RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:Interesting Banquo, thanks. I certainly am unaware of the complexity of health provision in the UK, and tend to think of 'the NHS' as one all-encompassing organisation that tends to health care but it seems that's not really accurate. If we are to have a national conversation about the future of health care, there will need to be some very clear and careful education on what we have versus the possible options.

I guess it's not really for this thread, or these times, but any party unwilling to sign up to the idea of taking health spending out of the annual budget/ party politics/setting up a cross party group to administer health across long term goals... I think needs to take a long hard look at themselves. The short termism and constant tinkering is one of the things that REALLY needs to change as a result of what we're going thru.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Its more convoluted now social care has been lumped in (rightly, but not implemented well as yet)- the reaction has been to form local 'Alliances' of providers - acute trusts, community services, care homes, county councils, district councils, GPs, etc etc; frankly, these have hitherto been talking shops, but CV19 has galvinised the local one, and started to show some urgency and ability to deliver in a different way. Fortunately, as yet, there is very little stress on delivery locally, but at least new ways of doing stuff have been developed and delivered, even if not really stress tested. More volunteers than can be deployed as well. Local acute has been providing PPE where ever local pinch points not really covered by the NHS, including to private providers like care homes; the big private providers like hospitals have also leant in.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

This happens all the time. SPads represent their principals at various committees. This is how government works and it gives Ministers that comfort blanket that their wishes are being communicated downwards and gives the advisors a head start on helping to formulate policy.

Don' forget, in a crisis like this there are the scientific experts but also economists, police, military and other agencies that need to coordinate. Cummings and his team will be involved in a lot of meetings across the piece which does help coordination. As much as the man himself is a tool, the point of his being in meetings makes sense.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

Sorry, I meant the core SAGE folks, Whitty, Vallance, Farrar et al. All heavyweights, who've been at it for years.

The rest is yet further projection (from both of us in fairness).

Since the membership of Sage is secret what can we do but try to imagine how human beings would operate in such a situation? Don't know if it's cynicism or realism, but I think it's wiser to think of them as ordinary humans, that is, imperfect.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

This happens all the time. SPads represent their principals at various committees. This is how government works and it gives Ministers that comfort blanket that their wishes are being communicated downwards and gives the advisors a head start on helping to formulate policy.

Don' forget, in a crisis like this there are the scientific experts but also economists, police, military and other agencies that need to coordinate. Cummings and his team will be involved in a lot of meetings across the piece which does help coordination. As much as the man himself is a tool, the point of his being in meetings makes sense.

According to the Guardian, no SPad from No.10 has ever attended a Sage meeting:

Sage, which is chaired by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, was first convened to provide scientific advice on swine flu in 2009.

Since then, almost 50 Sage meetings have been held, including those convened to respond to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 2013 winter flooding, the ebola outbreak, an earthquake in Nepal, the Zika outbreak and the near-collapse of a dam at the Toddbrook Reservoir last year.

There is no evidence in the publicly available minutes of those meetings of any Downing Street officials or political advisers attending. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not dispute that Covid-19 Sage meetings marked the first time political advisers had attended.

“The nature and scale of this emergency, which is impacting the UK in a more direct manner, differs from those that Sage has been mobilised for in the past and, as such, the rotating expert attendance and list of government officials involves a broader set of representatives,” the spokesperson said. Downing Street did not dispute the minutes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

This happens all the time. SPads represent their principals at various committees. This is how government works and it gives Ministers that comfort blanket that their wishes are being communicated downwards and gives the advisors a head start on helping to formulate policy.

Don' forget, in a crisis like this there are the scientific experts but also economists, police, military and other agencies that need to coordinate. Cummings and his team will be involved in a lot of meetings across the piece which does help coordination. As much as the man himself is a tool, the point of his being in meetings makes sense.

According to the Guardian, no SPad from No.10 has ever attended a Sage meeting:

Sage, which is chaired by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, was first convened to provide scientific advice on swine flu in 2009.

Since then, almost 50 Sage meetings have been held, including those convened to respond to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 2013 winter flooding, the ebola outbreak, an earthquake in Nepal, the Zika outbreak and the near-collapse of a dam at the Toddbrook Reservoir last year.

There is no evidence in the publicly available minutes of those meetings of any Downing Street officials or political advisers attending. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not dispute that Covid-19 Sage meetings marked the first time political advisers had attended.

“The nature and scale of this emergency, which is impacting the UK in a more direct manner, differs from those that Sage has been mobilised for in the past and, as such, the rotating expert attendance and list of government officials involves a broader set of representatives,” the spokesperson said. Downing Street did not dispute the minutes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

When was the last time we had a major pandemic that No10 was interested in coordinating the response to? Sage probably isn't top of the agenda most weeks. They are great examples, but none have the import of the current crisis.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

Sorry, I meant the core SAGE folks, Whitty, Vallance, Farrar et al. All heavyweights, who've been at it for years.

The rest is yet further projection (from both of us in fairness).

Since the membership of Sage is secret what can we do but try to imagine how human beings would operate in such a situation? Don't know if it's cynicism or realism, but I think it's wiser to think of them as ordinary humans, that is, imperfect.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't really see the point of imagining how a bunch of people we don't know in an environment we have no clue about would operate- and I certainly do not imagine perfection.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: According to the Guardian, no SPad from No.10 has ever attended a Sage meeting:

Sage, which is chaired by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, was first convened to provide scientific advice on swine flu in 2009.

Since then, almost 50 Sage meetings have been held, including those convened to respond to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, 2013 winter flooding, the ebola outbreak, an earthquake in Nepal, the Zika outbreak and the near-collapse of a dam at the Toddbrook Reservoir last year.

There is no evidence in the publicly available minutes of those meetings of any Downing Street officials or political advisers attending. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy did not dispute that Covid-19 Sage meetings marked the first time political advisers had attended.

“The nature and scale of this emergency, which is impacting the UK in a more direct manner, differs from those that Sage has been mobilised for in the past and, as such, the rotating expert attendance and list of government officials involves a broader set of representatives,” the spokesperson said. Downing Street did not dispute the minutes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

When was the last time we had a major pandemic that No10 was interested in coordinating the response to? Sage probably isn't top of the agenda most weeks. They are great examples, but none have the import of the current crisis.

Regardless of the magnitude of the problem, Sage is the "establish the scientific facts" stage of the response. I don't see what the chief advisor to the PM can positively contribute to that.

Anyway, the point is that there is no precedence for the attendance of such a SPad at such a meeting. No doubt you will say there is no precedence for such a crisis. In the end, I guess you must think we're (sort-of) in safe hands with these guys, whereas I don't.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: According to the Guardian, no SPad from No.10 has ever attended a Sage meeting:


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

When was the last time we had a major pandemic that No10 was interested in coordinating the response to? Sage probably isn't top of the agenda most weeks. They are great examples, but none have the import of the current crisis.

Regardless of the magnitude of the problem, Sage is the "establish the scientific facts" stage of the response. I don't see what the chief advisor to the PM can positively contribute to that.

Anyway, the point is that there is no precedence for the attendance of such a SPad at such a meeting. No doubt you will say there is no precedence for such a crisis. In the end, I guess you must think we're (sort-of) in safe hands with these guys, whereas I don't.

Maybe he isn't contributing?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Sorry, I meant the core SAGE folks, Whitty, Vallance, Farrar et al. All heavyweights, who've been at it for years.

The rest is yet further projection (from both of us in fairness).

Since the membership of Sage is secret what can we do but try to imagine how human beings would operate in such a situation? Don't know if it's cynicism or realism, but I think it's wiser to think of them as ordinary humans, that is, imperfect.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't really see the point of imagining how a bunch of people we don't know in an environment we have no clue about would operate- and I certainly do not imagine perfection.

So, as long as the government does something in secret, we cannot possibly imagine what goes on in it and therefore you give them the benefit of the doubt? You sound like one of those "compliant" citizens of South Korea Donny was talking about.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Since the membership of Sage is secret what can we do but try to imagine how human beings would operate in such a situation? Don't know if it's cynicism or realism, but I think it's wiser to think of them as ordinary humans, that is, imperfect.

Whatever floats your boat. I don't really see the point of imagining how a bunch of people we don't know in an environment we have no clue about would operate- and I certainly do not imagine perfection.

So, as long as the government does something in secret, we cannot possibly imagine what goes on in it and therefore you give them the benefit of the doubt? You sound like one of those "compliant" citizens of South Korea Donny was talking about.

You draw the oddest conclusions. Classic straw man, well done, with a bit of a snide insult chucked in.

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: When was the last time we had a major pandemic that No10 was interested in coordinating the response to? Sage probably isn't top of the agenda most weeks. They are great examples, but none have the import of the current crisis.

Regardless of the magnitude of the problem, Sage is the "establish the scientific facts" stage of the response. I don't see what the chief advisor to the PM can positively contribute to that.

Anyway, the point is that there is no precedence for the attendance of such a SPad at such a meeting. No doubt you will say there is no precedence for such a crisis. In the end, I guess you must think we're (sort-of) in safe hands with these guys, whereas I don't.

Maybe he isn't contributing?

Why is he there then?

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Whatever floats your boat. I don't really see the point of imagining how a bunch of people we don't know in an environment we have no clue about would operate- and I certainly do not imagine perfection.

So, as long as the government does something in secret, we cannot possibly imagine what goes on in it and therefore you give them the benefit of the doubt? You sound like one of those "compliant" citizens of South Korea Donny was talking about.

You draw the oddest conclusions. Classic straw man, well done, with a bit of a snide insult chucked in.

A lack of interest in what goes on in secret is exactly the kind of attitude an autocrat would want from his citizens.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: So, as long as the government does something in secret, we cannot possibly imagine what goes on in it and therefore you give them the benefit of the doubt? You sound like one of those "compliant" citizens of South Korea Donny was talking about.

You draw the oddest conclusions. Classic straw man, well done, with a bit of a snide insult chucked in.

A lack of interest in what goes on in secret is exactly the kind of attitude an autocrat would want from his citizens.

Saying I don't see the point in hypothesising how people I don't know operate in an environment I don't understand is not the same as a lack of interest. i also think I've been pretty candid in sharing my thoughts and insights on people and environments I do understand (and not entirely public domain) and therefore feel qualified to discuss. But keep on sniping.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Regardless of the magnitude of the problem, Sage is the "establish the scientific facts" stage of the response. I don't see what the chief advisor to the PM can positively contribute to that.

Anyway, the point is that there is no precedence for the attendance of such a SPad at such a meeting. No doubt you will say there is no precedence for such a crisis. In the end, I guess you must think we're (sort-of) in safe hands with these guys, whereas I don't.

Maybe he isn't contributing?

Why is he there then?

.... what? Why do you think he's there?

I mean, you've told us you think he's there to intimidate all the scientists, but as that is concurrently risible (esp if the meeting is done over video link), purely conjecture, and rather dismissive of the scientists, imagine for a second that he *might* not be there for that... now why else might he be there?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Seriously, if it wasn't Cummings, this would be a non-story. Even with him, it is! He is the PMs advisor.

The only story that should be part of this is that the PM is so damn lazy he can't be part of any meeting at all.

Which is ridiculous.

But Cummings' presence on some SAGE meetings is just not worth any thought whatsoever.

If the government comes out with something insane in the coming days, then by all means question the validity of Cummings' advice, but at the moment it's just hot air.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: You draw the oddest conclusions. Classic straw man, well done, with a bit of a snide insult chucked in.

A lack of interest in what goes on in secret is exactly the kind of attitude an autocrat would want from his citizens.

Saying I don't see the point in hypothesising how people I don't know operate in an environment I don't understand is not the same as a lack of interest. i also think I've been pretty candid in sharing my thoughts and insights on people and environments I do understand (and not entirely public domain) and therefore feel qualified to discuss. But keep on sniping.

Ok, fair enough.

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Maybe he isn't contributing?

Why is he there then?

.... what? Why do you think he's there?

I mean, you've told us you think he's there to intimidate all the scientists, but as that is concurrently risible (esp if the meeting is done over video link), purely conjecture, and rather dismissive of the scientists, imagine for a second that he *might* not be there for that... now why else might he be there?

That's what I asked you. If he's not contributing, what is he doing there?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Why is he there then?

.... what? Why do you think he's there?

I mean, you've told us you think he's there to intimidate all the scientists, but as that is concurrently risible (esp if the meeting is done over video link), purely conjecture, and rather dismissive of the scientists, imagine for a second that he *might* not be there for that... now why else might he be there?

That's what I asked you. If he's not contributing, what is he doing there?

I think that ones been answered already. It’s about coordination.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Why is he there then?

.... what? Why do you think he's there?

I mean, you've told us you think he's there to intimidate all the scientists, but as that is concurrently risible (esp if the meeting is done over video link), purely conjecture, and rather dismissive of the scientists, imagine for a second that he *might* not be there for that... now why else might he be there?

That's what I asked you. If he's not contributing, what is he doing there?

To report back to the PM

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: .... what? Why do you think he's there?

I mean, you've told us you think he's there to intimidate all the scientists, but as that is concurrently risible (esp if the meeting is done over video link), purely conjecture, and rather dismissive of the scientists, imagine for a second that he *might* not be there for that... now why else might he be there?

That's what I asked you. If he's not contributing, what is he doing there?

To report back to the PM

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Panorama also investigated changes to the government guidance on what PPE NHS staff should wear.
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
Image caption
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.

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

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: That's what I asked you. If he's not contributing, what is he doing there?

To report back to the PM

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

That does again suggest of course our system places too much power in the hands of the PM

Has anyone seen the panorama from last night? I have only read some of the reporting that goes alongside it (and posted a link in a previous post).

I will be watching this later on. Sounds damning.

canta_brian wrote:Panorama also investigated changes to the government guidance on what PPE NHS staff should wear.
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
Image caption
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.

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

With the caveat that the BBC news and current affairs output is shockingly sensationalistic (and I didn't see Panorama, don't watch it as its so untrustworthy), a valid criticism of the govts actions so far is the absence of effectively distributing PPE to front line staff. I would go so far as to say both UK and Scot govts seem to have been criminally negligent in this regard.

But it gives us a problem. Calling for heads to roll mid pandemic and when it looks like the original problems are being corrected is potentially a recipe for just creating further problems, but leaving it for a whitewash of an enquiry (at least) 12 months hence would let it get hidden in amongst all the other noise that will be around at that time. So what do we do?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk