Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Ah, the Telegraph
Johnson at the COVID enquiry
- Thread starter ElBurroSinNombre
- Start date
Captain Sensible
Well-known member
Enquiries eh, what a waste of time and money. If I make a mistake, professionally or personally, I sometimes wonder if I should review it, learn from it and do things better next time but then I think fcuk it, it’ll be a laugh to make the same mistake again.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
I loved the bit today where he was trying to tell the chair she should also look at from where the virus came, and she replied that he had set the terms of the enquiry excluding that.
He's not too bright, is he?
He's not too bright, is he?
braymarina
Well-known member
Stop it 66 you are coming across as a man with nothing better to do than spend all day correcting spellings and grammar on a none consequential website.
JOHNMAJORTOM
Well-known member
WIFFLE WAFFLE WHONSON. joke. And that gimp Rich Boy Sunak is giving evidence next week. try a pair of trousers that actually fit.
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
It seemed to start in a city in China which had the only research centre in that country looking into these type of viruses( coincidence?) If the enquiry is looking how to deal with future ones then at least a little look at the source would be useful
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
I don't disagree, althrough whether a UN injury might be better in this case. The point was, Johnson set the terms and then said she should do something different!
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
OK.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Learning lessons from the past, even if mistakes were made, is a good thing, but this entire inquiry seems to be proceeding on the basis of the assumption that we were somehow uniquely bad, and therefore blame must be apportioned, that's not only unconstructive, it is in fact deeply destructive.
On what basis do you think huge numbers of people died as a result of what was (or was not) done.
Surely robust and rigorous questioning is required to enable the enquiry to "scrutinise and learn lessons from all key aspects of the UK response" as per Boris Johnson`s instructions when setting up the enquiry.
We were not "uniquely bad" - I don`t think anyone truly believes that - nor were we exceptionally good, but we certainly could have been better across many areas - preparedness, procurement, decision making, political governance, etc.
In order to improve as a country we must exhaustively stress test the system, and the KC is doing that admirably.
I fail to understand why you would you consider it "deeply destructive".
For all the people who lost loved ones I imagine it may even be cathartic...
Wizaard
Well-known member
Deliberately sending infected patients back into care homes in order to make space in wards undoubtedly killed thousands of the most vulnerable, or did that not happen?
glasshalffull
Well-known member
No! Sorry, but I think you’re forgetting about the protective ring that was thrown around them.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Where's the bitter rictus smile emoji when you need it?
glasshalffull
Well-known member
?
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Hancock was forced to concede that a ring was an 'unbroken circle' when he gave evidence. Not what he actually delivered;
Matt Hancock admits protective ring around care homes was not ‘unbroken circle’
The former health secretary was addressing the UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
www.independent.co.uk
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
That would be nice, it might even justify the exorbitant cost of the whole thing, instead we're getting a he said/she said playground squabble who's only purpose seems to be to embarrass the participants, particularly ministers, and which seems to be failing to address any of the key issues.
So, for example, the inquiry appears to be progressing on the assumption that we locked down too late, that may well be right, but it would be nice if they also considered if lockdown was the right response at all.
Personally, I think lockdown was unavoidable in the circumstances, whether we really did lock down too late is a more uncertain than the inquiry seems to be assuming, but if that was the case, the key point is that we locked down precisely when SAGE advised the government to do so, so the absolutely key question that is not being asked is why was the SAGE advice so flawed?
The answer to the above is I think that there were two key failings:
- the failure to get testing up and running in sufficient numbers fast enough;
- the failure of the DHSC to establish a NHS reporting system for Covid patients that would allow users to have a more or less real time picture of how the pandemic was progressing.
In any event, the upshot of the above was that SAGE was working with horribly incomplete and out of date information, which caused them to misunderstand where we were on the pandemic curve, and the advice they produced was flawed as a result.
So, key lessons for future pandemics:
- information is crucial, if you don't understand what's going on then your response will be flawed;
- testing is a key part of 1 above, we need to have the ability to ramp up testing to the tens of thousands within a timeframe measured in days;
- a system of near real time case reporting is also crucial, because, again, if you don't know what's going on in the hospitals, your response is going to be flawed as a result.
If you've read the above, then you've probably learned more about the pandemic than the inquiry will ever tell you, and at a cost of several hundreds of millions of pounds less than the official one.
Because all actions by ministers and officials in a future pandemic will be guided by the principle of "what will I look like in the subsequent inquiry", and if they can't speak openly and freely, admit they don't understand something, ask for clarification, perhaps even say stupid things, then decision-making will be severely compromised as a result.
AKA group think.
Maybe they'd be better served with the knowledge that good people tried their hardest in an impossible situation, with highly uncertain information, to achieve the best outcome possible, but that in a global pandemic, where the UK, due to geographical reasons was extremely vulnerable, even the best possible outcome was still going to be bad.
Instead, many seem to be pushing the notion that, if only the government was less venal and corrupt, their loved ones would still be alive, and I don't think that's either true or helpful.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
As has been stated at the enquiry by several experts several times, lockdown was later than advised. Even Hancock wanted it earlier. Stop blaming civil servants and experts for Johnson and Sunak's mistakes.
The decision to fund a central private track and trace, which took time to set up and never really worked, despite a budget north of £37B, rather than using the existing public health experts with additional funding, made early lockdown the only option to keep control. As has been evidenced by virtually all contributors to the enquiry, we had neither.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
The SAGE minutes are publicly available, you evidently haven't read them, they tell a different story.
There was no such thing as "track and trace", that name is a lie designed to obscure the fact that TEST and trace, was all about testing and the vast bulk of the budget was spent on testing.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
@Tangerinemoss, to save you the trouble:
SAGE 14 - 10 March 2020
SAGE 14 - 10 March 2020
| Measure and/or combination of measures | Suggested Trigger Point | Estimated time of occurrence |
| 1) Home Isolation of symptomatic cases | ICU cases tracking and other surveillance data, with a presumption that we have reached 100 ICU cases (cumulative | Within the next 10 days |
| 2) Whole Household isolation | Based on cumulative ICU cases tracking and other surveillance data Actual trigger point: somewhere between 100 and 300 ICU cases (cumulative | 1-3 weeks after (1 |
| 3) Social distancing for70+ and vulnerable groups | Cumulative ICU cases and other surveillance data Somewhere between 100 and 300 ICU cases (cumulative) | 1-3 weeks after (1 |
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Can I ask you Lost, if you believe that all of the government ministers have told the whole truth to the enquiry?
For instance, do you believe Johnson's explanation of why 5000 messages from his phone were deleted?
For instance, do you believe Johnson's explanation of why 5000 messages from his phone were deleted?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
So that's 10 March, and the advice is distancing for 70+ in approximately 20 - 30 days time, no mention of wider lockdown at all.
Next: SAGE 15 - 13 March 2020
1. Owing to a 5-7 day lag in data provision for modelling, SAGE now believes there are more cases in the UK than SAGE previously expected at this point, and we may therefore be further ahead on the epidemic curve, but the UK remains on broadly the same epidemic trajectory and time to peak.
2. The science suggests that household isolation and social distancing of the elderly and vulnerable should be implemented soon, provided they can be done well and equitably. Individuals who may want to distance themselves should be advised how to do so.
3. SAGE is considering further social distancing interventions – that may best be applied intermittently, nationally or regionally, and potentially more than once – to reduce demand below NHS capacity to respond. The modelling sub-group is discussing potential interventions on Monday 16th, for review by SAGE on Tuesday 17th.
So 10 March measures "soon" and SAGE is thinking about further interventions.
SAGE 16 - 16 March 2020
1. On the basis of accumulating data, including on NHS critical care capacity, the advice from SAGE has changed regarding the speed of implementation of additional interventions.
2. SAGE advises that there is clear evidence to support additional social distancing measures be introduced as soon as possible.
So, one week before lockdown, the advice is to implement the 10 March measures immediately, which happened on the day.
SAGE 17 - 18 March 2020
2. SAGE advises that available evidence now supports implementing school closures on a national level as soon as practicable to prevent NHS intensive care capacity being exceeded.
3. SAGE advises that the measures already announced should have a significant effect, provided compliance rates are good and in line with the assumptions. Additional measures will be needed if compliance rates are low.
Advice now includes closing schools, no talk of further lockdown.
SAGE 18 - 23 March 2020
Lockdown day.
Next: SAGE 15 - 13 March 2020
1. Owing to a 5-7 day lag in data provision for modelling, SAGE now believes there are more cases in the UK than SAGE previously expected at this point, and we may therefore be further ahead on the epidemic curve, but the UK remains on broadly the same epidemic trajectory and time to peak.
2. The science suggests that household isolation and social distancing of the elderly and vulnerable should be implemented soon, provided they can be done well and equitably. Individuals who may want to distance themselves should be advised how to do so.
3. SAGE is considering further social distancing interventions – that may best be applied intermittently, nationally or regionally, and potentially more than once – to reduce demand below NHS capacity to respond. The modelling sub-group is discussing potential interventions on Monday 16th, for review by SAGE on Tuesday 17th.
So 10 March measures "soon" and SAGE is thinking about further interventions.
SAGE 16 - 16 March 2020
1. On the basis of accumulating data, including on NHS critical care capacity, the advice from SAGE has changed regarding the speed of implementation of additional interventions.
2. SAGE advises that there is clear evidence to support additional social distancing measures be introduced as soon as possible.
So, one week before lockdown, the advice is to implement the 10 March measures immediately, which happened on the day.
SAGE 17 - 18 March 2020
2. SAGE advises that available evidence now supports implementing school closures on a national level as soon as practicable to prevent NHS intensive care capacity being exceeded.
3. SAGE advises that the measures already announced should have a significant effect, provided compliance rates are good and in line with the assumptions. Additional measures will be needed if compliance rates are low.
Advice now includes closing schools, no talk of further lockdown.
SAGE 18 - 23 March 2020
Lockdown day.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Have you any evidence to suggest otherwise?
He seems to have gone out of his way to provide evidence to the inquiry, even against the wishes of the Cabinet Office, have you any evidence to suggest his explanation is anything other than correct?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
It was the party membership that elected him as leader, and the whole country as PM.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Maybe you would like to copy and paste minutes for the previous meeting. if nothing had been done, you would have to keep telling the Governmnet what they should be doing.
Misleading, as always
You almost made ny point for me, it SHOULD have been track and trace, that was the only way to reduce transmission at that stage, and throughout the next 18 months. Public Health could have done that, but their existing expertise was ignored.
Again, misleading
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I have no idea what you think that means.
Testing was an important part of the operation, and to repeat, the vast majority of the £37bn budget that you seem to think was spent on "track and trace" was in fact spent on testing.
In any event, there's no way that PHE could ever manage a tracing operation with cases in the tens of thousands, let alone hundreds daily, hence the need for a dedicated organization.
The fact that you can't even get the name right is telling.
Last edited:
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
@Tangerinemoss
Here's a thought, since you're claiming that the government was advised to lockdown far earlier than the SAGE minutes suggest, how about you copy my example and provide a link to a reliable source supporting your claim.
Here's a thought, since you're claiming that the government was advised to lockdown far earlier than the SAGE minutes suggest, how about you copy my example and provide a link to a reliable source supporting your claim.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
What is telling is that you do not engage with someone's substantive points if they do not agree with your agenda to whitewash the Government. The first line above is just rude. You could have said "I have no idea what you mean" but chose to allege that I did not know what I meant.
You really are a Central Office clone, aren't you?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I really have no idea what you were trying to say.
What I know is that I have provided links to official documents, you have provided your opinion, and are now getting abusive when I dispute it.
glasshalffull
Well-known member
I see that a phone that Rishi Sunak claims to have lost from that time apparently still rings but goes to answerphone when it has been rung by “pranksters” (journalists maybe?).
I imagine of course that he will obviously be very keen to reveal why that is on Monday.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Ah, changed your words to more polite, and then accuses me of abuse, nice one!
Serious question, are you aware that Sage were neither making the decisions, nor the sole fount of scientific knowledge? Did you listen to Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty's testimony about the lockdown? Did you hear Boris admit he read very little of the Sage meeting minutes, and didn't turn up for Cobra meetings?
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
If you could provide links to anything you are claiming, I'd be happy to respond, I believe that everything that I post is supported by evidence, and the fact that you dispute it without providing evidence of your own is something that I find insulting.
They provided the scientific evidence on which the decisions were made, and my point was that the decisions were made in accordance with that evidence.
I read a summary, the key point being that they had a difference of opinion, and I repeat that even with the benefit of 3 years of hindsight, it's far from certain that we did indeed lockdown too late.
He had a direct line to the CMO and CSA and regular meetings with both, what more would reading the minutes have added?
Likewise, COBR seems to have attained a mythical status that it really doesn't deserve, Mr Johnson's attendance was on the advice of his Civil Servants and others, and I fail to see what difference any of this would've made to the government's response.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Please continue your defence of the indefensible, it highlights the contempt with which the Tory Party treats the British Public. It was Johnson's job to understand what was occuring, and your belittling of the early Cobra meetings tells a story.
When we move on to Eat Out to Help Out, which Johnson and Sunaak are isolated in claiming it did not make things worse, they were so interested in Sage's advice, along with Whitty and Valance, and incredibly, the Health Secretary, that they set it up and announced it without taking any advice from the experts whatsoever.
His evidence just does not stack up, his obfuscation was clear for all to see, his denial of others written and contemporaneous notes was laughable. He said some dreadful things, they were recorded and he doesn't want to be reminded of them. Bit like Hancock and his ring of steel.
When we move on to Eat Out to Help Out, which Johnson and Sunaak are isolated in claiming it did not make things worse, they were so interested in Sage's advice, along with Whitty and Valance, and incredibly, the Health Secretary, that they set it up and announced it without taking any advice from the experts whatsoever.
His evidence just does not stack up, his obfuscation was clear for all to see, his denial of others written and contemporaneous notes was laughable. He said some dreadful things, they were recorded and he doesn't want to be reminded of them. Bit like Hancock and his ring of steel.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Are you seriously suggesting that GCHQ couldn't retrieve the missing WhatsApps if they proved that Boris was always right, never insulted anyone and lived the life of a hermit during lockdown?
He deleted them because they were problematic for him. You know it, we all know it.
As for do you have any proof of him lying? It's his default setting. Always has been.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
I'm still waiting for a link to support anything that you've posted.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
I presume you were abroad for COVID, don't follow the news and have not seen any of the Covid enquiry, it is / was all there
Continuing to deny what happened by your normal practice of "link?" will never change what happened.
Continuing to deny what happened by your normal practice of "link?" will never change what happened.
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
The stuff about the Sage meeting minutes was shocking. The minutes were diluted into easy to read format. But Johnson admitted that he rarely read them. That in itself is disgraceful, it's actually indefensible.
Covid inquiry: Johnson says he may have only read Sage minutes ‘once or twice’
The former prime minister said he was given ‘summaries’ of the discussions but that ‘in retrospect’ it may have been valuable to hear them in full.
www.standard.co.uk
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Facts are that everything that I post I can support with links to primary sources, you can't even name "test and trace" correctly.
Good day to you, sir.
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
He had the CSA and CMO on direct dial.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Sorry if my irony is too obscure. The point was that if it had been track and trace, not test and trace, we would have stood a chance of slowing transmission. Give £37B to the Public Health system used to contact tracing to enhance their operations, and it was possible. Instead of which if was given to another crony to build some organsiation which could do lots of tests and totally failed the trace element.
Last edited:
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
So why didn't he use them on Eat Out To Help Out? It wasn't even discussed, indeed the Chancellor, now PM, thought it was a Fiscal Measure requiring no scientific input ( mind you, he let himself down when he admitted it was intended to provide behavioural change!)
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
How easy it is to lose sight of people when you're dealing with high finance.
traffordtang
Well-known member
He doesn’t listen to people who say things which don’t fit his agenda
Lost Seasider
Well-known member
Trying to do "track and trace" without the faintest idea who's infected and who's not.
Yeah............. good luck.
JJpool
Well-known member
The government had the right tactic initially which they set out, the pandemic plans, to see the virus through somewhat, that masks were as good as ineffective. We should have protected the vulnerable and let people generally get on with it.
Then it all changed and they panicked, suddenly we copied other places, mainly Chinese style lock downs and threw out the pandemic planning.
You can sympathise more with he 1st lockdown as OK better safe than sorry maybe, but it got less excusable after that.
Infact it all got a bit weird, with people losing their minds, mad decisions, stupid doomsday modeling, group think, silencing and discretiting of dissenting voices and flawed policy in trying to jab perfectly healthy people. The rules were ridiculous, police taping off rock's in parks, allowed to run but not walk, mask on here off here or not needed if you were singing, people sent into a blind panic for people talking to each other outside. Follow the science but only this specific take on the science.
The government and media's use of fear to control people and have a shady untit actually spied on people who criticised covid policy. Genuine facts that went against the narrative shut down by big tech.
Then we have the parties, which do seem ridiculous, but as someone who worked all through the pandemic, when does working in an office become a party or a gathering?
I wouldn’t drink at work but if it was someone's birthday and someone brought a cake in and put music on, is that an unnecessary gathering when you're there anyway and trying to keep spirits up?
It was a joke, nobody followed the rules to the letter, yes some far more than others, but it wasn't possible to. For those that tried the hardest they seem in many cases to have suffered the most, missing key life moments that shouldn't have been taken away.
Labour would have locked down harder and longer. I dred to think of the excess deaths and damage to the economy under them.
Then it all changed and they panicked, suddenly we copied other places, mainly Chinese style lock downs and threw out the pandemic planning.
You can sympathise more with he 1st lockdown as OK better safe than sorry maybe, but it got less excusable after that.
Infact it all got a bit weird, with people losing their minds, mad decisions, stupid doomsday modeling, group think, silencing and discretiting of dissenting voices and flawed policy in trying to jab perfectly healthy people. The rules were ridiculous, police taping off rock's in parks, allowed to run but not walk, mask on here off here or not needed if you were singing, people sent into a blind panic for people talking to each other outside. Follow the science but only this specific take on the science.
The government and media's use of fear to control people and have a shady untit actually spied on people who criticised covid policy. Genuine facts that went against the narrative shut down by big tech.
Then we have the parties, which do seem ridiculous, but as someone who worked all through the pandemic, when does working in an office become a party or a gathering?
I wouldn’t drink at work but if it was someone's birthday and someone brought a cake in and put music on, is that an unnecessary gathering when you're there anyway and trying to keep spirits up?
It was a joke, nobody followed the rules to the letter, yes some far more than others, but it wasn't possible to. For those that tried the hardest they seem in many cases to have suffered the most, missing key life moments that shouldn't have been taken away.
Labour would have locked down harder and longer. I dred to think of the excess deaths and damage to the economy under them.
Curryman
Well-known member
I'm sure if they invited all the know all experts from AVFTT to run the country if there was to be another pandemic it would all be over in a flash. For goodness sake, it was an unknown disease that spread around the world like wildfire and most countries struggled to contain it. Don't misunderstand me It's plainly obvious that mistakes were made, but the world was fighting a fire with water pistols.
As for the hospitals being overwhelmed and farming out already infectious people to nursing homes, it is not the first time. I'm sure you all remember the panic about MRSA. Well, I was at the time running a Nursing home and we received two people from a Hospital with MRSA who it was claimed were cured but it turned out they weren't. Result an outbreak of the disease in the home and a few early deaths. At the time Local Hospitals were saying they were basically free of the disease and it was the Nursing homes who were responsible for any outbreaks. Wrong.
As for the hospitals being overwhelmed and farming out already infectious people to nursing homes, it is not the first time. I'm sure you all remember the panic about MRSA. Well, I was at the time running a Nursing home and we received two people from a Hospital with MRSA who it was claimed were cured but it turned out they weren't. Result an outbreak of the disease in the home and a few early deaths. At the time Local Hospitals were saying they were basically free of the disease and it was the Nursing homes who were responsible for any outbreaks. Wrong.
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Oh, for heavens sake, stop being obtuse