Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (8 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

What a leader.....

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears



Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster | News | The Sunday Times

You can read the whole article here Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster | News | …

Good thread about the article here

"Boris Johnson skipped COVID-19 meetings and ignored scientists' warnings, The Sunday Times reports" Boris Johnson skipped COVID-19 meetings and ignored scientists' warnings, The Sunday Times reports

Crisis leadership at its finest...



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

The Sunday Times article is particularly damming. I can see the Tories ditching Boris before the next election and his handling (or lack thereof) of Coronavirus will be the cementing factor in it. Truly shocking read on outright incompetence.

 

---

[clint van damme]

This is what happens when you’re obsessed with getting power but have no idea what to do with it

Or pick a cabinet based on how ingrained they are with the Brexit ideology at the expense of everything else.

 

[Sick Boy]

The Sunday Times article is particularly damming. I can see the Tories ditching Boris before the next election and his handling (or lack thereof) of Coronavirus will be the cementing factor in it. Truly shocking read on outright incompetence.

I doubt it to be honest, they're very good at PR and he will just carry on, there will be a scapegoat, but I doubt it'll be him.

 

[wingy]

The Sunday Times article is particularly damming. I can see the Tories ditching Boris before the next election and his handling (or lack thereof) of Coronavirus will be the cementing factor in it. Truly shocking read on outright incompetence.

Fake News!!

 

[skybluetony176]

Or pick a cabinet based on how ingrained they are with the Brexit ideology at the expense of everything else.

This quote from the Times article sums it up

“The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

An equally lengthy list of recommendations to address the deficiencies was never implemented. The source said preparations for a no-deal Brexit “sucked all the blood out of pandemic planning” in the following years.”

 

[Skybluefaz]

I doubt it to be honest, they're very good at PR and he will just carry on, there will be a scapegoat, but I doubt it'll be him.

I agree, he's the poster boy. His style woos the likes of Dom no matter what he does.

 

[stupot07]

Fake news .
Gove has got this he's just told Sophie Ridge.

The article must be pretty much on the mark...his only rebuttal was there are "one or two aspects in it that are slightly off beam..."

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

I doubt it to be honest, they're very good at PR and he will just carry on, there will be a scapegoat, but I doubt it'll be him.

You could be right. It could depend on the timing of a release on any report also. Look at the Russia report. What Russia report?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Or pick a cabinet based on how ingrained they are with the Brexit ideology at the expense of everything else.

Boris supported Leave because he calculated it would make him PM

 

[PVA]

I doubt it to be honest, they're very good at PR and he will just carry on, there will be a scapegoat, but I doubt it'll be him.

Yep. Hancock is the face of this, he'll be thrown under the bus once this is over.

Boris will be front and centre once the numbers start dropping and he'll be the saviour.

The general public will absolutely lap it up. That's the kind of thing they are thick enough to fall for.

 

[fernandopartridge]

The tories will get rid of a leader if they feel it protects the party overall, they are ruthless. Johnson will go I reckon, he's got paternity leave coming up and I wouldn't be surprised if some ill health reason is used.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The tories will get rid of a leader if they feel it protects the party overall, they are ruthless. Johnson will go I reckon, he's got paternity leave coming up and I wouldn't be surprised if some ill health reason is used.

Nah he is master joke teller and pint holder, nobody else in their party is better at it

 

[skybluetony176]

Yep. Hancock is the face of this, he'll be thrown under the bus once this is over.

Boris will be front and centre once the numbers start dropping and he'll be the saviour.

The general public will absolutely lap it up. That's the kind of thing they are thick enough to fall for.

Chris Whitty will be the first casualty. And having read the Times article I couldn’t say he doesn’t deserve it.

 

[PVA]

Chris Whitty will be the first casualty. And having read the Times article I couldn’t say he doesn’t deserve it.

Grendel won't be pleased with that, he was really singing his praises during the government's initial response (that definitely wasn't herd immunity, no siree).

 

[clint van damme]

This quote from the Times article sums it up

“The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

An equally lengthy list of recommendations to address the deficiencies was never implemented. The source said preparations for a no-deal Brexit “sucked all the blood out of pandemic planning” in the following years.”

I've read a few articles on that drill as well as heard a couple of interviews with Professor Anthony Costello who's been trying to warn governments to be prepared for such an occurrence for 18 years.
The no one could have seen it coming, no one could have been prepared arguments just don't wash

 

[CCFCSteve]

The Times article is damming and it will be interesting to see the government response (and more importantly the inquiries when all the information is laid bare - which is the right time/way for people to held to account)

I watched that video about 5 or 6 times and I’m still wasnt quite sure about the uproar. People will read into it what they want but it’s a minute clip and he starts by talking about ‘it’s in that context’ what context ? So I googled the speech and checked the transcript...

‘From Brussels to China to Washington tariffs are being waved around like cudgels even in debates on foreign policy where frankly they have no place - and there is an ever growing proliferation of non-tariff barriers and the resulting tensions are letting the air out of the tyres of the world economy.

World trading volumes are lagging behind global growth.

Trade used to grow at roughly double global GDP – from 1987 to 2007.

Now it barely keeps pace and global growth is itself anaemic and the decline in global poverty is beginning to slow.

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other’

So basically the context was how unnecessary trade barriers and protectionism are slowing the decline of global poverty ???? But I guess the person uploading it didn’t want that bit on there ?!

There are plenty of genuine faults to be looked into after it’s over but this type of nonsense (to be polite) isn’t any help to anyone !

 

[TTG]

If we were politicians:

PVA: Nick Clegg on crack
G: Mark Francois
Coventrian: Ian Paisley Snr
Dave O'Day: John Prescott

And Sylus would be David Icke

 

[fernandopartridge]

The Times article is damming and it will be interesting to see the government response (and more importantly the inquiries when all the information is laid bare - which is the right time/way for people to held to account)

I watched that video about 5 or 6 times and I’m still wasnt quite sure about the uproar. People will read into it what they want but it’s a minute clip and he starts by talking about ‘it’s in that context’ what context ? So I googled the speech and checked the transcript...

‘From Brussels to China to Washington tariffs are being waved around like cudgels even in debates on foreign policy where frankly they have no place - and there is an ever growing proliferation of non-tariff barriers and the resulting tensions are letting the air out of the tyres of the world economy.

World trading volumes are lagging behind global growth.

Trade used to grow at roughly double global GDP – from 1987 to 2007.

Now it barely keeps pace and global growth is itself anaemic and the decline in global poverty is beginning to slow.

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other’

So basically the context was how unnecessary trade barriers and protectionism are slowing the decline of global poverty ???? But I guess the person uploading it didn’t want that bit on there ?!

There are plenty of genuine faults to be looked into after it’s over but this type of nonsense (to be polite) isn’t any help to anyone !

I get your point to an extent, you have to ask why was Coronavirus mentioned at all in that context then Steve? The premise of it is about not intervening isn't it.

 

[stupot07]

I get your point to an extent, you have to ask why was Coronavirus mentioned at all in that context then Steve? The premise of it is about not intervening isn't it.

Exactly.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[CCFCSteve]

I get your point to an extent, you have to ask why was Coronavirus mentioned at all in that context then Steve? The premise of it is about not intervening isn't it.

Im not being difficult but I didn’t hear (get) the bit about not intervening hence me looking into it. I got that Coronavirus was causing more countries to put their barriers up and causing more market segregation and that we wouldn’t do that. I was honestly listened to it with a completely open mind as well.

As I say people will hear what the want to in terms of context etc. Unfortunately because of current circumstances people will put two and two together and tie our perceived (could be argued actual) slow response and the words used, I just don’t see it.

 

[Astute]

The Times article is damming and it will be interesting to see the government response (and more importantly the inquiries when all the information is laid bare - which is the right time/way for people to held to account)

I watched that video about 5 or 6 times and I’m still wasnt quite sure about the uproar. People will read into it what they want but it’s a minute clip and he starts by talking about ‘it’s in that context’ what context ? So I googled the speech and checked the transcript...

‘From Brussels to China to Washington tariffs are being waved around like cudgels even in debates on foreign policy where frankly they have no place - and there is an ever growing proliferation of non-tariff barriers and the resulting tensions are letting the air out of the tyres of the world economy.

World trading volumes are lagging behind global growth.

Trade used to grow at roughly double global GDP – from 1987 to 2007.

Now it barely keeps pace and global growth is itself anaemic and the decline in global poverty is beginning to slow.

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other’

So basically the context was how unnecessary trade barriers and protectionism are slowing the decline of global poverty ???? But I guess the person uploading it didn’t want that bit on there ?!

There are plenty of genuine faults to be looked into after it’s over but this type of nonsense (to be polite) isn’t any help to anyone !

Very interesting considering all the media is supposed to be on the side of the Tories.

If they were all on the side of the Tories maybe the tide is turning.

 

[Astute]

Im not being difficult but I didn’t hear (get) the bit about not intervening hence me looking into it. I got that Coronavirus was causing more countries to put their barriers up and causing more market segregation and that we wouldn’t do that. I was honestly listened to it with a completely open mind as well.

As I say people will hear what the want to in terms of context etc. Unfortunately because of current circumstances people will put two and two together and tie our perceived (could be argued actual) slow response and the words used, I just don’t see it.

I am all for hammering someone for what they have done wrong. But what we don't need to happen is Labour believing false news and having a go at the Tories for it for the news to be shown to be false. It would make those who voted Tory back them and deride Labour even more.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Very interesting considering all the media is supposed to be on the side of the Tories.

If they were all on the side of the Tories maybe the tide is turning.

The times is usually right leaning (but from
memory also wanted to remain - think the Sunday times was the same but don’t quote me !)

From articles I’ve read they’re usually pretty fair hence it will be interesting to see the governments response. They were pretty brutal 2-3 weeks ago when there was the uproar about Cummings (herd immunity/London lockdown) and the author of the article had to tweet a couple of clarification points. Not sure if this article is by the same people/person

 

[CCFCSteve]

I am all for hammering someone for what they have done wrong. But what we don't need to happen is Labour believing false news and having a go at the Tories for it for the news to be shown to be false. It would make those who voted Tory back them and deride Labour even more.

Thats why I think Starmer is probably taking the correct approach at present. Still point out immediate issues/failings and then when there’s an inquiry if there are major failings/issues jump on them and capitalise on them then. The wider public wouldn’t appreciate him giving a government a good shoeing based on articles etc at present, however much some would prefer him to.

 

[clint van damme]

Very interesting considering all the media is supposed to be on the side of the Tories.

If they were all on the side of the Tories maybe the tide is turning.

Maybe it's just one particular Tory they're not on the side of.
There's certainly evidence to suggest that perhaps that's the case. Time will tell.

 

[David O'Day]

But but Boris ladddddd

When Ruper Murdochs times newspaper is lining up to bury Boris it will be hard to survive.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

[Skybluefaz]

I am all for hammering someone for what they have done wrong. But what we don't need to happen is Labour believing false news and having a go at the Tories for it for the news to be shown to be false. It would make those who voted Tory back them and deride Labour even more.

Those who voted tory voted for them after they set up their Twitter account to mimic the fact check Twitter account
Twitter accuses Tories of misleading public with 'factcheck' foray
They have no moral high ground

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

My mind changed a little when I read an article. An 80 ton shipment turned up from Turkey. It had 500,000 medical gowns on it. Sounded great. But then it said it won't last long as there are 400,000 frontline staff. It gives an idea of the problem we face.

Countries that manufacture items are keeping them for themselves. This us the problem with becoming service based and mot manufacturing based. The EU even made an apology to Italy for shipments that had been paid for from France and Germany that they ended up keeping for themselves.

Just like the test kits we bought that ended up being useless.

I put it down to running everything on a tight budget. Always wanting to get the cheapest price but wasting NHS money on management. Suddenly the items are like gold dust. The suppliers can get a much better price elsewhere so they sell elsewhere.

Does anyone honestly think they are not trying to buy PPE?

I think they are trying to get it and are having problems, but at the same time the bean counters will only let them get so much.

Plus it still doesn't explain why, when told this was one of the most likely crises to occur, the PPE etc was not stockpiled in case of emergency or even when the disease first reared its head why they didnt get as much supply in early doors in case it did end up as it has and demand going through the roof at a later date.

Also as you say since the 80's the focus has been on service industries , financial services esp, so we're heavily reliant on imports. Nothing fundamentally wrong with that but it's a balancing act and we've massively overtipped the scales. Perhaps we could sew all those £20's together to create PPE? Oh wait, no we can't because the money doesn't actually exist except on some computer database.

 

[shmmeee]

The Times article is damming and it will be interesting to see the government response (and more importantly the inquiries when all the information is laid bare - which is the right time/way for people to held to account)

I watched that video about 5 or 6 times and I’m still wasnt quite sure about the uproar. People will read into it what they want but it’s a minute clip and he starts by talking about ‘it’s in that context’ what context ? So I googled the speech and checked the transcript...

‘From Brussels to China to Washington tariffs are being waved around like cudgels even in debates on foreign policy where frankly they have no place - and there is an ever growing proliferation of non-tariff barriers and the resulting tensions are letting the air out of the tyres of the world economy.

World trading volumes are lagging behind global growth.

Trade used to grow at roughly double global GDP – from 1987 to 2007.

Now it barely keeps pace and global growth is itself anaemic and the decline in global poverty is beginning to slow.

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other’

So basically the context was how unnecessary trade barriers and protectionism are slowing the decline of global poverty ???? But I guess the person uploading it didn’t want that bit on there ?!

There are plenty of genuine faults to be looked into after it’s over but this type of nonsense (to be polite) isn’t any help to anyone !

The government response was basically “it’s mostly correct”. We knew most of it already mate.

And I’m sorry but at what point do you stop minimising evidence after evidence that this government intended to have less of a lockdown and therefore more deaths to gain a small economic advantage?

Come on Steve, you’re a reasonable bloke and I’m sure it must be hard to internalise the people you’ve voted for doing such thing but that’s where all the evidence points.

This shouldn’t be about party politics and sticking up for who you voted for. Have some humility and realise thousands have died unnecessarily due to government action. Thousands. More than any terrorist attack. More than Grenfell. All for ideology and laziness.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Nah he is master joke teller and pint holder, nobody else in their party is better at it

Yep. He's the one that is most like Farage and so can negate his effect making sure the right leaning vote continues to vote Tory.

 

[shmmeee]

Im not being difficult but I didn’t hear (get) the bit about not intervening hence me looking into it. I got that Coronavirus was causing more countries to put their barriers up and causing more market segregation and that we wouldn’t do that. I was honestly listened to it with a completely open mind as well.

As I say people will hear what the want to in terms of context etc. Unfortunately because of current circumstances people will put two and two together and tie our perceived (could be argued actual) slow response and the words used, I just don’t see it.

And the “take it on the chin”?

The quotes from government insiders in well connected papers saying “we didn’t want lockdown”?

The quotes from scientific advisors saying their advice was ignored?

The quotes from Whitehall about Cummings presentation “a few pensioners will die”?

At some point mate you’re just deluding yourself.

Ive been there. Voting Labour when Iraq happened and the full extent of the deceit came out. But there comes a point where basic humanity and common sense comes ahead of party loyalty.

 

[Ian1779]

It won’t end here - this government will try and send kids back to school too early, social distancing is utterly impossible in an education setting, and then we just start the cycle of disease spreading all over again.

 

[clint van damme]

But but Boris ladddddd

When Ruper Murdochs times newspaper is lining up to bury Boris it will be hard to survive.



Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

For a man who said we've had enough of experts!

 

[CCFCSteve]

The government response was basically “it’s mostly correct”. We knew most of it already mate.

And I’m sorry but at what point do you stop minimising evidence after evidence that this government intended to have less of a lockdown and therefore more deaths to gain a small economic advantage?

Come on Steve, you’re a reasonable bloke and I’m sure it must be hard to internalise the people you’ve voted for doing such thing but that’s where all the evidence points.

This shouldn’t be about party politics and sticking up for who you voted for. Have some humility and realise thousands have died unnecessarily due to government action. Thousands. More than any terrorist attack. More than Grenfell. All for ideology and laziness.

You’re right shmmeee, this isn’t about party politics and inquiries will be held to understand what actions were taken, when and why and I would expect people to be held to account. I’m keeping an open mind on certain elements until then (I’ve commented before about PPE and testing NHS workers as the two main issues I see as failings)

In terms of the planned lesser lockdown, I agree, I think the intention was not to have a strict lockdown (quite rightly if feasible/possible....it wasn’t hence the measures implemented)

If it’s found that the government ignored advice for purely economic reasons Ill be first to call for heads to roll

Unfortunately rather than sensible debate people would rather throw the kitchen sink at it.....like that dodgy/cut video earlier

ps I listen to Majid Nawaz (former Lib Dem) a fair bit on LBC (usually reasonably/balanced, got a bit ranty over brexit but didn’t everyone on both sides). He’s talking about Times article now and posted some stuff on Twitter.

أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) on Twitter

 

[clint van damme]

You’re right shmmeee, this isn’t about party politics and inquiries will be held to understand what actions were taken, when and why and I would expect people to be held to account. I’m keeping an open mind on certain elements until then (I’ve commented before about PPE and testing NHS workers as the two main issues I see as failings)

In terms of the planned lesser lockdown, I agree, I think the intention was not to have a strict lockdown (quite rightly if feasible/possible....it wasn’t hence the measures implemented)

If it’s found that the government ignored advice for purely economic reasons Ill be first to call for heads to roll

Unfortunately rather than sensible debate people would rather throw the kitchen sink at it.....like that dodgy/cut video earlier

ps I listen to Majid Nawaz (former Lib Dem) a fair bit on LBC (usually reasonably/balanced, got a bit ranty over brexit but didn’t everyone on both sides). He’s talking about Times article now and posted some stuff on Twitter.

أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) on Twitter

I saw the Nawaz stuff earlier and if he's correct it would seem the knives are out Johnson.