advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain IX

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not that simple - there has to be an eye on the long term.

What happens to the UK economy if the lockdown continues as is?
What happens to the mental health of the population if they're kept in 'lockdown' for much longer? What strain might that put on the NHS and its surrogate mental health service, the police?
How many could died as a result of an even more chronically underfunded NHS (because the economy is still at the bottom of the'V' or 'U') and is further stretched when Autumn comes around? Is it more than would die from the relaxation of social distancing?

Now, I don't know what the answers to that are; perhaps others here have more insight.
What happens to the economy if we relax lockdown too early and are forced to impose another national lockdown?

Health vs Wealth is not either/or: the UK is now almost certain to have one of the highest death tolls and the biggest economic hits in the world.

Unfortunately Boris Johnson has ****ed things up so badly, we're now poorly placed to address either.
 
There wasn't a chin hung out there today just waiting to be tagged.

Johnson now has to hope a) that no significant spread starts and b) if it does, that the published (by then) scientific advice supported his choice and that the funding, organisation and TT systems are all in place as he assured people they were.

If that proves not to be, his chin will be right out there. That is the time to draw him one off. Better still, Johnson will only have himself to blame. Plenty of people will remember that Starmer had asked for those conditions to be met in return for his support.
The thing is, if you begin by offering fairly fulsome support, but sneak in a few conditions to trip the government up later, you look shifty (like a lawyer, in fact), and you lay yourself open to charges of flip-flopping. Starmer's already been caught out like this, on schools. Can he adapt? Is there really no way of voicing objection other than your lefty rant caricature?
 
I always get the feeling Starmer is afraid of pushing things further , he does not need to go off on a massive rant but just prod at Johnson a bit harder as he needs to enforce his personality more
 
What happens to the economy if we relax lockdown too early and are forced to impose another national lockdown?

Health vs Wealth is not either/or: the UK is now almost certain to have one of the highest death tolls and the biggest economic hits in the world.

Unfortunately Boris Johnson has ****ed things up so badly, we're now poorly placed to address either.

Do you think they were wrong to introduce 1m plus? What should they have done?
 
The Tories have had enough of the Covid 19 briefings now, they’ll only do them whenever they feel like it from now on (BBC). Science, messaging, scrutiny, accountability at the height of a global pandemic? Nope, we sure won’t be needing any of that...
 
Health vs Wealth is not either/or:

I read a lot of posts here that seem to be in favour of (today's) health over wealth argument but I agree it's not a binary choice and that's the point I was trying to make. :)

the UK is now almost certain to have one of the highest death tolls and the biggest economic hits in the world. Unfortunately Boris Johnson has ****ed things up so badly, we're now poorly placed to address either.

So, let's assume we can't undo all of the mess we're in to date. What is the right way forward to minimse the risk in the short and long-terms? What ever they are is what Keir Starmer, the LDs and SNPs should all be demanding.
 
The thing is, if you begin by offering fairly fulsome support, but sneak in a few conditions to trip the government up later, you look shifty (like a lawyer, in fact), and you lay yourself open to charges of flip-flopping. Starmer's already been caught out like this, on schools. Can he adapt? Is there really no way of voicing objection other than your lefty rant caricature?

How do you make that out of what he said? If there were the measures in place then doing what they are trying to do wouldn't look unreasonable, especially with some qualified support from the scientists. At the moment that scientific input looks cautious but split. Of course the feeling is that Johnson is lying about the support, going too quickly etc., but proving a negative right now is difficult. The key indicators will be watched closely if it begins to look different to the way Johnson has presented it, there will be no reason not to push much harder and louder.
 
The Tories have had enough of the Covid 19 briefings now, they’ll only do them whenever they feel like it from now on (BBC). Science, messaging, scrutiny, accountability at the height of a global pandemic? Nope, we sure won’t be needing any of that...

Are any other countries doing daily briefings? France wasn’t.
 
The Tories have had enough of the Covid 19 briefings now, they’ll only do them whenever they feel like it from now on (BBC). Science, messaging, scrutiny, accountability at the height of a global pandemic? Nope, we sure won’t be needing any of that...

If only the media had been more vociferous and forthright in its questioning...
 
How do you make that out of what he said? If there were the measures in place then doing what they are trying to do wouldn't look unreasonable, especially with some qualified support from the scientists. At the moment that scientific input looks cautious but split. Of course the feeling is that Johnson is lying about the support, going too quickly etc., but proving a negative right now is difficult. The key indicators will be watched closely if it begins to look different to the way Johnson has presented it, there will be no reason not to push much harder and louder.
“The government is trying to do the right thing, and in that we will support them". But he has reservations.

That’s what I’d call qualified support, with the emphasis on support. When he tries to invoke the qualifications later on, if it’s a disaster, Johnson can say “But you supported us! You don’t even know where you stand!” And Starmer will say, “No no, there were conditions, and you haven’t met them!” His supporters will sigh, “Forensic!” And every one else will say, typical nonce-loving lawyer, there’s always the small print.

This would all be hypothetical except that it’s already happened, on schools. How often can it happen before it becomes what he’s known for? Double speak, lawyering, shiftiness, clever moves, fake friend.
 
“The government is trying to do the right thing, and in that we will support them". But he has reservations.

That’s what I’d call qualified support, with the emphasis on support. When he tries to invoke the qualifications later on, if it’s a disaster, Johnson can say “But you supported us! You don’t even know where you stand!” And Starmer will say, “No no, there were conditions, and you haven’t met them!” His supporters will sigh, “Forensic!” And every one else will say, typical nonce-loving lawyer, there’s always the small print.

This would all be hypothetical except that it’s already happened, on schools. How often can it happen before it becomes what he’s known for? Double speak, lawyering, shiftiness, clever moves, fake friend.

I don't agree. Glaring omissions in what Johnson has said would not be treated as just 'forensic' details. That's your little put down phrase for Starmer's ability to handle detail.
 
I read a lot of posts here that seem to be in favour of (today's) health over wealth argument but I agree it's not a binary choice and that's the point I was trying to make. :)



So, let's assume we can't undo all of the mess we're in to date. What is the right way forward to minimse the risk in the short and long-terms? What ever they are is what Keir Starmer, the LDs and SNPs should all be demanding.
It's like the old joke: if I were you, I wouldn't start from here.

Still, we are where we are innit?

I agree that it's not easy now, but I thought Starmer had already set out Labour's requirements for easing lockdown and I don't know why he's not referring back to them.

For my part, as a minimum, I would insist on:

1. Daily deaths being consistently in low double digits (still a little way to go there).
2. High quality info about the number of people tested and the results of those tests, at a granular enough level to enable local lockdowns if necessary.
3. Some evidence that the test and trace processes are working effectively (not just Matt Hancock saying so).

I see this as essential in both the short term and the long term, and for both public health and economic reasons.

It seems like common sense, given the potential for exponential growth if we get this wrong, and it isn't even a particularly hard message to communicate.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. Glaring omissions in what Johnson has said would not be treated as just 'forensic' details. That's your little put down phrase for Starmer's ability to handle detail.
That’s his fans’ phrase. The put down term of choice will be “small print”. Small Print Starmer they’ll call him. “I thought I could count on your support Sir Keir! As ever, I suppose I should have read the small print!”

As I say, it’s a difficult balancing act he has to perform here. But the idea that he has to woo people by showing support, and that these same people are then going to be impressed when he says, “Actually, if you remember the details, my support was always conditional”...Well, that seems not to have been properly thought through.

It’s all too easy to see how his lawyerliness could become a crutch, which will then be used to beat him with. And again, this isn’t purely hypothetical: it’s already started. We have to hope he’s got more strings to his bow. Because the government is basically handing out death sentences.
 
That’s his fans’ phrase. The put down term of choice will be “small print”. Small Print Starmer they’ll call him. “I thought I could count on your support Sir Keir! As ever, I suppose I should have read the small print!”

As I say, it’s a difficult balancing act he has to perform here. But the idea that he has to woo people by showing support, and that these same people are then going to be impressed when he says, “Actually, if you remember the details, my support was always conditional”...Well, that seems not to have been properly thought through.

It’s all too easy to see how his lawyerliness could become a crutch, which will then be used to beat him with. And again, this isn’t purely hypothetical: it’s already started. We have to hope he’s got more strings to his bow. Because the government is basically handing out death sentences.

Except 'small print' is stuff you either don't mention, or try to hide. Not the main stated caveats to supporting a course of action that you then highlight on the floor of the HoC. If the Gov was "handing out death sentences" then it wouldn't be a "difficult balancing act".
 
Except 'small print' is stuff you either don't mention, or try to hide. Not the main stated caveats to supporting a course of action that you then highlight on the floor of the HoC. If the Gov was "handing out death sentences" then it wouldn't be a "difficult balancing act".
“Enough Sir Keir! I concede the distinction between small print and major caveat! A man who defends himself has a fool for a client! But was I foolish to count on your support?”

When the government delayed lockdown, when it crippled track and trace, it passed down death sentences by the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, taking into account as yet unknown long term complications. It’s botching the end of lockdown so there’s many more to come. And Starmer’s playing the long game.
 
The bloke who lives across the road from my Dad is still in hospital, he's been there since early March I think. Covid free now, obviously, but it sounds like he was one of the unlucky ones and it has done a complete number on him. Early 50s, no underlying medical problems.


Mate of mine caught COVID-19, back I late April, he was working on an empty property along with a painter, apparently both were socially distancing, and he collapsed unconscious in the property.

He was taken to hospital in an ambulance blue lights the lot, COVID diagnosed, three days in hospital then sent home with a cheat sheet, told to report back to hospital if anything on the cheat sheet turned up.

After about eleven days at home he recovered and then relapsed, he’s basically slept for up to fourteen hours a day in his own bed for the last six weeks, I talked to him on the phone last Friday, he’s still being sick as in vomiting and sleeping for hours every day and he sound absolutely terrible on the phone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top