Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[kez19]

I am not saying SAGE are blameless, far from it as they were pushing for lockdowns and restrictions,all I am saying is the government should have stood up to them more and considered the wider implications not just Covid

Just to correct myself I knew that, I just mean as that SAGE seem to think they are able to deflect their own mistakes to governments (if they are an advisory group for them then the buck still stops with them also).

The thing I think was the reason the government didn’t stand up to them because they cried to the media for the attention hence the government took what they said when actioned like a pinch of salt, but now the tables are turning they are using the government to jump ship.

It’s similar to Devis excuse on Twitter still blaming the UK Government for all the problems but yet she was another on the BBC etc saying the government should do more but yet she clearly didn’t give a toss about Sturgeon and her wrongdoings yet she was an adviser for… Scotland! Again the media praised her against the problems for the UK government but when it came to Scotland zilch!

At the end of the day it is the government who took the decisions. Sage are an advisory body.

As a country we must stop seeking lame leaders, but the country hasn’t learned its lesson on this as we’re about to get another one. It’s another one of those things which seems to trace back to the Blair government.

Or we could throw it the other way, due to both SAGE and media pressure the government caved in..

As I say I think the media are possibly having the last laugh in terms of Boris going but I think there will be an aftershock which will hit the media buffers.

 

[Eyersey468]

Just to correct myself I knew that, I just mean as that SAGE seem to think they are able to deflect their own mistakes to governments (if they are an advisory group for them then the buck still stops with them also).

The thing I think was the reason the government didn’t stand up to them because they cried to the media for the attention hence the government took what they said when actioned like a pinch of salt, but now the tables are turning they are using the government to jump ship.

It’s similar to Devis excuse on Twitter still blaming the UK Government for all the problems but yet she was another on the BBC etc saying the government should do more but yet she clearly didn’t give a toss about Sturgeon and her wrongdoings yet she was an adviser for… Scotland! Again the media praised her against the problems for the UK government but when it came to Scotland zilch!



Or we could throw it the other way, due to both SAGE and media pressure the government caved in..

As I say I think the media are possibly having the last laugh in terms of Boris going but I think there will be an aftershock which will hit the media buffers.

I hope there is an aftershock that hits the media and they pay for what they have done over the last 2 1/2 years

 

[kez19]

I hope there is an aftershock that hits the media and they pay for what they have done over the last 2 1/2 years

Oh I certainly hope so, like I say I think with the media pushing Boris out (no defender of him let alone the other politicians that broke rules too but no media pressure - irony!), but it wouldn't surprise me that Boris does something that'll cause the media to go down (with or without him).

I just want to add this to raise my point I mentioned in terms of Devi: Yet she is an advisor in Scotland? She is good at talking down the UK Gov but where is her stance towards Sturgeon? I'll add this .. the NHS is devolved in Scotland (so where is the criticism?), absent leadership? (Sturgeon is on a recent jaunt to the USA/Norway as examples), Devi look closer to home than UK before tweeting!

https://mobile.twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1560560416652140544

Some media are intent on sowing division & targeting anger on: cyclists, immigrants, COVID response (you name it)- as deliberate strategy of deflecting attention from real problems of: NHS in crisis, not enough workers, sewage in waters, rising cost of living, absent leadership.

This was posted on 19 August 2022, but she is the one to talk but on this particular post people were calling her out too... but like I say its to an extent some think they are invincible to it all/media defence.

 

[43096]

At the end of the day it is the government who took the decisions. Sage are an advisory body.

But… SAGE thought they were far more than that; indeed they believed they should have been setting policy. The number of times they/members of SAGE threw their toys out of the pram because their advice wasn’t followed in full was worrying.

SAGE needs complete reform and some serious controls putting in place on what its members can do. Far too many of them are after their 15 minutes of fame and the money associated with it rather than providing independent advice.

 

[MikeWM]

Perhaps the narrative is collapsing. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is being 'allowed' to now that we have vast numbers of other crises to keep the fear going in the general population.

Either way The Guardian has a reliably terrible take on the situation - an editorial no less, so the 'official view' of the paper:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-guardian-view-on-rishi-sunak-a-claim-too-far

The former chancellor and Tory leadership candidate makes three substantive points, all of them questionable. The first is that the lockdowns went on too long. If anything, the very opposite is true. If the first lockdown, in particular, had come sooner and lasted longer, some of the later damage (including some that was inflicted by Mr Sunak’s own “Eat out to help out” scheme) might have been less severe.

Mr Sunak’s second claim is that the government’s scientific advisers had too much power. That is certainly not what the advisers think or say...

The final claim is that ministers should have been more open about the pros and cons. This sounds reasonable, but the reality is that emergency times required emergency measures. The downsides of lockdown were not a secret. But excessive hesitation would have led to more serious cases and deaths and might have overwhelmed the NHS.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And the gaslighting of those of us with different views continues:

It is an insult to the victims of Covid and their families to pretend, as Mr Johnson does, that he got the big calls right during the pandemic. But the paranoid pretence on the libertarian right, to which Mr Sunak has now lent his support, that the whole lockdown was avoidable and wrong is, if anything, even worse.

Just for one example, has anyone at the Guardian heard of Sweden? Or is the entire country of Sweden on the 'paranoid' libertarian right?

 

[brad465]

At the end of the day it is the government who took the decisions. Sage are an advisory body.

As a country we must stop seeking lame leaders, but the country hasn’t learned its lesson on this as we’re about to get another one. It’s another one of those things which seems to trace back to the Blair government.

This is what happens when reality TV becomes as powerful as it is, we resort to electing reality TV stars, not politicians, who do what they think is most popular without an ability to rationally assess the implications. Combined of course with a lack of critical thinking education.

 

[kristiang85]

Perhaps the narrative is collapsing. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is being 'allowed' to now that we have vast numbers of other crises to keep the fear going in the general population.

Either way The Guardian has a reliably terrible take on the situation - an editorial no less, so the 'official view' of the paper:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-guardian-view-on-rishi-sunak-a-claim-too-far
.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And the gaslighting of those of us with different views continues:



Just for one example, has anyone at the Guardian heard of Sweden? Or is the entire country of Sweden on the 'paranoid' libertarian right?

The Guardian just cannot be taken seriously if this is their view. Yet I'm sure they will be weeping about the cost of living crisis and the abject poverty many are going to suffer, which is a direct result of their beloved lockdowns

 

[yorksrob]

SAGE cannot shirk their responsibility by saying "it's up to government to make the decision" SAGE were very visibly driving the agenda at the time.

 

[quantinghome]

SAGE cannot shirk their responsibility by saying "it's up to government to make the decision" SAGE were very visibly driving the agenda at the time.

SAGE has never been anything other than an advisory committee. It doesn't have any statutory power, unlike (say) the HSE. SAGE cannot drive the agenda; it doesn't have the power to do so.

The idea that SAGE were somehow riding roughshod over ministers' better judgement is easily disproven by the fact that ministers often didn't follow SAGE's advice during the pandemic.

The timing of Sunak's claims about SAGE shows this is all about the Tory leadership and an 11th-hour attempt to appeal to libertarian Tory members. It's all a bit strange to be honest - claiming to have been bamboozled by a scientific committee doesn't really do much for one's leadership credentials.

 

[yorksrob]

SAGE has never been anything other than an advisory committee. It doesn't have any statutory power, unlike (say) the HSE. SAGE cannot drive the agenda; it doesn't have the power to do so.

The idea that SAGE were somehow riding roughshod over ministers' better judgement is easily disproven by the fact that ministers often didn't follow SAGE's advice during the pandemic.

The timing of Sunak's claims about SAGE shows this is all about the Tory leadership and an 11th-hour attempt to appeal to libertarian Tory members. It's all a bit strange to be honest - claiming to have been bamboozled by a scientific committee doesn't really do much for one's leadership credentials.

We were all here, listening to SAGE's pronouncements at the time, and we all heard them, timed to influence government policy.

 

[quantinghome]

We were all here, listening to SAGE's pronouncements at the time, and we all heard them, timed to influence government policy.

Surely the whole point of an advisory committee is that it influences government policy? What else is an advisory committee for? To influence does not mean to dictate of course. The government were free not to heed the advice given. And quite often, they didn't.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the whole point of an advisory committee is that it influences government policy? What else is an advisory committee for? To influence does not mean to dictate of course. The government were free not to heed the advice given. And quite often, they didn't.

It could do that in private without its members making announcements to the press every five minutes.

 

[Eyersey468]

It could do that in private without its members making announcements to the press every five minutes.

I agree

 

[quantinghome]

It could do that in private without its members making announcements to the press every five minutes.

The government decides who sits on SAGE. If SAGE members were indeed playing games with the press, government ministers could have simply instructed SAGE members not to make unofficial press announcements, and if they persisted, told them their services were no longer needed on the group.

 

[yorksrob]

The government decides who sits on SAGE. If SAGE members were indeed playing games with the press, government ministers could have simply instructed SAGE members not to make unofficial press announcements, and if they persisted, told them their services were no longer needed on the group.

They could. But as a public body with public communications, there's no reason why we shouldn't hold them to account like any other public body.

 

[Hans]

Read the SAGE minutes which have been published, those who say they have no power are wrong, they were driving the narrative. It was not the PM who came up with the "death" figures, it was various members of SAGE. They may have "advised" the government, I would suggest it was more a case of them saying "we are the experts, this is going to happen, are you really going to not follow our advice". SAGE should never have existed, Neil Ferguson should never have been involved (his modelling had always been wrong), no decision should ever have been made without a cost and risk analysis, Hancock should never have been allowed near the health department, I could go on!

The decisions made were wrong from the very beginning and the damage was just compounded as time went on, too many people were (are) enjoying being in the spotlight and the majority of them will never hold up their hands and admit they over reacted.

The IFR was know very early on, it was totally ignored. Even as time went on, not once did they think of saying "ok it was never as bad as we anticipated", instead more restrictions were instigated including the ludicrous mask mandate, the dystopian mandatory vaccines and passports, and the constant printing of money which has bankrupted the country. The government would never have come up with all the plans had it not been for SAGE.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Perhaps the narrative is collapsing. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is being 'allowed' to now that we have vast numbers of other crises to keep the fear going in the general population.

Either way The Guardian has a reliably terrible take on the situation - an editorial no less, so the 'official view' of the paper:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-guardian-view-on-rishi-sunak-a-claim-too-far


Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And the gaslighting of those of us with different views continues:



Just for one example, has anyone at the Guardian heard of Sweden? Or is the entire country of Sweden on the 'paranoid' libertarian right?

Re that article, in the immortal words of Billy Connolly:
"Foxtrot Oscar doesn't mean 'go away'; Foxtrot Oscar means Foxtrot Oscar."

 

[duncanp]

Mr Sunak’s second claim is that the government’s scientific advisers had too much power. That is certainly not what the advisers think or say...

To paraphrase the words of Christine Keeler (look it up if you are not a coffin dodger ) , "....well they would say that, wouldn't they...?"

One consequence of the energy crisis is that no-one is going to give a stuff about COVID over the winter.

People will be too concerned about keeping warm and putting food on the table to worry about a virus that is relatively harmless for the vast majority of people.

And with the government having to spend billions on a support package for businesses and households this winter, there is not a cat in hells chance that they are going to contemplate any COVID restrictions.

 

[Hans]

To paraphrase the words of Christine Keeler (look it up if you are not a coffin dodger ) , "....well they would say that, wouldn't they...?"

One consequence of the energy crisis is that no-one is going to give a stuff about COVID over the winter.

People will be too concerned about keeping warm and putting food on the table to worry about a virus that is relatively harmless for the vast majority of people.

And with the government having to spend billions on a support package for businesses and households this winter, there is not a cat in hells chance that they are going to contemplate any COVID restrictions.

Other than the opposite of social distancing as a way of keeping warm!

 

[Eyersey468]

Read the SAGE minutes which have been published, those who say they have no power are wrong, they were driving the narrative. It was not the PM who came up with the "death" figures, it was various members of SAGE. They may have "advised" the government, I would suggest it was more a case of them saying "we are the experts, this is going to happen, are you really going to not follow our advice". SAGE should never have existed, Neil Ferguson should never have been involved (his modelling had always been wrong), no decision should ever have been made without a cost and risk analysis, Hancock should never have been allowed near the health department, I could go on!

The decisions made were wrong from the very beginning and the damage was just compounded as time went on, too many people were (are) enjoying being in the spotlight and the majority of them will never hold up their hands and admit they over reacted.

The IFR was know very early on, it was totally ignored. Even as time went on, not once did they think of saying "ok it was never as bad as we anticipated", instead more restrictions were instigated including the ludicrous mask mandate, the dystopian mandatory vaccines and passports, and the constant printing of money which has bankrupted the country. The government would never have come up with all the plans had it not been for SAGE.

I agree both SAGE and the government will never admit they overreacted and got it so badly wrong, the official narrative will always be we had no choice

 

[kez19]

I agree both SAGE and the government will never admit they overreacted and got it so badly wrong, the official narrative will always be we had no choice

Under the same breath the media will then claim they were following orders and hoping to sweep this under a rug..

Read the SAGE minutes which have been published, those who say they have no power are wrong, they were driving the narrative. It was not the PM who came up with the "death" figures, it was various members of SAGE. They may have "advised" the government, I would suggest it was more a case of them saying "we are the experts, this is going to happen, are you really going to not follow our advice". SAGE should never have existed, Neil Ferguson should never have been involved (his modelling had always been wrong), no decision should ever have been made without a cost and risk analysis, Hancock should never have been allowed near the health department, I could go on!

The decisions made were wrong from the very beginning and the damage was just compounded as time went on, too many people were (are) enjoying being in the spotlight and the majority of them will never hold up their hands and admit they over reacted.

The IFR was know very early on, it was totally ignored. Even as time went on, not once did they think of saying "ok it was never as bad as we anticipated", instead more restrictions were instigated including the ludicrous mask mandate, the dystopian mandatory vaccines and passports, and the constant printing of money which has bankrupted the country. The government would never have come up with all the plans had it not been for SAGE.

Yet can I ask on the media perspective in terms of SAGE to someone on the opposition end of the scale why were they ignored/ridiculed? It may sound tinfoil hat for me to say but you would think that this was some sort of a coordinated attack by media to listen to SAGE than anyone else with differing views to drive an agenda, or an agenda the media would rather have us to live under? (just stating opinion nothing more).

As I say let’s raid the accounts of all uk media and find out how much they have milked from this? I agree in terms of politicians but maybe we need to see how much the media themselves make and open a debate and criticise them?

 

[Hans]

I have always wanted to avoid the left v right politics of the media, but I do think the media's almost worshipping of SAGE was to get at the Tories - the reason being the restrictions and the heavy had of government controlling peoples lives is the antithesis of a Tory "small" government narrative.

 

[kez19]

There will be many who have quite selective amnesia. I cannot wait for the general population to start saying "well of course I knew it was all an over reaction", no doubt said without any sense of irony.

Will still claim the media did the right thing etc…

Fool me once and all that..

 

[Hans]

It is very easy for the many to say if we hadn't had the restrictions many more would have died, if we hadn't had the vaccinations many more would have died as there is no way to prove it, hence it will be the mantra of the majority, whilst forgetting and ignoring the current excess deaths and very long waiting lists, along with the dire economical situation.

 

[DerekC]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

 

[kez19]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

I think the thing is if you question things than look at it with a pinch of salt there is more questions than answers but it seems to be that if people are happy to roll over for the likes of the politicians media government then it’ll happen again.

 

[bramling]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

Because there may well be some truth to it? Part of critical thinking, which large elements of the population seem to completely lack, is considering what hidden or underlying motives might be behind something.

To give an unrelated example, it’s often stated that political parties ensure they look after the grey vote, and we know that is because older people tend to be more likely to get out and vote.

It certainly isn’t unreasonable to consider what vested interests key players might have had, either in terms of their political / social views, or their own vested monetary or business interests. In fact, we’d be remiss not to, especially given how far-reaching the consequences of all this have been, and how rushed everything was at the time. I don’t think anyone would argue with the point that there was very little scrutiny at the time, so some retrospective scrutiny certainly isn’t a bad thing.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Hans]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

The country, and the WHO, had a perfectly acceptable template for any outbreak - it was the total opposite of the actions taken, years of planning and research were discarded in a moment. So the debate, imo, is the next time, we should use the plan which had been in place for years and most importantly would have been far less damaging.

Every year there is a a respiratory virus outbreak, with high number of deaths, with no action taken (quite correctly in my opinion), the discussions should be to ensure lockdowns and restrictions never happen again for a virus with such a minimal IFR. Even for viruses such as Ebola, with considerable higher IFR, there were processes in place to ensure only those infected were isolated, healthy people were not locked down.

 

[DustyBin]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

Whilst I agree with you in so far as we should be having a constructive debate, it’s difficult when certain people won’t accept that they got it (or indeed anything) wrong. I understand why they can’t, but it’s not helpful at all.

In regard to the thread title, it’s simply what the evidence shows. Yes it’s a “loaded” statement but it’s also an accurate one.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

I agree we should be having a constructive debate, but it should include the lessons that must be learned from the last 2.5 years. We already had pandemic plans which were thrown out of the window, I don't think it is unreasonable to question the actions that were taken and what vested interests those screaming for them had.