"Italian health minister claims Johnson told his leader UK plan was ‘herd immunity"

clapham_gull · Jun 2, 2020

RossyG said:
Not sending people with Covid back into care homes would’ve been a good start.

Encouraging carers to live in where possible would’ve helped, too.

It wouldn’t have stopped all deaths, of course. That was never an option.

Again I'm sorry this falls apart under scrutiny.

1) Where would the elderly in hospital gone ? Stayed in Hospital ?

2) Carers moving in was looked at but most care homes wouldn't have had the capacity to house them.

Many full time carers were self isolating anyway and the homes brought in temp staff who moved it around.

There were so many structural challenges that the UK only had one option (under the circumstances it was under) which was to lock down quickly and track and trace.

However the government ****ed around deciding what to and chose their only option far too late.

I'd be amazed if any inquiry judges differently.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

clapham_gull · Jun 2, 2020

beorhthelm said:
this is Vallance explaining the policy on 12th March

Yes we know.

But the PM has always underplayed how it was actively being pursued at the time.

This is what Cummings was referring to as his "mistakes" in the press conference.

It caused delay. When they tried to defend themselves in the inquiry, more evidence is good.

beorhthelm · Jun 2, 2020

if Dispatches want to do some real journalism they should look into who made those decisions about hospital discharges and carehomes.

vegster · Jun 2, 2020

clapham_gull said:
The fact it was confirmed to the Italian government very much is news.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

As indeed Is the fact that quite quickly the government denied there had ever been the remotest chance of them pursuing this policy.... so, looks like another lie on the charge sheet.

Machiavelli · Jun 2, 2020

Brighton Lines said:
Yes, of course, there are variables. But I maintain that the principle would apply. Twice as many folk, all things being equal, would potentially cause more infection.

I'll have a go. In this response, you're quoting (your) principle and (others') variables. What makes you so sure that you have a (presumably superior) principle to others' (presumably inferior) variables?
Same goes for your last sentence: the 'all things being equal' is another way of (others') variables being limited vis-a-vis your principle (which, I note, you've also indicated you'll hang on to until it's been disproved).

Machiavelli · Jun 2, 2020

RossyG said:
No, I think I’ve made my thoughts on this issue clear over the past few weeks.

This was a virus that targeted specific groups. They should’ve been our focus.

And we still have the collateral damage to come: death’s due to missed treatments, depression, and unemployment.

[MENTION=16159]Bold Seagull[/MENTION] is spot on. You keep on posting your position. You keep on being asked uncomfortable questions about your position, and then refusing to answer them. You then keep on posting on other threads. Ad infinitum.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jun 2, 2020

Badger Boy said:
No. I was vocal about supporting the herd immunity idea and I was wrong. Lockdown was the right action to take with, in my opinion, the wrong message given to the public. Probably a lack of clear vision and long term exit strategy as well, which fuelled the cynicism. But I feel I was wrong to oppose the lockdown action itself. I feel like mine was an emotional overreaction to the doom and gloom predictions (250k deaths) which was total fantasy. The relentless negativity got my back up but I can see now that lockdown was the right action to take. It wasn't perfectly implemented or enforced by any means and there are many questions about it, but isolation in itself was the right thing to do.

I don't criticise Boris Johnson for initially believing herd immunity was the right thing to do. And I won't criticise him for changing his opinion having listened to the expert opinions, that's what they were there for. Any person can make a mistake but what matters is what you do when you realise you have made one. I believe he's bungled it overall, but I feel it would be hypocritical to criticise his initial belief that herd immunity was the right way to go.

I didn't criticise Boris initially, but the herd immunity thing was always wrong. As I noted a long time ago, we knew way back when that maybe 40 million people needed to be either immunized by vaccine or by catching the virus for herd immunity to be present. With one in 6 cases dead in the UK (this is still our data, and the best worlwide is one in 100 - in lying Russia) that would mean either a vaccine (which we don't have) or 6.6 million deaths (a paltry 400,000 in Russia). A better outcome now seems likely but back then it was all guesswork.

sparkie · Jun 3, 2020

If we'd gone into lockdown just 1 week earlier, then many thousands of deaths would have been prevented.

The dither and delay is a real tragedy.

Is it PotG? · Jun 3, 2020

As has been mentioned before, with the amount of brains, intellect, foresight and pandemic expertise on NSC, then who needs SAGE?

Guinness Boy · Jun 3, 2020

Badger Boy said:
No. I was vocal about supporting the herd immunity idea and I was wrong. Lockdown was the right action to take with, in my opinion, the wrong message given to the public. Probably a lack of clear vision and long term exit strategy as well, which fuelled the cynicism. But I feel I was wrong to oppose the lockdown action itself. I feel like mine was an emotional overreaction to the doom and gloom predictions (250k deaths) which was total fantasy. The relentless negativity got my back up but I can see now that lockdown was the right action to take. It wasn't perfectly implemented or enforced by any means and there are many questions about it, but isolation in itself was the right thing to do.

I don't criticise Boris Johnson for initially believing herd immunity was the right thing to do. And I won't criticise him for changing his opinion having listened to the expert opinions, that's what they were there for. Any person can make a mistake but what matters is what you do when you realise you have made one. I believe he's bungled it overall, but I feel it would be hypocritical to criticise his initial belief that herd immunity was the right way to go.

Agree with others, this is a good, honest post.

It's where I was early on too. My early thoughts were based on data from China on death rates that now looks quite wrong and a misunderstanding of how many people would need to be infected for herd immunity to take hold. Once this dawned (again, like you, around the model of 250k deaths but probably also seeing how quickly Covid took hold after the Feb half term here, when many had been skiiing in Italy) my position shifted.

However, I am a non-expert bloke on the internet. The people I was arguing with (and my point back to them) was that they were also blokes on the internet, though correct. I doubt very much any senior politician reads NSC, let alone bases policy judgement on it.

But what we have learned since - and why this IS news - is that Boris was doing the equivalent of basing his opinion on an NSC thread. With all the science available, with actual qualified experts, he was still making political decisions and still listening, not to Vallance but to Cummings. And Cummings is basically just another bloke off the internet. He's a writer, a blogger and a man fascinated with data who will always follow the line dictated to him by focus groups. The mendacious ****er can't even follow his own advice.

This is the scandal of Covid in the UK. A politician who, despite nearly dying himself, placed populist dogma and whatever it is that Dom has over him ahead of science.

beorhthelm · Jun 3, 2020

Guinness Boy said:
But what we have learned since - and why this IS news - is that Boris was doing the equivalent of basing his opinion on an NSC thread. With all the science available, with actual qualified experts, he was still making political decisions and still listening, not to Vallance but to Cummings. And Cummings is basically just another bloke off the internet. He's a writer, a blogger and a man fascinated with data who will always follow the line dictated to him by focus groups. The mendacious ****er can't even follow his own advice.

did we not learn from the Cummings attending SAGE story that he pushed lockdown? and we know Vallance was in favour of natural herd immunity. so im not clear who Johnson was listening to. i suspect neither until he was pushed to make a decision, by which time everyone was saying go to lockdown.

Guinness Boy · Jun 3, 2020

beorhthelm said:
did we not learn from the Cummings attending SAGE story that he pushed lockdown? and we know Vallance was in favour of natural herd immunity. so im not clear who Johnson was listening to. i suspect neither until he was pushed to make a decision, by which time everyone was saying go to lockdown.

Nonsense. If Cummings was in favour of lockdown he had a VERY strange way of showing it.

beorhthelm · Jun 3, 2020

Guinness Boy said:
Nonsense. If Cummings was in favour of lockdown he had a VERY strange way of showing it.

it's counter-intuitive i know, but that was the claim.

Guinness Boy · Jun 3, 2020

beorhthelm said:
it's counter-intuitive i know, but that was the claim.

"according to people familiar with the matter"

If you believe a word these people say you're a fool. And you're not stupid. Don't you work with medical data? What would you have recommended?

Machiavelli · Jun 3, 2020

sparkie said:
If we'd gone into lockdown just 1 week earlier, then many thousands of deaths would have been prevented.

The dither and delay is a real tragedy.

Precisely, dither and delay.

Machiavelli · Jun 3, 2020

Guinness Boy said:
Agree with others, this is a good, honest post.

It's where I was early on too. My early thoughts were based on data from China on death rates that now looks quite wrong and a misunderstanding of how many people would need to be infected for herd immunity to take hold. Once this dawned (again, like you, around the model of 250k deaths but probably also seeing how quickly Covid took hold after the Feb half term here, when many had been skiiing in Italy) my position shifted.

However, I am a non-expert bloke on the internet. The people I was arguing with (and my point back to them) was that they were also blokes on the internet, though correct. I doubt very much any senior politician reads NSC, let alone bases policy judgement on it.

But what we have learned since - and why this IS news - is that Boris was doing the equivalent of basing his opinion on an NSC thread. With all the science available, with actual qualified experts, he was still making political decisions and still listening, not to Vallance but to Cummings. And Cummings is basically just another bloke off the internet. He's a writer, a blogger and a man fascinated with data who will always follow the line dictated to him by focus groups. The mendacious ****er can't even follow his own advice.

This is the scandal of Covid in the UK. A politician who, despite nearly dying himself, placed populist dogma and whatever it is that Dom has over him ahead of science.

Another honest post.
Can I point out as someone who is slightly more than a non-expert bloke on the internet, that there is no such thing as populist dogma :thumbsup:

beorhthelm · Jun 3, 2020

Guinness Boy said:
"according to people familiar with the matter"

If you believe a word these people say you're a fool. And you're not stupid. Don't you work with medical data? What would you have recommended?

rejecting the source also rejects the claim he was influencing SAGE.

i do work in medical information and that early there was naff all real data to go by, all theoretical models and predictions. you could pick a model to support your position.

Guinness Boy · Jun 3, 2020

beorhthelm said:
rejecting the source also rejects the claim he was influencing SAGE.

i do work in medical information and that early there was naff all real data to go by, all theoretical models and predictions. you could pick a model to support your position.

Sorry, my point is this is a government packed full of liars. Maybe Dom was there, maybe he wasn't. If he was there then maybe he argued for a lockdown he didn't believe in himself and maybe he didn't. I wouldn't trust them if they told me today was Wednesday and that's the problem when you spin so much, so often. But there is no doubt that either Johnson takes all his advice from Cummings or Cummings has something absolutely huge over him, or he would have gone during Durhamgate.

Machiavelli said:
Another honest post.
Can I point out as someone who is slightly more than a non-expert bloke on the internet, that there is no such thing as populist dogma

Yes, it's an oxymoron. I should have said populist cult (or changed the "l" for another letter, ha ha). I was trying to convey that they dogmatically stick to whatever they think will win votes.

Kinky Gerbil · Jun 3, 2020

Is it PotG? said:
As has been mentioned before, with the amount of brains, intellect, foresight and pandemic expertise on NSC, then who needs SAGE?

Sage needs to be looked at after this as well.

They haven’t really covered themselves in glory

clapham_gull · Jun 3, 2020

beorhthelm said:
if Dispatches want to do some real journalism they should look into who made those decisions about hospital discharges and carehomes.

Maybe you should tell them ?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

"Italian health minister claims Johnson told his leader UK plan was ‘herd immunity"

Legacy Fan

Legacy Fan

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Sanity Clause

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Thrifty non-licker

Tofu eating wokerati

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Tofu eating wokerati

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Tofu eating wokerati

Im The Scatman

Legacy Fan

Share this page