How is the Tory government doing?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The report picks up cases that have been tested, it’s there in writing. Claiming that every single case is picked up is patently ridiculous. But you aren’t looking for accuracy; just spin that suits your narrative.

...and when did they start testing in earnest? After loads of people died which is never a vote winner.

Sluffy still fails to grasp that the report didn't even claim to be definitive - it was caveattastic. But let him witter on....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on......and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The report picks up cases that have been tested, it’s there in writing. Claiming that every single case is picked up is patently ridiculous. But you aren’t looking for accuracy; just spin that suits your narrative.

Not sure what you aren't understanding?

The system works backwards from the care home setting and any outbreak is checked against the current Covid cases in the hospitals that any residents have been discharged from.

For example let us say you are already in Royal Bolton Hospital isolation ward with Covid and a week or two later Wanderlust in the Nuts Care Home is found to have Covid.

I am the only resident who has been in hospital and been discharged to the care home.  I have not been anywhere near you in hospital and I have not had a test for Covid before being discharged.

If Wanderlust's genome sequence matches yours then I am clearly the 'bridge' between you both, therefore I must have caught Covid in hospital and brought it back to the care home.

It is therefore immaterial if I hadn't had a Covid test as the genome match proves it could only have got from the hospital to the care home by a carrier between the two - namely me.

If we look at the converse, if I return to the care home and there is no outbreak within 28 days then I wasn't a carrier.

If there was an outbreak within 28 days then the genome sequence is compared to that of the hospitals and if it doesn't match then the seeding for the outbreak has clearly come from someplace else and not the hospital.

I may have picked up Covid myself at the hospital but the outbreak was started by another means already - I am not the cause and the outbreak would have still happened if I was infected or not.

I'm not spinning anything - it is there in black and white in the report.

Fwiw this is taken from the link Okocha posted above in respect of the reports finding of only 1.6% of care home outbreaks being seeded from hospitals.

Professor Jackie Cassell, deputy dean of Brighton and Sussex medical school and a member of the government’s Covid social care working group, said the 1.6% figure was “entirely plausible”. “What is really striking about the care home setting is that you get very few individual cases and some of those indeed were people who had come home from hospital,” she said. “But you get outbreaks because it is such a dangerous setting in terms of contact patterns and frailty.”

She's a professor, a deputy dean of a medical school and also on the goverments social care working group - is she spinning things too - has she missed the "glaringly obvious gaps in the report" as well because she's only saying what I am!

Or do you know better than her too?

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:The report picks up cases that have been tested, it’s there in writing. Claiming that every single case is picked up is patently ridiculous. But you aren’t looking for accuracy; just spin that suits your narrative.

...and when did they start testing in earnest? After loads of people died which is never a vote winner.

Sluffy still fails to grasp that the report didn't even claim to be definitive - it was caveattastic. But let him witter on....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on....and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on......and on.....and on.....and on.....and on...and on.....and on.....

Oh God....



You crack me up everytime with stuff like this.

I know you know better than Professor Jackie Cassell, you know better than everyone...

Seriously thanks for the laughs!!!!

It’s you who is failing to understand that this report is working from a limited dataset. You don’t even seem to understand what genome sequencing is.

On the quote you end with (love the fact you skip all the information that doesn’t fit your narrative by the way) Caskell says it’s plausible, it could be true. not absolutely bullet proof in the way you claim.

The reason? There are gaps in its data - which you aren’t even able to identify/comprehend.

And as such the report should be treated accordingly.

THAT’S THE POINT.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It’s you who is failing to understand that this report is working from a limited dataset. You don’t even seem to understand what genome sequencing is.

On the quote you end with (love the fact you skip all the information that doesn’t fit your narrative by the way) Caskell says it’s plausible, it could be true. not absolutely bullet proof in the way you claim.

The reason? There are gaps in its data - which you aren’t even able to identify/comprehend.

And as such the report should be treated accordingly.

THAT’S THE POINT.

Well as a professor, deputy dean, etc, I would wish to study the report myself before being conclusive on the matter so the very fact she states it is plausible shows it seems more than reasonable to her to be true and remember this is a report that flies in the face of public opinion stating a mere 286 care home deaths seeded from hospital discharges!

If an eminent professor in the field believes the findings to be 'plausible' do you really think she would say even this if she thought the figure was ridiculously low when many people are believing the total to be in the ten of thousands?

Don't you think she might have thought, hang on a minute, this doesn't seem right at all, have they missed big gaps of data out perhaps?

No she doesn't she instead puts herself on record saying 'yes, the miniscule figure may well be right'!

And what have I suposed to have left out skipped over?  The link is there for all to read, I simply quoted the scientist view rather than the emotive and personal  one from the care home staff - do you think they have read the report or believe the findings to be plausable when they are thinking with their hearts and not their heads?

You are free to treat the report as you want.  

Your opinion of it or mine aren't the ones that matter but I believe the future public inquiry will accept its findings totally even if you and Wanderlust can't.

Let us wait to find out which one of us turns out to be right shall we?

...and on....

Looks like Boris is buying a boat.

...a 200 million pound boat!

wanderlust wrote:Looks like Boris is buying a boat.

...a 200 million pound boat!

....while showing reluctance to spend adequately on educating our children!

 Priorities are all wrong.... again. This comes after the failure to feed the  disadvantaged adequately, leaving it to a footballer to remedy.

Morality and politics are now totally divorced from each other under Boris and the Tories who, as previously noted, know the electoral cost of everything and the value of nothing.

okocha wrote:
....while showing reluctance to spend adequately on educating our children!

 Priorities are all wrong.... again. This comes after the failure to feed the  disadvantaged adequately, leaving it to a footballer to remedy.

Morality and politics are now totally divorced from each other under Boris and the Tories who, as previously noted, know the electoral cost of everything and the value of nothing.

It will be interesting to see who wins the boat building contract.
It may not even go out to open tender seeing as we're in the midst of a crisis - hang on....they've used that excuse before.


Could be £200 million well spent.

"A name for the vessel has not been announced, but Johnson has faced pressure from campaigners and Tory MPs to name it after the Duke of Edinburgh.
One Whitehall insider appeared to confirm that the PM agreed, telling the Express the plan "needs to be confirmed by the Queen but the intention is to name it after the late Duke”.

Unfortunately, Buckingham Palace wants absolutely nothing to do with this scandalous embarrassment.
One senior royal source told The Sunday Times the ship was regarded as "too grand" a symbol to be used by the monarchy in the modern age.
They said: “It is not something we have asked for.”
The report stated that Buckingham Palace has not been involved in the planning process, and indicated the Queen is not in favour of naming the £200m ship after her late husband"

Obviously after the success of Boaty McBoatface the government should ask the public what to name it.

wanderlust wrote:"A name for the vessel has not been announced, but Johnson has faced pressure from campaigners and Tory MPs to name it after the Duke of Edinburgh.
One Whitehall insider appeared to confirm that the PM agreed, telling the Express the plan "needs to be confirmed by the Queen but the intention is to name it after the late Duke”.

Unfortunately, Buckingham Palace wants absolutely nothing to do with this scandalous embarrassment.
One senior royal source told The Sunday Times the ship was regarded as "too grand" a symbol to be used by the monarchy in the modern age.
They said: “It is not something we have asked for.”
The report stated that Buckingham Palace has not been involved in the planning process, and indicated the Queen is not in favour of naming the £200m ship after her late husband"

Obviously after the success of Boaty McBoatface the government should ask the public what to name it.

How about naming it "UK Vanity"?

Just call it the love boat as Boris will use it as such anyway 

Norpig wrote:Just call it the love boat as Boris will use it as such anyway 

Boris and "love" are strangers to each other....

Understandable Johnson plays to his base and doesn’t condemn the boo boys.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jun/07/boris-johnson-refuses-to-condemn-fans-booing-england-taking-the-knee

But what a massive own goal from Starmer not to put Labour in full support of the players and the gesture. In a desperate attempt to win over the retiree demographic Labour are alienating huge portions of the country.

Boris has taken a private plane from London to Cornwall to discuss climate change at the G7 meeting 

Norpig wrote:Boris has taken a private plane from London to Cornwall to discuss climate change at the G7 meeting 

You couldn't write it Norpig.  
And this buffoon is the Prime Minister of the UK FFS.
Sad times.

Boris's Whatsapp messages leaked by Cummings:


Focus group and polls? Well at least we know what's driving Boris's decisions for sure now don't we?



Not overjoyed with Gove and Sharma either then.

Mobile phones in schools........does our peerless Education Minister, Gavin Williamson, know anything at all about what goes on in schools, and about the policies already in place almost without exception?! How on earth is he still in such a vital post? Will Boris ever clear out the incompetents from his cabinet?
I presume not....as long as they back him up whenever he blunders.