Keir Starmer and the Labour Party’s stance during the pandemic.

[Cdd89]

At the very start, the government sought to develop it’s own all rather than using apps developed by experienced tech firms

So am I right in understanding your position as:

• Systems development should be outsourced to “experienced tech firms” (I assume this harkens back to the old debate over the Apple-Google model vs NHSx’s own attempts at contact tracing according to the more data-collecting model)
• Operational management should be practiced by “the NHS”

Personally trying to wrap it up in this way seems a little too dogmatic for me, if this pandemic has taught me anything it’s that we need to abandon the hard and fast rules (biased by political views) and instead focus on what works, trying multiple approaches simultaneously if needed. If you recall, that’s happened with the app in the end, with the front end to the Apple-Google model developed in parallel and proving to be the more effective system.

 

[Purple Orange]

So am I right in understanding your position as:

• Systems development should be outsourced to “experienced tech firms” (I assume this harkens back to the old debate over the Apple-Google model vs NHSx’s own attempts at contact tracing according to the more data-collecting model)
• Operational management should be practiced by “the NHS”

Personally trying to wrap it up in this way seems a little too dogmatic for me, if this pandemic has taught me anything it’s that we need to abandon the hard and fast rules (biased by political views) and instead focus on what works, trying multiple approaches simultaneously if needed. If you recall, that’s happened with the app in the end, with the front end to the Apple-Google model developed in parallel and proving to be the more effective system.

Focusing on what works, exactly! That is how it has eventually come to pass too. The NHS has taken on management of the test and trace system now and is working better than before. The NHS has managed the rollout of the vaccine and has worked very well. The point is we had the apparatus in place from the start to facilitate a test & trace system, but a dogmatic approach (to paraphrase your words) was adopted in the name of Tory political dogma by insisting the private sector manages the process end to end. This failed.

 

[Cdd89]

a dogmatic approach (to paraphrase your words) was adopted in the name of Tory political dogma by insisting the private sector manages the process end to end. This failed.

I fully agree there! I think Starmer has acted sensibly in not resisting the urge to push the “public sector only” lines that have been coming from some wings of the party, and instead focusing on the dubious nature of some of the contracts.

Since I’m replying…

I find that to be a rather disgusting comment.

I have considered how to express this better and to avoid causing further offence as I’m aware it came across pretty insensitively (especially since it was a sort of passing comment and not central to my argument re Starmer!)

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I wanted to see deaths “for the sake of it”. However having a tolerance for greater deaths is a prerequisite for wanting fewer restrictions (unless you believe that the two aren’t correlated whatsoever, but I mostly do).

I know our death figures based on the worldwide comparatives aren’t great, but conversely when I think back to the (genuinely terrifying) apocalyptic predictions of March 2020 (when I was braced to lose loved ones - and yes of course I’m aware plenty of people did), a 0.2% death rate over a 14 month period honestly doesn’t seem terrible to me in comparison to the normal deaths each year.

I predicted at least 1% in the first wave, based on say 70% coverage at the base mortality (estimated at 1%) and unavailability of healthcare for other treatments adding up the rest, and unequivocally supported restrictions in March on that basis. Such a rate hasn’t panned out anywhere in the world, and if you offered fewer restrictions but a 0.3% or 0.4% death toll instead of a 0.2% toll, I’d find that worth the trade-off for the huge improvement in quality of life for the youngest and most economically/emotionally vulnerable in society. I hope that makes some sense.

Bringing the above back to Starmer, my impression is that his support for lockdowns was weakest at the earliest period (when demanding an exit plan in April, which I thoughts was a good step), but has now become unquestioning despite the evidence for them having weakened substantially. As a further hypothetical, if the government continues to mandate masks after late June, do you think Starmer will be pushing back, or will we be relying on the Tory MPs to do so? That is my fundamental problem.

 

[Yew]

At the very start, the government sought to develop it’s own all rather than using apps developed by experienced tech firms. We then had the managing of the system outsourced, rather than manage it within the NHS.

Where exactly would these NHS staff members be transferred from?

 

[Purple Orange]

I fully agree there! I think Starmer has acted sensibly in not resisting the urge to push the “public sector only” lines that have been coming from some wings of the party, and instead focusing on the dubious nature of some of the contracts.

Since I’m replying…

I have considered how to express this better and to avoid causing further offence as I’m aware it came across pretty insensitively (especially since it was a sort of passing comment and not central to my argument re Starmer!)

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I wanted to see deaths “for the sake of it”. However having a tolerance for greater deaths is a prerequisite for wanting fewer restrictions (unless you believe that the two aren’t correlated whatsoever, but I mostly do).

I know our death figures based on the worldwide comparatives aren’t great, but conversely when I think back to the (genuinely terrifying) apocalyptic predictions of March 2020 (when I was braced to lose loved ones - and yes of course I’m aware plenty of people did), a 0.2% death rate over a 14 month period honestly doesn’t seem terrible to me in comparison to the normal deaths each year.

I predicted at least 1% in the first wave, based on say 70% coverage at the base mortality (estimated at 1%) and unavailability of healthcare for other treatments adding up the rest, and unequivocally supported restrictions in March on that basis. Such a rate hasn’t panned out anywhere in the world, and if you offered fewer restrictions but a 0.3% or 0.4% death toll instead of a 0.2% toll, I’d find that worth the trade-off for the huge improvement in quality of life for the youngest and most economically/emotionally vulnerable in society. I hope that makes some sense.

Bringing the above back to Starmer, my impression is that his support for lockdowns was weakest at the earliest period (when demanding an exit plan in April, which I thoughts was a good step), but has now become unquestioning despite the evidence for them having weakened substantially. As a further hypothetical, if the government continues to mandate masks after late June, do you think Starmer will be pushing back, or will we be relying on the Tory MPs to do so? That is my fundamental problem.

I appreciate your comments there, although it would be fare to say we would have to agree to disagree. The correlation of the drop in cases & deaths upon entering lockdown and the increase as restrictions are eased is clear to see, therefore I believe the restrictions should have been applied earlier.

That said we’re in a different place now. The plans to ease out are working and I’ve not seen any valid arguments for speeding that up.

Where exactly would these NHS staff members be transferred from?

The staff already exist - the NHS is involved in the management of the system now, whereas it was not at the start.

 

[quantinghome]

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I wanted to see deaths “for the sake of it”. However having a tolerance for greater deaths is a prerequisite for wanting fewer restrictions (unless you believe that the two aren’t correlated whatsoever, but I mostly do).

I know our death figures based on the worldwide comparatives aren’t great, but conversely when I think back to the (genuinely terrifying) apocalyptic predictions of March 2020 (when I was braced to lose loved ones - and yes of course I’m aware plenty of people did), a 0.2% death rate over a 14 month period honestly doesn’t seem terrible to me in comparison to the normal deaths each year.

I predicted at least 1% in the first wave, based on say 70% coverage at the base mortality (estimated at 1%) and unavailability of healthcare for other treatments adding up the rest, and unequivocally supported restrictions in March on that basis. Such a rate hasn’t panned out anywhere in the world, and if you offered fewer restrictions but a 0.3% or 0.4% death toll instead of a 0.2% toll, I’d find that worth the trade-off for the huge improvement in quality of life for the youngest and most economically/emotionally vulnerable in society. I hope that makes some sense.

You seem to be overlooking a major issue. Restrictions (or lack of) affect the rate of growth, not the actual number of infections or deaths at any given time.

If everyone carried on without any preventative measures the virus would spread exponentially and result in the worst case predictions of 1-2% of our population dying.

With minimal preventative measures such as social distancing, hand washing etc., the virus would still spread exponentially, albeit at a lower growth rate. You'd still get the same number of deaths due to the virus but spread out over a longer time, so avoiding knock-on fatalities due to healthcare unavailability.

The more stringent measures you apply, the lower the growth rate, until the rate drops below 1 and the virus spread starts to reduce. But unless you get the growth rate below 1, you will always get an exponential growth in virus spread. Whether it doubles every week or every month, it would still grow and sooner or later spread to the whole population.

As a result, the argument that you can balance the tolerance for deaths against tolerance for restrictions doesn't work. Unless restrictions are sufficiently tight to limit the growth rate to less than 1, you will see the entire population exposed to the virus and the maximum death toll.

Unfortunately our lack of effective test and trace (IMO due to lack of support for those isolating) meant the only tool to get the growth rate below 1 which worked was lockdown. The government tried pretty much everything it could throughout the autumn short of lockdown - a policy driven by the lockdown sceptics in the Tory party. But none of the measures worked.

 

[Cdd89]

If everyone carried on without any preventative measures the virus would spread exponentially and result in the worst case predictions of 1-2% of our population dying.

The "worst case scenario" of any country or state in the world so far -- with strong restrictions, loose restrictions and anywhere in between -- is 0.29%. (Funnily enough, that was for a country with restrictions!).

I believed the predictions of 1-2% back in March 2020. I don't any more because not a single country or US state has come anywhere near that figure. This "real world" experience is the key difference between the start of the first lockdown, and subsequent ones.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

You seem to be overlooking a major issue. Restrictions (or lack of) affect the rate of growth, not the actual number of infections or deaths at any given time.

If everyone carried on without any preventative measures the virus would spread exponentially and result in the worst case predictions of 1-2% of our population dying.

With minimal preventative measures such as social distancing, hand washing etc., the virus would still spread exponentially, albeit at a lower growth rate. You'd still get the same number of deaths due to the virus but spread out over a longer time, so avoiding knock-on fatalities due to healthcare unavailability.

The more stringent measures you apply, the lower the growth rate, until the rate drops below 1 and the virus spread starts to reduce. But unless you get the growth rate below 1, you will always get an exponential growth in virus spread. Whether it doubles every week or every month, it would still grow and sooner or later spread to the whole population.

As a result, the argument that you can balance the tolerance for deaths against tolerance for restrictions doesn't work. Unless restrictions are sufficiently tight to limit the growth rate to less than 1, you will see the entire population exposed to the virus and the maximum death toll.

Unfortunately our lack of effective test and trace (IMO due to lack of support for those isolating) meant the only tool to get the growth rate below 1 which worked was lockdown. The government tried pretty much everything it could throughout the autumn short of lockdown - a policy driven by the lockdown sceptics in the Tory party. But none of the measures worked.

Social distancing, hand washing and maybe masks are fine as restrictions. It's lockdowns where I am completely opposed to because there is no evidence that they work.

 

[Domh245]

The staff already exist - the NHS is involved in the management of the system now, whereas it was not at the start.

It depends which part of the system the NHS are managing. They were always involved with the 'clinical' side of the contact tracing, but quite why the NHS is more qualified to run glorified test centres than someone like serco, I don't know

I believed the predictions of 1-2% back in March 2020. I don't any more because not a single country or US state has come anywhere near that figure. This "real world" experience is the key difference between the start of the first lockdown, and subsequent ones.

I think you've done some rather odd maths there - without covid actually spreading through the whole population, we rather obviously won't see death tolls that represent covid spreading through the whole population. Using the UK's stats (which granted, are rather meaningless with the relative lack of testing during the early parts of last year, though are offset by the vaccine program targeting the most vulnerable during the height of the third wave earlier this year) the IFR is something like 2.89%. Given the age and general health profiles of this country, 1-2% of the population dying if we'd done nothing would have not been out of the question.

 

[Cowley]

This thread was set up to discuss how Labour have reacted to the pandemic and we seem to have drifted off the subject somewhat...
We’ll keep an eye on it from here on and if it carries on drifting then I’m afraid it will have to be locked as all of what seems to be being discussed is covered in other threads.
Please stay on topic. Thanks!

 

[Bantamzen]

I can honestly say that so long as Starmer remains in charge, I will never put a cross against a Labour candidate in any election. He and his opposition party have sat idly by as the government have shoved over a million people out of work, and forced at least a 20% pay cut on millions more. In fact not only did they support these measures, but they actually wanted more.

At the very least they should have been challenging the government on every decision made around restrictions, and ensuring they did the very best for the low income workers most badly affected. But alas all they did was sit on their hands and cheer on people bring thrown under the bus. I for one will not forget their betrayal.

 

[yorkie]

If everyone carried on without any preventative measures the virus would spread exponentially....

How would that be possible when so many people have good immunity against Sars-CoV-2?

Unfortunately you make the same mistake as Kier Starmer and the Labour party in underestimating the extent to which we have immunity in the population.

and result in the worst case predictions of 1-2% of our population dying.

You are being disingenuous at best. Firstly not far off 1% of the population dies annually anyway. Secondly, the average age of a death with Sars-CoV-2 is 82. Thirdly, the infection fatality rate is likely to be at most 0.5%.

Therefore any response proposed by any political party or any other person should be proportional and take these factors into account

With minimal preventative measures such as social distancing, hand washing etc., the virus would still spread exponentially, albeit at a lower growth rate.

See above.

You'd still get the same number of deaths due to the virus but spread out over a longer time, so avoiding knock-on fatalities due to healthcare unavailability.

There should be no chance of healthcare unavailability given all those who are in the at risk categories have been vaccinated; are you denying the effectiveness of vaccines?

I've not been following the claims made by Starmer in respect of vaccine effectiveness but I would hope the Labour party would be prepared to agree that the vaccines are highly effective.

The more stringent measures you apply, the lower the growth rate, until the rate drops below 1 and the virus spread starts to reduce.

I suggest you look at seasonal endemic equilibrium models. There is no need to apply stringent measures now that we are entering the endemic phase.

But unless you get the growth rate below 1, you will always get an exponential growth in virus spread. Whether it doubles every week or every month, it would still grow and sooner or later spread to the whole population.

Repeating the same thing doesn't make you right.

As a result, the argument that you can balance the tolerance for deaths against tolerance for restrictions doesn't work. Unless restrictions are sufficiently tight to limit the growth rate to less than 1, you will see the entire population exposed to the virus and the maximum death toll.

None of your arguments 'work'; your arguments are based on misunderstandings and false claims.

Are any of these arguments made by Starmer and Labour? I'd hope not, but any political party making such arguments will not get my vote anytime soon.

Unfortunately our lack of effective test and trace (IMO due to lack of support for those isolating) meant the only tool to get the growth rate below 1 which worked was lockdown.

How do you explain that in Kent cases were increasing during Tier 4 lockdown measures and peaked during them?

UK-wide, cases were already declining before the imposition of Lockdown 3; see other threads where this is discussed in more detail.

The government tried pretty much everything it could throughout the autumn short of lockdown - a policy driven by the lockdown sceptics in the Tory party. But none of the measures worked.

This is a seasonal virus (and we are rapidly heading for seasonal endemic equilibrium with this virus); the fact cases increased at the expected autumn/winter season is of no surprise and was unavoidable and I would hope any sensible political party would realise this.

 

[kieron]

I can honestly say that so long as Starmer remains in charge, I will never put a cross against a Labour candidate in any election. He and his opposition party have sat idly by as the government have shoved over a million people out of work, and forced at least a 20% pay cut on millions more. In fact not only did they support these measures, but they actually wanted more.

The Conservative government have "shoved over a million people out of work, and forced at least a 20% pay cut on millions more", but Labour are the party you say you could never vote for until the leader is replaced? Had you already decided you couldn't support Boris Johnson's Tories?

 

[Purple Orange]

The Conservative government have "shoved over a million people out of work, and forced at least a 20% pay cut on millions more", but Labour are the party you say you could never vote for until the leader is replaced? Had you already decided you couldn't support Boris Johnson's Tories?

I have to say it has always baffled me as to why the hard left appear to want to blame Labour more than the Tories, for actions taken by the Tories. It’s like they actually want a right wing government in perpetuity.

 

[edwin_m]

I have to say it has always baffled me as to why the hard left appear to want to blame Labour more than the Tories, for actions taken by the Tories. It’s like they actually want a right wing government in perpetuity.

Particularly with the FPTP electoral system, many people have to vote for whom they dislike least rather than making a positive choice to vote for whom they would most like. While Starmer isn't perfect, I'd trust him about a thousand times more than Johnson to do the right thing.

 

[Bantamzen]

The Conservative government have "shoved over a million people out of work, and forced at least a 20% pay cut on millions more", but Labour are the party you say you could never vote for until the leader is replaced? Had you already decided you couldn't support Boris Johnson's Tories?

Labour are the opposition, and supposed to be the party of the working class, literally. It was no surprise that the Conservatives did what they did, but to watch the Labour Party sit opposite and cheer them on whilst millions of people got hit for a 20% pay cut.

I have to say it has always baffled me as to why the hard left appear to want to blame Labour more than the Tories, for actions taken by the Tories. It’s like they actually want a right wing government in perpetuity.

I have to say it has always baffled me how some people jump to conclusions, and get them so very, very wrong.

(Hint, I'm not hard left)

 

[43096]

The fact is we should have gone in to lock down earlier for the first wave, earlier for the second wave and earlier for the third wave. We should have been better prepared with respect to PPE and allowed a Track & Trace system to be facilitated through the NHS, rather than outsourcing it. This would have resulted in fewer deaths and a better suppression of the virus.

We did not do that. This is the fault of the Conservative government.

It isn't a fact at all. It's your opinion.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Labour are the opposition, and supposed to be the party of the working class, literally. It was no surprise that the Conservatives did what they did, but to watch the Labour Party sit opposite and cheer them on whilst millions of people got hit for a 20% pay cut.


I have to say it has always baffled me how some people jump to conclusions, and get them so very, very wrong.

(Hint, I'm not hard left)

I’m very pleased to have received a leaflet through the door yesterday (the only one so far) from an independent candidate for both my council and county council.

I have met the chap when I was chairman of our residents association, I think he was a Conservative councillor.

I’m luck as I then looked at the list of options for the different areas and mine is the only one with an independent

It was interesting to see there was only one area in the County had the Reform UK party which was refreshing

 

[Purple Orange]

Labour are the opposition, and supposed to be the party of the working class, literally. It was no surprise that the Conservatives did what they did, but to watch the Labour Party sit opposite and cheer them on whilst millions of people got hit for a 20% pay cut.


I have to say it has always baffled me how some people jump to conclusions, and get them so very, very wrong.

(Hint, I'm not hard left)

As opposed to losing their job.

Im from a working class background and I feel like Labour represent my values far more than any other party. And if anyone thinks Farage represents the working class, quite frankly they are deluded.

 

[Bantamzen]

As opposed to losing their job.

Im from a working class background and I feel like Labour represent my values far more than any other party. And if anyone thinks Farage represents the working class, quite frankly they are deluded.

Who mentioned Farage? Seriously, have a word with yourself!

 

[Purple Orange]

Who mentioned Farage? Seriously, have a word with yourself!

Oh calm yourself down. I mentioned Farage because he has been held up as representing the working class. I didn’t say you had that opinion. It’s called advancing the conversation, but there isn’t much point in doing that.

 

[VauxhallandI]

As opposed to losing their job.

Im from a working class background and I feel like Labour represent my values far more than any other party. And if anyone thinks Farage represents the working class, quite frankly they are deluded.

Many with furlough will lose their jobs, it will have just cost the economy a stack of cash to get to the same point. The difference being the economy will be a lot worst state to try and get them new jobs.

Nothing supportive of the working classes in that line of thinking

 

[Purple Orange]

Many with furlough will lose their jobs, it will have just cost the economy a stack of cash to get to the same point. The difference being the economy will be a lot worst state to try and get them new jobs.

Nothing supportive of the working classes in that line of thinking

And to have provided zero support would have resulted in far more job loses. What would you have proposed instead?

 

[VauxhallandI]

And to have provided zero support would have resulted in far more job loses. What would you have proposed instead?

Keeping people working not just the ones needed to serve the well to do.

Protecting the extremely vulnerable and keeping the country running.

 

[Purple Orange]

Keeping people working not just the ones needed to serve the well to do.

Protecting the extremely vulnerable and keeping the country running.

That’s not much of a proposition. What specifically would you have done differently?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So overall lockdowns don't save as many lives as basic hygiene awareness, and they are such a blunt instrument they need to be properly reviewed and analysed. The side effects of lockdowns overall do not justify the length of time they were in place, when looking at the supposed benefits.

Let us go back to the country of origin of Covid-19. What was the immediate lockdown response of China, not just in the city involved, but in the whole Wuhan region.

 

[VauxhallandI]

That’s not much of a proposition. What specifically would you have done differently?

After the first lockdown there would have been no further ones. That specifically

 

[Purple Orange]

After the first lockdown there would have been no further ones. That specifically

<Sigh>

Quite possibly the most dangerous decision that could have been taken.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

After the first lockdown there would have been no further ones. That specifically

I am sure that your perceived pearls of wisdom would be well received in India at this moment in time by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who felt it was in good order to allow vast numbers to attend election rallies.

 

[scotrail158713]

Let us go back to the country of origin of Covid-19. What was the immediate lockdown response of China, not just in the city involved, but in the whole Wuhan region.

To be fair I think the Chinese government can lockdown in a way nowhere else can