for now.

Next, should Cummings have been in Sage meetings?

On the face of it no but did him being there actually change anything ultimately?  Herd Immunity was outlined on the 14th March and the U-turn to lockdown started just TWO days later when it was realised Italy's outbreak was nothing like what was expected from China's figures.

When push came to shove public health trumped any political spin that might have been intended, somebody had to swallow extremely hard to do an about face like that after just two days.

Was it 'transparent' the Cummings was at the meetings, no it wasn't but then again no one is listed at being at the meetings through security advise anyway.  In fact you would have to had made a positive exception to report he had been there at the time - it's not like he was deliberately missed off the 'attendees' list or anything - that information is never reported on anyway - and still isn't going to be.

Anyone even heard of Sage meetings, let alone who attends them, before all this blew up?

All this fuss and bother is quite frankly now just political point scoring as anything Cummings could possibly had an influence on at the time  was fundamentally flawed with the under reported Chinese data.  If the true extent was known at the time we obviously would have gone the lockdown road and saved a 'political' embarrassing about face that resulted from the flawed facts.

Had we got sufficient PPE's?

Barely/possibly not but would people rather the government to say so, to tell the doctors and nurses you're going the be short of kit for the next few weeks/months, so don't bother coming in until we get some?

Of course not.

Did you want the government to tell the public, we haven't enough kit so we are going to throw everybody in care homes throughout the country under the bus until we get enough, whenever that might be!

There would be a national outcry.

So what do you do, the answer is do your best with what you've got, desperately try to get more and all the time keep up a positive face in public.

Is that transparent - no, but it has to be that way to smooth things over until we can manage PPE's for all that need them.

Either that or have civil disobedience on the streets.

What good would that achieve right now?

I think you get the gist of what I'm trying to say namely doing your best doesn't always equate to being open and transparent on every occasion and conversely being open and transparent can sometimes cause things to become unnecessarily worse just for the sake of making an issue of it at that point in time.

As a sort of example of how some of the public see their sense of entitlement during all this - a little quote North Yorkshire police about people starting to blatantly ignore lockdown - which I think most of us know it IS the right thing to be doing just now -

Assistant Chief Constable Mike Walker said up to now the majority of residents and visitors had acted responsibly and abided by the rules.
"However, we are definitely starting to see a turning of the tide in some areas, with some blatantly ignoring the reason why we have been in a lockdown situation for the past five weeks and making a decision to no longer stay home and save lives," he said.
"As I have previously mentioned, this is not about finding loopholes in the guidance to justify having a day out.
"This is about keeping your elderly, vulnerable grandmother safe, your asthmatic child safe or your diabetic father safe."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-52442573

Just imagine how people would be reacting if they thought the government was untrustworthy and not to be listened to - certainly some are already believing that already?

Do we really need the government to be 'crucified' right now for every decision that turns out not to be the best one, instead of the smoothing out of stuff right now for the overall good for everyone?

These aren't normal times, mistakes have been made and no doubt will be made but let us get through this all first then point fingers afterwards - what's the alternative really?

298Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Mon Apr 27 2020, 19:24

xmiles

xmiles
Jay Jay Okocha
Jay Jay Okocha

Trust has to be earned. If any government expects to be trusted it has to be not only honest but be seen to be honest.

Once you start manipulating information (for example the various aspects of PPE you mentioned above) you start to damage that trust. To imply (and that is putting it kindly) that we have enough PPE is dishonest. The alternative is not to "tell the doctors and nurses you're going the be short of kit for the next few weeks/months, so don't bother coming in until we get some...[or] to tell the public, we haven't enough kit so we are going to throw everybody in care homes throughout the country under the bus until we get enough, whenever that might be!"

The alternative is to explain that there are shortages, explain the prioritisation that has been adopted and provide an honest assessment of when and how things will improve. That approach is very unlikely to lead to "civil disobedience on the streets".

They don't help themselves by exaggerating the amount of supplies coming from Turkey or by literally counting each single glove as a separate piece of PPE.

299Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Mon Apr 27 2020, 20:07

Guest


Guest

There’s no measure which supports the view the government response has been anything close to a success.

The NHS wasn’t prepared with the equipment it needed.

The response was too slow.

There hasn’t been enough testing.

The number of people dead reflects that.

It’s a miserable time, and once we are back to normal a complete change in how we manage and support public services needs to happen in my view.

300Coronavirus - the political argument - Page 15 Empty Re: Coronavirus - the political argument Mon Apr 27 2020, 20:39

okocha

okocha
El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

I hope everyone was able to watch the Panorama programme on TV just now. Do watch on catch-up if you missed it.

Government's failings and sly distortions of the facts  are sickeningly indefensible. 

Tory manipulations of the truth were laid bare in one perfect example of their duplicity:-in presenting the figures for numbers of PPE, they counted individual pairs or gloves as TWO items!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641



Last edited by okocha on Mon Apr 27 2020, 22:33; edited 1 time in total

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 15 of 31]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16 ... 23 ... 31  Next

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