Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

Just now, Snafu said:

What are you on about?

I thought you were saying we became Tories at a certain age. It didn't make sense. 

[Florentine_Pogen]

How can any scientists stand by this government now?

Richard Horton

Dominic Cummings predicted the events that have threatened both him and the government he serves. Writing on his blog in 2014, in an essay he called The Hollow Men, Cummings said: “The people at the apex of political power (elected and unelected) are far from the best people in the world in terms of goals, intelligence, ethics, or competence … No 10 will continue to hurtle from crisis to crisis with no priorities and no understanding of how to get things done … the media will continue obsessing on the new rather than the important, and the public will continue to fume with rage.” 

Indeed, the public’s rage against Cummings, Boris Johnson and the prime minister’s lapdog cabinet seems to be growing day by day. The government’s goals, intelligence, ethics and competence are all under scrutiny and have been found wanting. Yet a cordon sanitaire has been placed around Cummings. He must be protected at all costs.

As Laura Spinney argues in Pale Rider, her history of the 1918 influenza pandemic and how it changed the world, getting the public to comply with disease-containment strategies means that each of us has to “place the interests of the collective over those of the individual”. In democracies, this is a hard ask. A central authority must temporarily suspend the cherished rights of individuals. And this demand carries dangers “if the authority abuses the measures placed at its disposal”.

Cummings certainly abused his authority as the prime minister’s chief political adviser. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, had given an instruction to “stay at home”. It wasn’t a guideline. It wasn’t advice. It wasn’t a suggestion. Hancock made clear that it was an instruction. Cummings violated that instruction. That violation has demonstrably undermined a carefully crafted public health message. 

As long as Cummings remains in his position, the public can have no confidence that this government is putting their collective interests above those of a few privileged individuals at the heart of power. Johnson looks startlingly unable to understand the sacrifices made by families up and down the country he leads. Those families at the very least deserved an apology from Cummings. To dismiss their anguish reveals a man astonishingly detached from reality. 

This sad episode also shows a regime that has lost its moral compass. And by regime, I don’t only mean politicians and their special advisers. I mean the regime of doctors and scientists shoring up this dysfunctional government. 

Every day, government scientific advisers stand next to increasingly discredited politicians, acting as protective professional shields to prop up the collapsing reputations of ministers. Why did Yvonne Doyle from Public Health England agree to stand next to Johnson when he was defending Cummings on Sunday? Why did John Newton, who leads the UK government’s Covid-19 testing programme, stand next to Matt Hancock as the secretary of state for health and social care again sought to defend the indefensible? 

Every day a cast of experts – led by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty – lends credibility to this government by annealing their reputations with those of ministers. This fusion of character works when we believe the collective interest is being put first. But when the government places the instincts of an individual above the tragedies of a people, it is surely time to step away. Tying the reputation of advisers to a government that is now an international laughing stock seems a mistake. It cannot be a coincidence that Vallance and Whitty have not been seen for a few days. But even so, government scientific and medical advisers should now disengage from these daily briefings immediately and completely. 

The failures within the scientific and medical establishment do not end with government experts. The UK is fortunate to have an array of scientific and medical institutions that promote and protect the quality of science and medicine in this country – royal colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society. Their presidents have been elected to defend and advance the reputation of medicine and medical science. And yet they have failed to criticise government policy. Why? Surely their silence amounts to complicity.

The relationship between scientists and ministers has become dangerously collusive. Scientists and politicians appear to have agreed to act together in order to protect a failing government. When advisers are asked questions, they speak with one voice in support of government policy. They never deviate from the political scripts.

Why was PPE not reaching  frontline health workers? Instead of saying honestly that proper planning had not taken place, the adviser said the government was doing its best. Why was testing capacity so poor? Instead of saying honestly that the government had ignored the World Health Organization’s recommendation to “test, test, test”, the adviser said that testing wasn’t appropriate for the UK. Why did the government stop reporting mortality figures for the UK and other countries? Instead of saying honestly that the government found those figures embarrassing, the adviser said that such comparisons were spurious. Advisers have become the public relations wing of a government that has betrayed its people. 

What is at stake here is not the fate of one political adviser or even of a government in crisis. It is the independence and credibility of science and medicine. Whitty and Vallance must now practise their own version of physical distancing – a distancing from a government that cares not one bit for the sacrifices made by its people.

In Pale Rider,  Spinney warns us: “At some point … the group identity splinters, and people revert to identifying as individuals. It may be at this point – once the worst is over, and life is returning to normal – that truly ‘bad’ behaviour is most likely to emerge.” It is indeed at this point that the “hollow men” have appeared. It’s time to cut them loose.

• Richard Horton is a doctor and edits the Lancet

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/scientists-ministers-dominic-cummings-advisers-government-coronavirus

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Florentine_Pogen

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

How can any scientists stand by this government now?

Richard Horton

Dominic Cummings predicted the events that have threatened both him and the government he serves. Writing on his blog in 2014, in an essay he called The Hollow Men, Cummings said: “The people at the apex of political power (elected and unelected) are far from the best people in the world in terms of goals, intelligence, ethics, or competence … No 10 will continue to hurtle from crisis to crisis with no priorities and no understanding of how to get things done … the media will continue obsessing on the new rather than the important, and the public will continue to fume with rage.” 

Indeed, the public’s rage against Cummings, Boris Johnson and the prime minister’s lapdog cabinet seems to be growing day by day. The government’s goals, intelligence, ethics and competence are all under scrutiny and have been found wanting. Yet a cordon sanitaire has been placed around Cummings. He must be protected at all costs.

As Laura Spinney argues in Pale Rider, her history of the 1918 influenza pandemic and how it changed the world, getting the public to comply with disease-containment strategies means that each of us has to “place the interests of the collective over those of the individual”. In democracies, this is a hard ask. A central authority must temporarily suspend the cherished rights of individuals. And this demand carries dangers “if the authority abuses the measures placed at its disposal”.

Cummings certainly abused his authority as the prime minister’s chief political adviser. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, had given an instruction to “stay at home”. It wasn’t a guideline. It wasn’t advice. It wasn’t a suggestion. Hancock made clear that it was an instruction. Cummings violated that instruction. That violation has demonstrably undermined a carefully crafted public health message. 

As long as Cummings remains in his position, the public can have no confidence that this government is putting their collective interests above those of a few privileged individuals at the heart of power. Johnson looks startlingly unable to understand the sacrifices made by families up and down the country he leads. Those families at the very least deserved an apology from Cummings. To dismiss their anguish reveals a man astonishingly detached from reality. 

This sad episode also shows a regime that has lost its moral compass. And by regime, I don’t only mean politicians and their special advisers. I mean the regime of doctors and scientists shoring up this dysfunctional government. 

Every day, government scientific advisers stand next to increasingly discredited politicians, acting as protective professional shields to prop up the collapsing reputations of ministers. Why did Yvonne Doyle from Public Health England agree to stand next to Johnson when he was defending Cummings on Sunday? Why did John Newton, who leads the UK government’s Covid-19 testing programme, stand next to Matt Hancock as the secretary of state for health and social care again sought to defend the indefensible? 

Every day a cast of experts – led by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty – lends credibility to this government by annealing their reputations with those of ministers. This fusion of character works when we believe the collective interest is being put first. But when the government places the instincts of an individual above the tragedies of a people, it is surely time to step away. Tying the reputation of advisers to a government that is now an international laughing stock seems a mistake. It cannot be a coincidence that Vallance and Whitty have not been seen for a few days. But even so, government scientific and medical advisers should now disengage from these daily briefings immediately and completely. 

The failures within the scientific and medical establishment do not end with government experts. The UK is fortunate to have an array of scientific and medical institutions that promote and protect the quality of science and medicine in this country – royal colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society. Their presidents have been elected to defend and advance the reputation of medicine and medical science. And yet they have failed to criticise government policy. Why? Surely their silence amounts to complicity.

The relationship between scientists and ministers has become dangerously collusive. Scientists and politicians appear to have agreed to act together in order to protect a failing government. When advisers are asked questions, they speak with one voice in support of government policy. They never deviate from the political scripts.

Why was PPE not reaching  frontline health workers? Instead of saying honestly that proper planning had not taken place, the adviser said the government was doing its best. Why was testing capacity so poor? Instead of saying honestly that the government had ignored the World Health Organization’s recommendation to “test, test, test”, the adviser said that testing wasn’t appropriate for the UK. Why did the government stop reporting mortality figures for the UK and other countries? Instead of saying honestly that the government found those figures embarrassing, the adviser said that such comparisons were spurious. Advisers have become the public relations wing of a government that has betrayed its people. 

What is at stake here is not the fate of one political adviser or even of a government in crisis. It is the independence and credibility of science and medicine. Whitty and Vallance must now practise their own version of physical distancing – a distancing from a government that cares not one bit for the sacrifices made by its people.

In Pale Rider,  Spinney warns us: “At some point … the group identity splinters, and people revert to identifying as individuals. It may be at this point – once the worst is over, and life is returning to normal – that truly ‘bad’ behaviour is most likely to emerge.” It is indeed at this point that the “hollow men” have appeared. It’s time to cut them loose.

• Richard Horton is a doctor and edits the Lancet

 

Yip, about two weeks ago on here I posted about scientific advisors allowing themselves to be co-opted for political purposes.  It is shameful but no doubt the knighthoods, etc. will follow.

 

[RH33]

32 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Good to see the Track and Trace is in safe hands. I’m sure forcing folk to have the app and fine them if they haven’t downloaded it is definitely fine.

 

I can’t be arsed googling but did she not have to resign due to a security breach on personal information?

[Wile E Coyote]

6 minutes ago, RH33 said:

I can’t be arsed googling but did she not have to resign due to a security breach on personal information?

She was Chief Executive of Talk Talk when they got hacked

[RH33]

8 minutes ago, Wile E Coyote said:

She was Chief Executive of Talk Talk when they got hacked

I thought it was talk talk.

[Ludo*1]

Daily Mail headline up yet?

[welshbairn]

24 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

How can any scientists stand by this government now?

Richard Horton

Dominic Cummings predicted the events that have threatened both him and the government he serves. Writing on his blog in 2014, in an essay he called The Hollow Men, Cummings said: “The people at the apex of political power (elected and unelected) are far from the best people in the world in terms of goals, intelligence, ethics, or competence … No 10 will continue to hurtle from crisis to crisis with no priorities and no understanding of how to get things done … the media will continue obsessing on the new rather than the important, and the public will continue to fume with rage.” 

Indeed, the public’s rage against Cummings, Boris Johnson and the prime minister’s lapdog cabinet seems to be growing day by day. The government’s goals, intelligence, ethics and competence are all under scrutiny and have been found wanting. Yet a cordon sanitaire has been placed around Cummings. He must be protected at all costs.

As Laura Spinney argues in Pale Rider, her history of the 1918 influenza pandemic and how it changed the world, getting the public to comply with disease-containment strategies means that each of us has to “place the interests of the collective over those of the individual”. In democracies, this is a hard ask. A central authority must temporarily suspend the cherished rights of individuals. And this demand carries dangers “if the authority abuses the measures placed at its disposal”.

Cummings certainly abused his authority as the prime minister’s chief political adviser. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, had given an instruction to “stay at home”. It wasn’t a guideline. It wasn’t advice. It wasn’t a suggestion. Hancock made clear that it was an instruction. Cummings violated that instruction. That violation has demonstrably undermined a carefully crafted public health message. 

As long as Cummings remains in his position, the public can have no confidence that this government is putting their collective interests above those of a few privileged individuals at the heart of power. Johnson looks startlingly unable to understand the sacrifices made by families up and down the country he leads. Those families at the very least deserved an apology from Cummings. To dismiss their anguish reveals a man astonishingly detached from reality. 

This sad episode also shows a regime that has lost its moral compass. And by regime, I don’t only mean politicians and their special advisers. I mean the regime of doctors and scientists shoring up this dysfunctional government. 

Every day, government scientific advisers stand next to increasingly discredited politicians, acting as protective professional shields to prop up the collapsing reputations of ministers. Why did Yvonne Doyle from Public Health England agree to stand next to Johnson when he was defending Cummings on Sunday? Why did John Newton, who leads the UK government’s Covid-19 testing programme, stand next to Matt Hancock as the secretary of state for health and social care again sought to defend the indefensible? 

Every day a cast of experts – led by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty – lends credibility to this government by annealing their reputations with those of ministers. This fusion of character works when we believe the collective interest is being put first. But when the government places the instincts of an individual above the tragedies of a people, it is surely time to step away. Tying the reputation of advisers to a government that is now an international laughing stock seems a mistake. It cannot be a coincidence that Vallance and Whitty have not been seen for a few days. But even so, government scientific and medical advisers should now disengage from these daily briefings immediately and completely. 

The failures within the scientific and medical establishment do not end with government experts. The UK is fortunate to have an array of scientific and medical institutions that promote and protect the quality of science and medicine in this country – royal colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society. Their presidents have been elected to defend and advance the reputation of medicine and medical science. And yet they have failed to criticise government policy. Why? Surely their silence amounts to complicity.

The relationship between scientists and ministers has become dangerously collusive. Scientists and politicians appear to have agreed to act together in order to protect a failing government. When advisers are asked questions, they speak with one voice in support of government policy. They never deviate from the political scripts.

Why was PPE not reaching  frontline health workers? Instead of saying honestly that proper planning had not taken place, the adviser said the government was doing its best. Why was testing capacity so poor? Instead of saying honestly that the government had ignored the World Health Organization’s recommendation to “test, test, test”, the adviser said that testing wasn’t appropriate for the UK. Why did the government stop reporting mortality figures for the UK and other countries? Instead of saying honestly that the government found those figures embarrassing, the adviser said that such comparisons were spurious. Advisers have become the public relations wing of a government that has betrayed its people. 

What is at stake here is not the fate of one political adviser or even of a government in crisis. It is the independence and credibility of science and medicine. Whitty and Vallance must now practise their own version of physical distancing – a distancing from a government that cares not one bit for the sacrifices made by its people.

In Pale Rider,  Spinney warns us: “At some point … the group identity splinters, and people revert to identifying as individuals. It may be at this point – once the worst is over, and life is returning to normal – that truly ‘bad’ behaviour is most likely to emerge.” It is indeed at this point that the “hollow men” have appeared. It’s time to cut them loose.

• Richard Horton is a doctor and edits the Lancet

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/27/scientists-ministers-dominic-cummings-advisers-government-coronavirus

 

[Florentine_Pogen]

What's your point Welshy ?  Given that his tweet is from 24th January, I'm assuming his comments are based on the scientific evidence available at that time and that he thought the media were scaremongering.

Am I missing something ?

[NotThePars]

it would be funny if Maitlis got censored for slagging off the PM just days after she was claiming unions had a grip on the political process. Just abolish the BBC if that's how naked the double standards have become.

[Ludo*1]

Only the Mirror and the Guardian focusing on Cummings. There's quite a few instances where he's not even mentioned.

[tamthebam]

7 hours ago, The OP said:

I didn’t realise Dido was an actual name, I always assumed that the singer was called Diane Dorries or something and came up with a cooler stage name for singing about cold tea.

Although it does occur to me that Dido is a name which rings a bell from classical history or mythology which sounds like Bojo’s kinda person.

Edit - someone on the committee was obviously similarly baffled by all the Dido references!

Dido was Queen of Carthage (Libya) and got shagged by Aeneas who was a Trojan who escaped the fall of Troy and wandered about the Med until he came to Italy. The Romans claimed him as an ancestor.

Purcell wrote an early opera called Dido and Aeneas, bits of which occasionally pop up on Classic FM. 

Anyway, when Di died and then Dodi died, Dido was shiteing herself...

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by tamthebam
Dido a dideer, a difemale dideer

[DA Baracus]

Where are folk getting face masks from? 

[dirty dingus]

26 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Where are folk getting face masks from? 

Face mask shops will be popping up like vape shops and firework shops in a town near you next week. Probably in empty bookies.

[Distant Doonhamer]

Where are folk getting face masks from? 

Bought them from a friend. Cost £5 each. Any profits made are going to charity.

[Rodhull]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Where are folk getting face masks from? 

Ordered one of the Aberdeen ones from here. Only ordered today so still waiting for it to come.

https://dollydigital.bigcartel.com/

[SoapMactavish]

8 hours ago, Cyclizine said:

Contact tracing is going to be great the moment one of my ICU colleagues tests positive and all the staff are going to have to isolate...

There’s no sense at all in having NHS staff that work closely with ?covid patients using this app. At the height of it I think we were seeing 50+ a day. They’ll be no-one left if it comes back in a second wave if we all have to isolate 

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, Snafu said:

No one looks after you better than yourself and if you want to learn from anyone with experience take advice from those who know how to get through a crisis like this, such as those with previous experience which is not our UK government. I'm not listening anymore to their advice and I'm going to use my own common sense and look towards the likes of South Korea and Taiwan as the best examples.

Its up to the gammons and their ilk if they don't want to wear a mask, they've proved themselves Darwin award potential up to now and they won't change their ways ready for the next coronavirus outbreak and next time they will be older and less able to fight of the virus, understand the meaning of the word conservative. 

It isn't up to them to decide though. The whole point of the mask wearing practice is that it needs to be widespread enough to limit community transmission. If you don't wear one then you are giving the bus driver, shop assistant etc. a significantly increased risk of catching it from you, whether they are wearing a mask or not. 

It's time for the government to stop making an absolute arse of this and declare mask wearing in public spaces and contact tracing compulsory for the duration of this outbreak. The trade-off for this would be access to the much wider set of amenities and permitted activities that become possible once you water down and then bin social distancing for this more efficient solution.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Yip, about two weeks ago on here I posted about scientific advisors allowing themselves to be co-opted for political purposes.  It is shameful but no doubt the knighthoods, etc. will follow.

 

Aye, a few of us have been pondering what the payoff for Whitty, Harries et al  will be, as they have been eroding their professional reputations with every appearance since Day One.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 hours ago, RH33 said:

I can’t be arsed googling but did she not have to resign due to a security breach on personal information?

Yes, she absolutely did.

You'll be pleased to know she didn't suffer too much financially, though.