RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:Shat the bed is a phrase that comes to mind.

Is the testing and tracing in any way functioning there?

The delayed, and outsourced (to companies and a CEO with zero experience of contact tracing) process is having marginal effect only:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 10151.html

The government have at 7 months to put something together. They could have learnt from South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand etc, but no, this is what we have. This is why the economy will continue to be locked-down to some extent and why people will die in large numbers (143 today) for the foreseeable. Inexcusable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-54535481

Almost as idiotic as it was preictable

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-54535481

Almost as idiotic as it was preictable

The government is losing public compliance. Inevitable really with so many dissenting viewpoints and a government that isn’t trusted.

Not sure what to make of Keir breaking with government policy. He needs to add rather more than lets end up at the same place two weeks later to try and justify saying he's going with the scientists rather than the government

Digby wrote:Not sure what to make of Keir breaking with government policy. He needs to add rather more than lets end up at the same place two weeks later to try and justify saying he's going with the scientists rather than the government

It wouldn't be the same place though - if you look at what Israel's circuit-breaker lockdown accomplished, it made a massive difference in the spread and could allow us to get back in control of the thing again.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what to make of Keir breaking with government policy. He needs to add rather more than lets end up at the same place two weeks later to try and justify saying he's going with the scientists rather than the government

It wouldn't be the same place though - if you look at what Israel's circuit-breaker lockdown accomplished, it made a massive difference in the spread and could allow us to get back in control of the thing again.

Puja

If I thought 2 weeks would be enough to get the numbers down sufficiently and get track and trace actually working fine, but I'm not buying that for a moment so the plan needs some additions. I'm not saying he's wrong or I'm without sympathy for what is a difficult decision to separate from government policy, but he does need to go further, as is it's just a political trap for Boris which is elegantly framed and useful to Keir, it's just not especially useful to the country.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Not sure what to make of Keir breaking with government policy. He needs to add rather more than lets end up at the same place two weeks later to try and justify saying he's going with the scientists rather than the government

It wouldn't be the same place though - if you look at what Israel's circuit-breaker lockdown accomplished, it made a massive difference in the spread and could allow us to get back in control of the thing again.

Puja

If I thought 2 weeks would be enough to get the numbers down sufficiently and get track and trace actually working fine, but I'm not buying that for a moment so the plan needs some additions. I'm not saying he's wrong or I'm without sympathy for what is a difficult decision to separate from government policy, but he does need to go further, as is it's just a political trap for Boris which is elegantly framed and useful to Keir, it's just not especially useful to the country.

2 weeks is pretty much the perfect length of time though. If you say it's complete lockdown, combined with the schools being shut over half-term, then you stand a chance of getting full public buy-in over a short 2 weeks. And if you can do that, then you've denied the virus 95% of its transmission vectors for the same period of time that it normally takes between infection and recovery/getting to a stage where you can't transmit it. You'd have a large number of cases currently present having a R rate of zero as they'd be having it at home, away from anyone else.

Will it solve all the problems? Course not. Would 4 weeks or 6 weeks be better? Definitely. Do I think there's a chance in hell of people obeying a lockdown for that long, given the behaviour of people in power and the terrible communication? Not even slightly. Two weeks would make a massive difference and would stand a chance of actually being stuck to.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
It wouldn't be the same place though - if you look at what Israel's circuit-breaker lockdown accomplished, it made a massive difference in the spread and could allow us to get back in control of the thing again.

Puja

If I thought 2 weeks would be enough to get the numbers down sufficiently and get track and trace actually working fine, but I'm not buying that for a moment so the plan needs some additions. I'm not saying he's wrong or I'm without sympathy for what is a difficult decision to separate from government policy, but he does need to go further, as is it's just a political trap for Boris which is elegantly framed and useful to Keir, it's just not especially useful to the country.

2 weeks is pretty much the perfect length of time though. If you say it's complete lockdown, combined with the schools being shut over half-term, then you stand a chance of getting full public buy-in over a short 2 weeks. And if you can do that, then you've denied the virus 95% of its transmission vectors for the same period of time that it normally takes between infection and recovery/getting to a stage where you can't transmit it. You'd have a large number of cases currently present having a R rate of zero as they'd be having it at home, away from anyone else.

Will it solve all the problems? Course not. Would 4 weeks or 6 weeks be better? Definitely. Do I think there's a chance in hell of people obeying a lockdown for that long, given the behaviour of people in power and the terrible communication? Not even slightly. Two weeks would make a massive difference and would stand a chance of actually being stuck to.

Puja

I think we're too late to get away with just a two week correction. And even then they'd still need a track and trace programme that could and would work. The delay would be helpful, but it's not enough, and it's not enough to warrant the major political parties splitting their messaging during a pandemic

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
If I thought 2 weeks would be enough to get the numbers down sufficiently and get track and trace actually working fine, but I'm not buying that for a moment so the plan needs some additions. I'm not saying he's wrong or I'm without sympathy for what is a difficult decision to separate from government policy, but he does need to go further, as is it's just a political trap for Boris which is elegantly framed and useful to Keir, it's just not especially useful to the country.

2 weeks is pretty much the perfect length of time though. If you say it's complete lockdown, combined with the schools being shut over half-term, then you stand a chance of getting full public buy-in over a short 2 weeks. And if you can do that, then you've denied the virus 95% of its transmission vectors for the same period of time that it normally takes between infection and recovery/getting to a stage where you can't transmit it. You'd have a large number of cases currently present having a R rate of zero as they'd be having it at home, away from anyone else.

Will it solve all the problems? Course not. Would 4 weeks or 6 weeks be better? Definitely. Do I think there's a chance in hell of people obeying a lockdown for that long, given the behaviour of people in power and the terrible communication? Not even slightly. Two weeks would make a massive difference and would stand a chance of actually being stuck to.

Puja

I think we're too late to get away with just a two week correction. And even then they'd still need a track and trace programme that could and would work. The delay would be helpful, but it's not enough, and it's not enough to warrant the major political parties splitting their messaging during a pandemic

Is it the job of the Opposition to cleave to government messaging in a pandemic, even when said government appears to have made no effort at cross-party involvement? If there was a coalition or if there were cross-bench working parties or some kind of attempt to work as a whole parliament on a national emergency, then I'd agree that a united front was called for, but Boris appears to be treating this as government business for the governing party. That's his right with the majority he has, of course, but I don't think you can then chide the Leader of the Opposition for critiquing government plans and holding them to account.

Puja

Puja wrote:Is it the job of the Opposition to cleave to government messaging in a pandemic, even when said government appears to have made no effort at cross-party involvement? If there was a coalition or if there were cross-bench working parties or some kind of attempt to work as a whole parliament on a national emergency, then I'd agree that a united front was called for, but Boris appears to be treating this as government business for the governing party. That's his right with the majority he has, of course, but I don't think you can then chide the Leader of the Opposition for critiquing government plans and holding them to account.

Then you haven't been paying attention.
Apparently, it's the opposition's job to at exactly as if it were governing; with detailed and fleshed out plans; to stick to government messaging more closely than the government does; and to do more than say "what SAGE said" to be seen as backing SAGE.


In other news...
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/14/students ... -13419886/
Students handed coronavirus test kits that had already been used

It's not the job of the opposition to support the government ever, but there are good reasons why one wouldn't want to confuse the messaging during a pandemic. Again I have some sympathy with the position Starmer has found himself in with a government being some mix of delusional and pissed in their response, but given he's split I think he needs to add more detail.

Digby wrote:It's not the job of the opposition to support the government ever, but there are good reasons why one wouldn't want to confuse the messaging during a pandemic. Again I have some sympathy with the position Starmer has found himself in with a government being some mix of delusional and pissed in their response, but given he's split I think he needs to add more detail.

How much detail are you looking for here? Since Labour aren't in power, more detail is pointless (and in fact a distraction and potentially a political liability).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not the job of the opposition to support the government ever, but there are good reasons why one wouldn't want to confuse the messaging during a pandemic. Again I have some sympathy with the position Starmer has found himself in with a government being some mix of delusional and pissed in their response, but given he's split I think he needs to add more detail.

How much detail are you looking for here? Since Labour aren't in power, more detail is pointless (and in fact a distraction and potentially a political liability).

He's already creating the distraction and liability by separating the official opposition from the government, not unreasonably so for many but either way it's a big step. And given the cases were only starting to rise in the North when we came out of the national lockdown (or when the South looked good to come out of lockdown) it doesn't look much like a 2 week circuit break is doing enough for a large area of the country beyond being a delaying tactic, so what will the delay allow for, especially when saying track and trace will be in place looks pie in the sky.

There's a school of thought it's appropriate or at least sufficient for Starmer to merely set out a major difference in policy during a pandemic and leave it at that, it's not a line of thinking I'd share.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not the job of the opposition to support the government ever, but there are good reasons why one wouldn't want to confuse the messaging during a pandemic. Again I have some sympathy with the position Starmer has found himself in with a government being some mix of delusional and pissed in their response, but given he's split I think he needs to add more detail.

How much detail are you looking for here? Since Labour aren't in power, more detail is pointless (and in fact a distraction and potentially a political liability).

He's already creating the distraction and liability by separating the official opposition from the government, not unreasonably so for many but either way it's a big step. And given the cases were only starting to rise in the North when we came out of the national lockdown (or when the South looked good to come out of lockdown) it doesn't look much like a 2 week circuit break is doing enough for a large area of the country beyond being a delaying tactic, so what will the delay allow for, especially when saying track and trace will be in place looks pie in the sky.

There's a school of thought it's appropriate or at least sufficient for Starmer to merely set out a major difference in policy during a pandemic and leave it at that, it's not a line of thinking I'd share.

I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.

But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: How much detail are you looking for here? Since Labour aren't in power, more detail is pointless (and in fact a distraction and potentially a political liability).

He's already creating the distraction and liability by separating the official opposition from the government, not unreasonably so for many but either way it's a big step. And given the cases were only starting to rise in the North when we came out of the national lockdown (or when the South looked good to come out of lockdown) it doesn't look much like a 2 week circuit break is doing enough for a large area of the country beyond being a delaying tactic, so what will the delay allow for, especially when saying track and trace will be in place looks pie in the sky.

There's a school of thought it's appropriate or at least sufficient for Starmer to merely set out a major difference in policy during a pandemic and leave it at that, it's not a line of thinking I'd share.

I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.

But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?

I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
He's already creating the distraction and liability by separating the official opposition from the government, not unreasonably so for many but either way it's a big step. And given the cases were only starting to rise in the North when we came out of the national lockdown (or when the South looked good to come out of lockdown) it doesn't look much like a 2 week circuit break is doing enough for a large area of the country beyond being a delaying tactic, so what will the delay allow for, especially when saying track and trace will be in place looks pie in the sky.

There's a school of thought it's appropriate or at least sufficient for Starmer to merely set out a major difference in policy during a pandemic and leave it at that, it's not a line of thinking I'd share.

I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.

But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?

I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.

Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.

And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?

You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean any detail could be used as a distraction from his main point, which is to follow Sage's advice and have a short lockdown. Political liability as in any detailed point he made could be attacked in isolation.

But I'm still not understanding what details you want him to come up with. He doesn't have Sage, he's not at Cobra, he doesn't have the department of Health, how can he give a detailed plan?

I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.

Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.

And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?

You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.

What he's done I consider irresponsible if all that's all he's willing to set out. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea if government policy is deemed to be too harmful a divergence is required but not just a call to head off down difference unidentified tracks. I just don't set such a pathetically low bar for those holding or wanting to hold high office to clear.

Granted many others are often seemingly content with a pathetically low bar

I see that Lancashire has now gone into phase 3 lockdown.
Of course, it's a completely different phase 3 than Merseyside's phase 3...

Which is precisely what the new 3 phase system was explicitly designed to prevent (as was the previous 5 phase system, that was directly contradicted within a few hours of being introduced).



Tell me again how it's all the public's fault for failing to understand such a simple, consistent message

Which Tyler wrote:I see that Lancashire has now gone into phase 3 lockdown.
Of course, it's a completely different phase 3 than Merseyside's phase 3...

Which is precisely what the new 3 phase system was explicitly designed to prevent (as was the previous 5 phase system, that was directly contradicted within a few hours of being introduced).



Tell me again how it's all the public's fault for failing to understand such a simple, consistent message

Once certain powers are transferred back locally to Manchester and Liverpool the local lockdowns will look very similar, and the HMG have already agreed to the extra funding for the Mancs and Scouseland as they've already given to the Tory led Lancashsire council.

I was on a conference call earlier with representatives from a government department and they were assuring us honestly they were still seeking a deal with the EU right as Boris made the announcement we'd go with no deal and it was okay because we knew change was coming and we've got 10 weeks to prepare. To say they got the multiple business leaders ranting at them was slightly amusing, and they deserved it as they kept talking about risk and mitigation without a sodding clue what they were talking about even before Boris undermined their bullshit

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: I didn't ask for a detailed plan, simply more detail.

So what happens if the R number doesn't drop inside 2 weeks because it's already too prevalent in certain communities and given lockdowns take seemingly much longer to take effect than virus spread in 'normal' conditions? How much more lockdown above tier 2/3? What will happen to track and trace and other services to reap any benefits of the circuit break?...

If he's got no answers to any of that fine, but at that point don't set out the commencement of an entirely different policy during a pandemic. He's not a bloke down the pub venting, he's the leader of the official opposition and what he says matters

He's saying we should follow a different plan. You want him to give more details. How is that not asking for a detailed plan? But okay, if you prefer, simply more detail.

Are you seriously expecting him to give a long speech detailing exactly what should happen in a number of different contingencies? More detail than Sage has given, and all without direct access to Sage or other experts? To be honest, it would be irresponsible to attempt to do this without expert advice. All he is doing is saying to follow the scientific advice.

And from a politics point of view, he's just following the government's example in keeping the message simple. Why bog people down with details (which would be risky to give anyway) when a broad strokes message is more effective?

You say that what the leader of the opposition say matters. Presumably because it might affect understanding, confidence and/or compliance in the government's plan? Starmer has been pretty supportive of the government's strategy (if not the execution) to date, at least partly for these reasons (to the dismay of many Labour supporters). But at some point, if the strategy appears to be harmful to the country as it repeats the same mistake of delaying the inevitable as in March, then deviating from the government strategy seems to me to be the right thing to do.

What he's done I consider irresponsible if all that's all he's willing to set out. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea if government policy is deemed to be too harmful a divergence is required but not just a call to head off down difference unidentified tracks. I just don't set such a pathetically low bar for those holding or wanting to hold high office to clear.

Granted many others are often seemingly content with a pathetically low bar

I guess we'll have to disagree on the amount of detail we expect from our opposition. I doubt that Starmer would enjoy scientists arguing over which of his details is actually a good idea. His strategy would be attacked at its weakest point, any errors would be mocked endlessly - he'd lose credibility.

I guess it's not really a surprise, but still, Jesus:

21,331 new cases and 241 new deaths in the United Kingdom today.

Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

paddy no 11 wrote:Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

Government has been scaring people here but deaths are still in line with the 5 year averages.

“Covid deaths” are up, but every single case is with someone who you’d expect to die, if not this year then next at least. Heart disease, alcoholism, diabetes caused by obesity are the biggest existing diseases on the fatalities.

Stom wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Europe is going to post some big/bad numbers for november by the looks of it

Government has been scaring people here but deaths are still in line with the 5 year averages.

“Covid deaths” are up, but every single case is with someone who you’d expect to die, if not this year then next at least. Heart disease, alcoholism, diabetes caused by obesity are the biggest existing diseases on the fatalities.

All of those things are exacerbated by an overwhelmed health system. You may be able to cope with one wheezy fat drunken cunt a week all winter, but if you suddenly have 20 of them at once, shit gets interesting. For this reason, flu shots are being pushed hard here by most schools and large state employers. They are free, but you don't get a biscuit and a cuppa.