gavreid
Pretty Words...
Looks like we have a 'World Beating' (c) safe distance. This is not just 1 metre. This is 1 metre plus
plus a negative number I'm sorry to say
Looks like we have a 'World Beating' (c) safe distance. This is not just 1 metre. This is 1 metre plus
You can't just "follow the science", you have to balance all of the issues in play (covid-19 transmission, mental health, economy, jobs etc) and make least worst compromise around all of those factors. What the opposition has to do is to show exactly where the balance is wrong in the current announcement and what a better compromise for the UK looks like.
He did ask for confirmation that the decisions were consistent with SAGE advice, unless I misheard that bit?He could have started with David King on 2m - he could have taken the Blackford approach and asked for full publication of the scientific advice - he chose to go belly up I'm afraid.
Starmer's on his back asking Johnson to tickle his tummy - regrettably
"He says, although Labour will look at the details, overall it supports what Johnson has announced. He says he thinks the government is trying to do the right thing."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...082875f4490a76#block-5ef1eceb8f082875f4490a76
He did ask for confirmation that the decisions were consistent with SAGE advice, unless I misheard that bit?
Posted at 13:0113:01
Starmer: 'Number of questions' about basis of these decisions
Mr Starmer says he has a "number of questions" about the "basis" for these decisions.
On the scientific evidence for changing the 2m social distancing rule, he asks whether the PM can assure MPs that the package of measures he just announced has been agreed with the government's Sage advisers, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser.
He asks what overall assessment has been made about the overall transmission of the virus and on the R rate - the reproduction rate of the virus - "both nationally and regionally".
He did ask for confirmation that the decisions were consistent with SAGE advice, unless I misheard that bit?
He did but only after saying he was supportive.
He really is useless isn't he? Fancy saying he was broadly in favour of the intentions but subject to:
- confirmation of scientific basis.
- adequate funding and resources for local authorities and health services to deal adequately with spikes or increases in infections rates.
- properly functioning track and trace.
None of which I'd bank on Johnson actually being able to deliver.
But heck, he could have gone "We don't support the intentions you unspeakable lunatic, you're going to kill us all. There is no evidence that it's any safer than day one and if the PM thinks we're going to go along with any of it, he can swivel on this!"
I'm sure that would have done a lot of good - for Johnson. Not sure it would have helped anyone else.
Do you work in a meat processing plant at the weekends too?
This is how public opinion drifts bit by bit to the right - when people don't hear a counter perspective to anything
Just blow up in front of him in indignation and you give him the perfect excuse to ignore it all by saying "well these guys are not serious about supporting anything, so why bother?"
. Basically the government has been arguing for weeks that with adequate track and trace technology the lockdown can be gradually reduced. They have entirely failed to deliver such functionality.
4D chess?He really is useless isn't he? Fancy saying he was broadly in favour of the intentions but subject to:
- confirmation of scientific basis.
- adequate funding and resources for local authorities and health services to deal adequately with spikes or increases in infections rates.
- properly functioning track and trace.
None of which I'd bank on Johnson actually being able to deliver.
But heck, he could have said "We don't support the intentions you unspeakable lunatic, you're going to kill us all. There is no evidence that it's any safer than day one and if the PM thinks we're going to go along with any of it, he can swivel on this!"
I'm sure that would have done a lot of good - for Johnson. Not sure it would have helped anyone else.
I could write the speech!
I’m sure you could, but you’d need to take time out of your day job (which I assume is licking public transport hand-rails to make political points).
4D chess?
He could have started with David King on 2m - he could have taken the Blackford approach and asked for full publication of the scientific advice - he chose to go belly up I'm afraid.
Someone I know who had covid 19 early on and was hospitalised but not ventilated was rushed to hospital on Saturday when they could not breathe. They were kept in overnight and put on oxygen and sent home on Sunday with strict instructions to not wait as long next time. All down to lung damage caused by the immune reaction to the virus.Tens of thousands of people will need further hospital checkups for pulmonary fibrosis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53065340
He chose a wise strategy. Even if you think it's wrong to do what the PM is proposing, how do you think it would go down with the voting public that the Labour Leader was opposed to something they really want after three months in isolation? How do you think the Tory Press would spin it if he opposed it? I'm sure that he would like to skewer Johnson but with a basket case of an economy, the catastrophe that is Brexit on the horizon and the inevitable dashing of expectations of vast investment in Red Wall seats, this was not the hill to die on. We are stuck with this Government for 4.5 more years; There will be plenty of opportunities for them the fail.
Though if they nod along as the country descends into a catastrophic second spike with tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths they’ll co-own that too. A more logical approach would be to simply follow the science and look for cracks between SAGE and other advice and government action. Also apply constant pressure for freedom of information and the one constant in all this is this shower twists and conceals everything it can get away with.