UK defends coronavirus response after Reuters investigation

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Perhaps. 

 

I just object to seeing endless critisism of the government in these already depressing times. All four governments of the UK did as they were advised by their medical experts. 

 

I do agree there has been a major f up somewhere regarding PPE. That needs looking into. 

Well, it were there experts.

 

I see far less to hardly any criticism of the handling of the crisis in Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, even France.

 

Maybe the citizens there feel it was handled better?

 

Even hard hit countries like Spain and Italy seem more content with the approach, but especially for these countries that may very well be just my perception.

Edited April 12, 2020 by stevenl

[KhaoNiaw]

4 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Why would the government shut down the economy and ruin countless people's lives given that in the past we escaped similar pandemics? Strong measures were only taken once it was clear we were not going to escape this one. Sadly that has probably resulted in more deaths. 

The UK government carried out Exercise Cygnus in October 2016 for such a pandemic which showed "gaping holes in Britain's Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response plan". The full report of the exercise remains classified. In September 2017, the Cabinet Office published a report noting the high probability of a pandemic potentially causing 20,000-750,00 deaths. They've been aware of the risks for over 3 years. 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Well, it were there experts.

 

I see far less to hardly any criticism of the handling of the crisis in Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, even France.

 

Maybe the citizens there feel it was handled better?

 

Even hard hit countries like Spain and Italy seem more content with the approach, but especially for these countries that may very well be just my perception.

Perception, yes. We (assuming you're British) are less likely to hear critisism from those other nationalities. 

 

Belgium have recorded around 3,600 deaths already from  population of just 11 million. I can't imagine their citizens are all that happy. Sadly it looks like Belgium are on course to become one of the worst hit per-capita. 

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Perception, yes. We (assuming you're British) are less likely to hear critisism from those other nationalities. 

 

Belgium have recorded around 3,600 deaths already from  population of just 11 million. I can't imagine their citizens are all that happy. Sadly it looks like Belgium are on course to become one of the worst hit per-capita. 

No. For perception I was mainly refering to the latter 2 countries, but for the others, not perception, simply less criticism.

 

If citizens are unhappy with the handling they should be able to express that.

[superal]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

Lots of speculation, shortage of facts in your post.

  19 hours ago, superal said:

               Johnson acted on the advice of two highly qualified medical scientists and their teams . Johnson had no choice but to follow their advice which for some reason went in a different direction from the rest of the world .       Could it be that 1/  they realised too late the c19 was not another SARS that had previously not affected the UK ?   2/ that the resources needed to fight this virus were not available because of their delayed response meant equipment had been acquired by other countries ? 

So they resorted to the herd immunity theory which to me was their way out until 250 other notable scientists  etc intervened , thank god .  So now in a catch up mode leaving behind unnecessary deaths and a front line of under equipped  heroic NHS workers .

I fail to see how BJ  can be held accountable for the poor performance of his advisers . If JC had been at the helm we would be in the same predicament . Indeed this is not a time for political arguments and I for one am pleased to see the other parties getting involved and trying to help .    

Lots of speculation, shortage of facts in your post.

 

Speculation ? I do not agree as 1/ the UK were slow out of the blocks and for that reason are being publicly criticised , factual , just been watching Dr Hilary making the same statement .  2/  PPE , ventilators , medical gases were in short supply -fact  .   If you cannot write something constructive why bother ?

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, superal said:

  19 hours ago, superal said:

               Johnson acted on the advice of two highly qualified medical scientists and their teams . Johnson had no choice but to follow their advice which for some reason went in a different direction from the rest of the world .       Could it be that 1/  they realised too late the c19 was not another SARS that had previously not affected the UK ?   2/ that the resources needed to fight this virus were not available because of their delayed response meant equipment had been acquired by other countries ? 

So they resorted to the herd immunity theory which to me was their way out until 250 other notable scientists  etc intervened , thank god .  So now in a catch up mode leaving behind unnecessary deaths and a front line of under equipped  heroic NHS workers .

I fail to see how BJ  can be held accountable for the poor performance of his advisers . If JC had been at the helm we would be in the same predicament . Indeed this is not a time for political arguments and I for one am pleased to see the other parties getting involved and trying to help .    

Lots of speculation, shortage of facts in your post.

 

Speculation ? I do not agree as 1/ the UK were slow out of the blocks and for that reason are being publicly criticised , factual , just been watching Dr Hilary making the same statement .  2/  PPE , ventilators , medical gases were in short supply -fact  .   If you cannot write something constructive why bother ?

Could it be that ... is not speculation?

 

Anyone who claims that BJ is not responsible for his choice of advisers, and for following their advice when nearly all other countries were going a different path, some at that point with already proven success, does not have one ounce of credibility.

 

UK was badly prepared and made some poor choices.

[superal]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Could it be that ... is not speculation?

 

Anyone who claims that BJ is not responsible for his choice of advisers, and for following their advice when nearly all other countries were going a different path, some at that point with already proven success, does not have one ounce of credibility.

 

UK was badly prepared and made some poor choices.

Whitty & Vallance are the top scientific advisers to the government and have been for some years . I am not defending them because they have some serious questions to answer on their strategy and the given advice to BJ . There was no choice to make as they were already in their given roles and backed by their own highly qualified teams . So why would BJ opt for another choice when he had the top people as advisers ?  Hindsight is a wonderful weapon to make unjust criticisms , in this case BJ is exonerated but the advisers no .  

Your opinions seem to have a political slant because of your condemnation of BJ , so what would be your response and actions to the governments performance as a person of credibility ?  

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, superal said:

Whitty & Vallance are the top scientific advisers to the government and have been for some years . I am not defending them because they have some serious questions to answer on their strategy and the given advice to BJ . There was no choice to make as they were already in their given roles and backed by their own highly qualified teams . So why would BJ opt for another choice when he had the top people as advisers ?  Hindsight is a wonderful weapon to make unjust criticisms , in this case BJ is exonerated but the advisers no .  

Your opinions seem to have a political slant because of your condemnation of BJ , so what would be your response and actions to the governments performance as a person of credibility ?  

That's a twisted argument, you're criticizing BJ therefore politically motivated.

 

I am criticizing because the government with BJ at the helm didn't do a good job, and that is a big understatement.

[NoBrainer]

Anybody know what treatments the UK is now using for people who end up hospitalized?

 

There was an article in the telegraph a week or so ago, that said the Chris Whitty was only allowing hospitals to treat people with Paracetamol, or in extreme cases, Oxygen.

 

Was this correct?, And if so, has that been subsequently changed?

 

If true, it is no wonder the mortality rate is so high, and I would view it as criminal.

 

There is very little information on how people are being treated. Notice Boris has kept mum on what helped him on the road to recovery.  I am sure a lot of people would be interested to know.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

Anybody know what treatments the UK is now using for people who end up hospitalized?

 

There was an article in the telegraph a week or so ago, that said the Chris Whitty was only allowing hospitals to treat people with Paracetamol, or in extreme cases, Oxygen.

 

Was this correct?, And if so, has that been subsequently changed?

 

If true, it is no wonder the mortality rate is so high, and I would view it as criminal.

 

There is very little information on how people are being treated. Notice Boris has kept mum on what helped him on the road to recovery.  I am sure a lot of people would be interested to know.

I’m not a fan of this government but I’d need to see hard evidence to back any claim that ministers are directing the treatment doctors may use.

[NoBrainer]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not a fan of this government but I’d need to see hard evidence to back any claim that ministers are directing the treatment doctors may use.

From an article printed in the telegraph. I already posted links in another discussion thread.

 

Links about half way down this thread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, NoBrainer said:

From an article printed in the telegraph. I already posted links in another discussion thread.

 

Links about half way down this thread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please accept my apologies, I did not recognize the Government’s chief medical officer and mistook his name for a government minister.

 

The subtext of the Telegraph article is the UK’s chief medical officer has disallowed snake oil treatments being touted by a foreign leader.

 

I think it’s a wise decision.

[NoBrainer]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please accept my apologies, I did not recognize the Government’s chief medical officer and mistook his name for a government minister.

 

The subtext of the Telegraph article is the UK’s chief medical officer has disallowed snake oil treatments being touted by a foreign leader.

 

I think it’s a wise decision.

 

You may think it is a wise decision now, but as more data keeps coming in every week, it appears to be the best remedy currently available.

It takes a long time for some people to open their eyes and actually research something to come to their own conclusion, rather than let the Liberal Media with there own agenda, feed them the propaganda of the day.

 

It is the go to treatment in Thailand, it is the go to Treatment in the USA, France, India na many other countries around the world, in fact too many for me to list here.

 

So if you end up in ICU in a Thai Hospital would you refuse it because you think it's snake oil?

 

Rather just get Paracetamol? I think not.  I have nothing to do these days, as my business is mostly shut down, so i have spent the last weeks reading about the virus and it's effects/weaknesses Etc., how it attacks the body, and what should be done to mitigate it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink, so they say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, NoBrainer said:

 

You may think it is a wise decision now, but as more data keeps coming in every week, it appears to be the best remedy currently available.

It takes a long time for some people to open their eyes and actually research something to come to their own conclusion, rather than let the Liberal Media with there own agenda, feed them the propaganda of the day.

 

It is the go to treatment in Thailand, it is the go to Treatment in the USA, France, India na many other countries around the world, in fact too many for me to list here.

 

So if you end up in ICU in a Thai Hospital would you refuse it because you think it's snake oil?

 

Rather just get Paracetamol? I think not.  I have nothing to do these days, as my business is mostly shut down, so i have spent the last weeks reading about the virus and it's effects/weaknesses Etc., how it attacks the body, and what should be done to mitigate it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink, so they say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll defer to the chief medical officer.

 

You can find all sorts of useful information on the internet and a great deal of nonsense.

[evadgib]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll defer to the chief medical officer.

 

You can find all sorts of useful information on the internet and a great deal of nonsense.

"In my opinion, & I must say it's an opinion I greatly admire...."  was part of a sketch in which Mike Yarwood sent up football pundit Jimmy Hill long before the fast show gave us 'Ron Manager'...

 

Your constant virtue signalling on these boards comes across in much the same manner; The only difference being that Mike Yarwood was clearly joking! ????

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, evadgib said:

"In my opinion, & I must say it's an opinion I greatly admire...."  was part of a sketch in which Mike Yarwood sent up football pundit Jimmy Hill long before the fast show gave us 'Ron Manager'...

 

Your constant virtue signalling on these boards comes across in much the same manner; The only difference being that Mike Yarwood was clearly joking! ????

Nothing like a personal attack when you haven’t got an argument.

[473geo]

First a lock down would be pointless if the virus was not given a footing as there would effectively be too many people on the streets with no immunity after lock down is lifted, so perhaps the intial choice of herd immunity may play out well. We see there is a possibility of a second wave in China - who knows what the correct response should have been.

 

With the exception of the NHS workers, whose bravery in the current situation is unquestionable, you would be surprised at the rather slack response by the UK public.

When the lock down was imminent people flocked to the supermarkets to stock up, no masks, no distancing.

 

Today I visited a supermarket, distancing measures in place, not too strictly observed, I wore a homemade cotton mask not sure if any real benefit, but I would be part of only one in ten customers  who made the effort, unlike the store staff who all wore masks.

 

My 75 year old neighbour stated that this virus was only another flu, quoting the numbers dead in 1968 over 1 million. Her daughter is infected with Corona, her other daughter has low immune system, the lady is perhaps taking things more seriously, but has no qualms going out for a newspaper, no mask, only things that inhibit are the queues at the local supermarket, but that alone did not stop her taking public transport to another store some distance from her home!!

 

So my point is, herd immunity approach to my mind in the UK would have happened, due to the approach of the British public, and, the lock down serves the purpose of not limiting deaths but more as a control element to keep the NHS in position to best deal with cases as they will undoubtedly arise, irrespective of which political party is in power, or who is at the helm at the time.

[superal]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

That's a twisted argument, you're criticizing BJ therefore politically motivated.

 

I am criticizing because the government with BJ at the helm didn't do a good job, and that is a big understatement.

Please show where I have criticised BJ  as I certainly have not because I believe he has the potential to be the best PM the UK has had for many a year  . 

The two big players  Vallance / Whitty are at the head of SAGE .

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies . This is a long standing government body set up to advise government decision makers in times of crisis . In one of your previous posts you say BJ had  a choice of advisers but that is not the case . So once again , SAGE are advisers to the government and consist of the highest qualified / experienced medics and scientists within the UK . To go against their advice which was also tabled to the cabinet at a  COBR  meeting is unthinkable . However there has to be an inquiry into the whole handling of this tragic event to include the SAGE advice , its plans & strategy and the lack of basic medical PPE  equipment that has taken the lives of front line NHS workers .

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, superal said:

Please show where I have criticised BJ  as I certainly have not because I believe he has the potential to be the best PM the UK has had for many a year  . 

The two big players  Vallance / Whitty are at the head of SAGE .

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies . This is a long standing government body set up to advise government decision makers in times of crisis . In one of your previous posts you say BJ had  a choice of advisers but that is not the case . So once again , SAGE are advisers to the government and consist of the highest qualified / experienced medics and scientists within the UK . To go against their advice which was also tabled to the cabinet at a  COBR  meeting is unthinkable . However there has to be an inquiry into the whole handling of this tragic event to include the SAGE advice , its plans & strategy and the lack of basic medical PPE  equipment that has taken the lives of front line NHS workers .

I never made the claim you were criticising BJ, I was referring to your claim towards me, which was 'you're criticising BJ therefore you're politically motivated'.

 

But now it becomes more and more clear it is a double twist, since you're not criticising BJ due to political motivation.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by stevenl

[superal]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I never made the claim you were criticising BJ, I was referring to your claim towards me, which was 'you're criticising BJ therefore you're politically motivated'.

 

But now it becomes more and more clear it is a double twist, since you're not criticising BJ due to political motivation.

 

 

Pasted from your previous post 

That's a twisted argument, you're criticizing BJ therefore politically motivated. 

 

You say political motivation , I recognise the talent of BJ but for sure despised T.May as did much of the UK but I have only addressed your posts which brought in politics . To summarise I believe wrong decisions were made by the advisers to the UK PM & cabinet .

 

[stevenl]

43 minutes ago, superal said:

Pasted from your previous post 

That's a twisted argument, you're criticizing BJ therefore politically motivated. 

 

You say political motivation , I recognise the talent of BJ but for sure despised T.May as did much of the UK but I have only addressed your posts which brought in politics . To summarise I believe wrong decisions were made by the advisers to the UK PM & cabinet .

 

That was your argument: you're criticising BJ therefore your posts are politically motivated.  I did not bring in politics at all, you did in your post to me by accusing me of being politically motivated. Which of course is a nonsense argument, but your most recent posts really support the preposition: you're politically motivated, therefore rejecting any criticism of BJ.

 

For your information, the advisers don't make decisions, they advise.

[Nigel Garvie]

19 minutes ago, stevenl said:

snip

 

For your information, the advisers don't make decisions, they advise.

Tell that to Dominic Cummings!

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Tell that to Dominic Cummings!

Still BJ who can follow the advise yes or no.