Is it time for a change of government and change of strategy?

[Cowley]

Going back to the original subject, there is one thing that (surprisingly) doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet and that's a coalition. It's what happened in WWI and WWII and although I don't like comparing the Covid crisis with a major war, the idea is worth discussing. If you assume Boris eventually gets the Tory party black spot, then would we really be expected to sit around for months while they all solemnly vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg or somebody equally clueless? The only problem is, who would be the person to lead such a thing? I have an odd suggestion - Teresa May. She may have failed over Brexit but she didn't half try! And she does have grudging respect in many quarters, I think.

I do remember that idea being suggested on here sometime around the beginning of the crisis (but please don’t ask me to find those posts again though ).

I think May is actually doing a fairly reasonable job at the moment from afar, and has made a couple of useful interjections recently now that she’s not acting like a rabbit caught in the headlights...
But I just don’t see this government working with anyone else for the greater good at the moment, or in the future in any shape or form unfortunately.

They just don’t seem to be able to comprehend that the many (arguably) good people that they were happy to give the boot to (if they weren’t singing off exactly the same hymn sheet anyway), might have actually been quite useful to them in providing a wider range of knowledge and opinions.
That’s a big part of the problem at the moment - It’s not about ability, it’s about loyalty, hence the lack of intelligent decision making through all of this.

 

[Bantamzen]

To be fair I don't think "zero COVID" actually means that, it means taking strong measures to suppress to near-zero each time it pops up but more normal life in between.

Actually getting rid is more often known as an elimination strategy.

So what is "near-zero"?

What's become quite apparent is that the public are tiring of being ordered around and effectively threatened with lockdown each day. The important messages have been lost in the noise.

We have "flattened the curve" successfully. That was the original aim of lockdown, was it not? No one ever spoke originally of taking the curve away.

If we must pursue the aim of further suppression, then there are three important points that need to be made. Wash your hands. Keep your distance. If you are ill you must isolate. The French have made isolation more palatable by saying it's 7 days, not 14, but that it will be enforced strictly. I find it staggering that T&T fail to find 30% of people who test positive. Who the heck goes for a test and doesn't try to find out the results?

Everything else is noise that distracts and confuses the population, and decreases compliance with the important rules.

Indeed, the main aim was to allow time for the NHS to build capacity to deal with the potential numbers of people that might require medical attention. This capacity was achieved & largely unused. Ever since we have been shifting the goalposts to suit whatever narrative Karen of Facebook required.

 

[AdamWW]

Indeed, the main aim was to allow time for the NHS to build capacity to deal with the potential numbers of people that might require medical attention. This capacity was achieved & largely unused. Ever since we have been shifting the goalposts to suit whatever narrative Karen of Facebook required.

Having read through the SAGE documents relevent to that time, I do not believe that the aim was to build capacity in the NHS so that we could cope with the results of conoravirus spreading without any intervention. Do you have evidence for your view?

I do remember that idea being suggested on here sometime around the beginning of the crisis (but please don’t ask me to find those posts again though ).

There was certainly talk at the start of some kind of "National Government". An interesting choice for the opposition if offered...a chance at some power vs then having to take part of the responsibility for how things play out.

 

[Bantamzen]

Having read through the SAGE documents relevent to that time, I do not believe that the aim was to build capacity in the NHS so that we could cope with the results of conoravirus spreading without any intervention. Do you have evidence for your view?



There was certainly talk at the start of some kind of "National Government". An interesting choice for the opposition if offered...a chance at some power vs then having to take part of the responsibility for how things play out.

SAGE are not the government nor legislators, they are an advisory body to the government. Please don't try and warp history, we were all there when Johnson talked about "flattening the curve" to help the NHS build capacity to cope with any additional demand. This was achieved and underused.

 

[DerekC]

I do remember that idea being suggested on here sometime around the beginning of the crisis (but please don’t ask me to find those posts again though ).

I think May is actually doing a fairly reasonable job at the moment from afar, and has made a couple of useful interjections recently now that she’s not acting like a rabbit caught in the headlights...
But I just don’t see this government working with anyone else for the greater good at the moment, or in the future in any shape or form unfortunately.

They just don’t seem to be able to comprehend that the many (arguably) good people that they were happy to give the boot to (if they weren’t singing off exactly the same hymn sheet anyway), might have actually been quite useful to them in providing a wider range of knowledge and opinions.
That’s a big part of the problem at the moment - It’s not about ability, it’s about loyalty, hence the lack of intelligent decision making through all of this.

I agree with you about the present lot. When the crisis started I had to hope against hope that Boris would turn out to be a good leader, despite his history. He quite obviously isn't. Good leaders appoint good teams that they can trust to enable them to deliver. Good teams challenge and help the leader make the right decisions. Boris has appointed an idiot genius with lots of book learning but no experience of anything to lead us through some sort of national reorganisation and restructuring, carried out during two parallel national crises, alongside a team of people chosen for their unwillingness to challenge anything. However backbench revolutions have happened before and the Tory party is notorious for disloyalty to a leader in a crisis so it's not impossible that Boris might be dislodged. My question is - what happens then?

 

[AdamWW]

SAGE are not the government nor legislators, they are an advisory body to the government. Please don't try and warp history, we were all there when Johnson talked about "flattening the curve" to help the NHS build capacity to cope with any additional demand. This was achieved and underused.

Building capacity to cope with any additional demand is not at all the same thing as building capacity to cope with the additional demand if all restrictions were dropped.

When did the government say the plan was to build up the NHS to the point that it could cope with dropping all restrictions? That's not the history I remember. But regardless of what they may have thought then, the advice they have now (or was when I looked a few weeks ago) is that the health system is very unlikely to be able to cope if we drop all restrictions.

And no, SAGE isn't the government, but given that the government has claimed all along to be "following the science" and the scientific advisors weren't saying "give us a few weeks to get the NHS ready then it's safe to let it rip", then I think it's fair to say it wasn't government policy.

 

[Bantamzen]

Building capacity to cope with any additional demand is not at all the same thing as building capacity to cope with the additional demand if all restrictions were dropped.

When did the government say the plan was to build up the NHS to the point that it could cope with dropping all restrictions? That's not the history I remember. But regardless of what they may have thought then, the advice they have now (or was when I looked a few weeks ago) is that the health system is very unlikely to be able to cope if we drop all restrictions.

And no, SAGE isn't the government, but given that the government has claimed all along to be "following the science" and the scientific advisors weren't saying "give us a few weeks to get the NHS ready then it's safe to let it rip", then I think it's fair to say it wasn't government policy.

Its exactly what the government said back in March, and has been referenced on this various forums time & again.

 

[AdamWW]

Its exactly what the government said back in March, and has been referenced on this various forums time & again.

Maybe my memory is at fault then. It's not how I recall it.

I remember talk of 'turning the corner'.

I don't remember suggestions that as soon as the Nightingale hospitals were built we'd just go back to life as before.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe my memory is at fault then. It's not how I recall it.

I remember talk of 'turning the corner'.

I don't remember suggestions that as soon as the Nightingale hospitals were built we'd just go back to life as before.

To be fair, with the goal posts having been moved so many times I wouldn't be surprised if most of the country had lost track of the original aims. But back in March the message was clear, flatten the curve to give time to make extra capacity. That capacity was achieved and largely not used, yet months later we still find ourselves with restriction after restriction.

 

[AdamWW]

To be fair, with the goal posts having been moved so many times I wouldn't be surprised if most of the country had lost track of the original aims. But back in March the message was clear, flatten the curve to give time to make extra capacity. That capacity was achieved and largely not used, yet months later we still find ourselves with restriction after restriction.

Well we clearly remember things differently.

I don't remember "flattening the curve" as only being supposed to last until we'd created enough capacity for the health system to cope without any restrictions.

I can't prove it wasn't said, but unless someone can find an article that does say this, I'm going to carry on remembering things my way.

When you say "that capacity was achieved" - do you think we now have the capacity to cope if we dropped all restrictions?

It may be true but - last I looked - it's not what the government were being told.

 

[najaB]

To be honest I wouldn't mind any strategy - even if it was "full lockdown until cases reach N per day, then release, and reimpose if it goes above M" or something.

There presently is no strategy, and that annoys me greatly.

This, more than anything. It is possible to balance the health and economic impacts of Covid-19, but it requires a clear strategy.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well we clearly remember things differently.

I don't remember "flattening the curve" as only being supposed to last until we'd created enough capacity for the health system to cope without any restrictions.

I can't prove it wasn't said, but unless someone can find an article that does say this, I'm going to carry on remembering things my way.

When you say "that capacity was achieved" - do you think we now have the capacity to cope if we dropped all restrictions?

It may be true but - last I looked - it's not what the government were being told.

Believe what you want, but the facts remain.

 

[AdamWW]

Believe what you want, but the facts remain.

I could say the same.

If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to find a newspaper article where Mr Johnson announced that the aim of building the Nightingale Hospitals was so that we could drop all restrictions immediately that they were operational.

I have looked and failed to find anything. Can you?

 

[Bantamzen]

I could say the same.

If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to find a newspaper article where Mr Johnson announced that the aim of building the Nightingale Hospitals was so that we could drop all restrictions immediately that they were operational.

I have looked and failed to find anything. Can you?

It took me about 5 seconds. Have you tried refining your search to, oh I don't know "flatten the curve"?

 

[yorkie]

I could say the same.

If you're right, it shouldn't be too hard to find a newspaper article where Mr Johnson announced that the aim of building the Nightingale Hospitals was so that we could drop all restrictions immediately that they were operational.

I have looked and failed to find anything. Can you?

How about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-uk-can-turn-tide-of-coronavirus-in-12-weeks

Striking a notably, if cautiously, optimistic note, Johnson said: “I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country...

Arguably that is open to interpretation but equally I'd also turn your question round and ask you where it was explained we'd have loads of restrictions at this point?

 

[AdamWW]

It took me about 5 seconds. Have you tried refining your search to, oh I don't know "flatten the curve"?

Thanks for the sarcasm.

Yes, I did.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying "Yes I found it" but not sharing the link.

How about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-uk-can-turn-tide-of-coronavirus-in-12-weeks

Arguably that is open to interpretation but equally I'd also turn your question round and ask you where it was explained we'd have loads of restrictions at this point?

I can't see anything there saying that the aim was to build sufficient hospital capacity to cope with unrestricted spread.

This is the "turning the corner" idea I mentioned a few posts back.

It's not clear to me what they are saying about when they expected all restrictions to be dropped - "turning the tide" in 12 weeks and "sending it packing" is a bit vague.

I am not claiming that in March the government was telling us to expect that in September we'd have heavy restrictions. I'm sure they were hoping it wouldn't be true.

I'm saying I don't recall them saying the intention was ever to build up the health system to the point where it could cope with just letting coronavirus spread unhindered.

 

[Bantamzen]

Thanks for the sarcasm.

You're welcome.

Yes, I did.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by saying "Yes I found it" but not sharing the link.

Frankly I didn't see any point in providing them because as demonstrated above I felt sure you would not accept what was offered. The strategy was clear at the time, take measures to reduce the impact on the NHS until such time that it had capacity to cope.

 

[AdamWW]

Frankly I didn't see any point in providing them because as demonstrated above I felt sure you would not accept what was offered. The strategy was clear at the time, take measures to reduce the impact on the NHS until such time that it had capacity to cope.

Tell you what, why not try me?

I might not believe it but everyone else will get the chance to see how irrational I am when I refuse to believe what is plainly stated.

 

[bramling]

I agree with you about the present lot. When the crisis started I had to hope against hope that Boris would turn out to be a good leader, despite his history. He quite obviously isn't. Good leaders appoint good teams that they can trust to enable them to deliver. Good teams challenge and help the leader make the right decisions. Boris has appointed an idiot genius with lots of book learning but no experience of anything to lead us through some sort of national reorganisation and restructuring, carried out during two parallel national crises, alongside a team of people chosen for their unwillingness to challenge anything. However backbench revolutions have happened before and the Tory party is notorious for disloyalty to a leader in a crisis so it's not impossible that Boris might be dislodged. My question is - what happens then?

This post unfortunately sums things up rather well.

Boris was always a wild card, and I think it's fair to say he ended up in position thanks to two factors - firstly that he was deemed the best of an atrocious line-up (both within his own party, and amongst the opposition too), and secondly that doubt was assuaged by the fact that as Mayor of London he didn't seem to have been a complete disaster (again, not a ringing endorsement given the field, again both in terms of candidature and the two other mayors to date). It is extremely unfortunate that we're reduced to judging on the basis of "least worst" and "didn't seem to be a *total* disaster" rather than for positive reasons.

So with a sense of trepidation people (and I'd include myself in this) were prepared to get behind Boris as it seemed the least-worst option at the time, and probably was. Unfortunately we're now stuck with a useless prime minister, a freaky and unhinged adviser, and a completely weak cabinet. Apart from some chinks of experience shining through with Starmer Labour seem no better. Meanwhile it's patently clear the SNP are still being heavily driven by the dream of independence as always.

So where do we go from here? In all honesty, goodness knows. It does seem like we probably have little hope but to cross every finger that the scientific community manage to devise a workable vaccine, as otherwise we're going to struggle to get out of this rut. The only other hope is herd immunity, but how long?

 

[Huntergreed]

So where do we go from here? In all honesty, goodness knows. It does seem like we probably have little hope but to cross every finger that the scientific community manage to devise a workable vaccine, as otherwise we're going to struggle to get out of this rut. The only other hope is herd immunity, but how long?

Indeed - this is my biggest worry. If a vaccine does not become available, then its looking unlikely that our leaders will allow the virus to spread (and don’t mind damaging the economy to ensure this is the case). Does this mean that, without a vaccine, these restrictions are permanent? I’m sure someone on another thread said herd immunity at this rate would take around 200 years, which means we’d be stuck in these restrictions for life

 

[Bantamzen]

Tell you what, why not try me?

I might not believe it but everyone else will get the chance to see how irrational I am when I refuse to believe what is plainly stated.

How about the government planning document from early March?

Coronavirus action plan: a guide to what you can expect across the UK

www.gov.uk

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the Conservative party could dump Margaret they sure as hell can dump Boris.

 

[brad465]

One strategy that definitely needs changing is this "moonshot" policy, which experts have already played down as unrealistic. Even if it was successful the £100bn being quoted as needed to achieving whole population weekly testing is approaching the annual bill for the NHS, or the current cost of HS2. Trying to pay that back will lead to more even long term hardship than the short term hardship going on right now, while it would not surprise me if, going by the PPE contract failings, this ends up being the biggest siphoning of public money ever achieved (I hope the corruption perception index staff are watching).

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed - this is my biggest worry. If a vaccine does not become available, then its looking unlikely that our leaders will allow the virus to spread (and don’t mind damaging the economy to ensure this is the case). Does this mean that, without a vaccine, these restrictions are permanent? I’m sure someone on another thread said herd immunity at this rate would take around 200 years, which means we’d be stuck in these restrictions for life

I think so probably.
Masks will probably be compulsory permanently from now on, they will say that wearing them saves everyone from flu etc.

We are already trending towards de-facto serfdom with open-ended restrictions placed on movement.

 

[Richard Scott]

One strategy that definitely needs changing is this "moonshot" policy, which experts have already played down as unrealistic. Even if it was successful the £100bn being quoted as needed to achieving whole population weekly testing is approaching the annual bill for the NHS, or the current cost of HS2. Trying to pay that back will lead to more even long term hardship than the short term hardship going on right now, while it would not surprise me if, going by the PPE contract failings, this ends up being the biggest siphoning of public money ever achieved (I hope the corruption perception index staff are watching).

My question is why is this even necessary? The virus has now become an obsession, government aren't acting rationally (well they haven't for a while). I don't understand why they can't see this? Sunak really needs to get a pair and lay things on the line.

I think so probably.
Masks will probably be compulsory permanently from now on, they will say that wearing them saves everyone from flu etc.

We are already trending towards de-facto serfdom with open-ended restrictions placed on movement.

If that's even remotely likely may as well just give up now, life won't be worth living.

 

[HSTEd]

My question is why is this even necessary? The virus has now become an obsession, government aren't acting rationally (well they haven't for a while). I don't understand why they can't see this? Sunak really needs to get a pair and lay things on the line.

Because it is the only way various factions will ever permit even a partial return to normality.

 

[Richard Scott]

Because it is the only way various factions will ever permit even a partial return to normality.

What clue do these factions have about economics, my guess is none? They'll then demand something else then be told actually we can't afford it.

 

[AdamWW]

How about the government planning document from early March?

Coronavirus action plan: a guide to what you can expect across the UK

www.gov.uk

OK thanks.

That was from before lockdown was being talked about for the UK.

But putting that aside, it says:

Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season

I don't see how that's compatible with the idea that restrictions should be a temporary measure to get the NHS prepared and then competely dropped.

 

[Bantamzen]

OK thanks.

That was from before lockdown was being talked about for the UK.

But putting that aside, it says:


I don't see how that's compatible with the idea that restrictions should be a temporary measure to get the NHS prepared and then competely dropped.

Throughout that document it talks about minimising the impact on society, so that kind of tells you all you need to know.

 

[Yew]

I feel that a Boris in general is a bit vague

I don't see how that's compatible with the idea that restrictions should be a temporary measure to get the NHS prepared and then competely dropped.

Perhaps it doesn't say exactly that, but it doesn't seem to suggest an indefinite policy of suppression. I suppose technically, "away from winter" stopped happening on the solstice on the 20th June, so I guess (somewhat jovially) you could use that as a date