WHEN'S IT ALL GONNA OPEN??

[Sir Nibble]

15 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I think it has already been acknowledged that a vaccine will take months to develop with trials etc .

It then has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity

It then has to be delivered 

It then has to be injected 

Lets say we have  500 places giving vaccinations and each place vaccinates 50 people per hour x 8 hrs = 400 per day

If they do 200,000 people a day that's 250  days or one working year for 50 million people 

 

Valid, but it doesn't challenge Wotever's point that vaccination is a route to herd immunity not an alternative to it does it.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Phil. said:

It is perfectly acceptable to have someone representing the PM at the meetings to observe and if necessary ask questions, provided the end decision is the scientific one.

Have you ever been in a meeting where there was something you wanted to say, but didn't, because of the presence of someone in the meeting? Cummings is exactly the kind of person who is likely to "discourage" an open discussion - He has the ear of the Prime Minister, and is seen to be a very powerful individual.

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

You're living in a village, compared to the UK.

 

 

Is that any excuse for the UK government?

[Momac]

11 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Valid, but it doesn't challenge Wotever's point that vaccination is a route to herd immunity not an alternative to it does it.

I had been challenged to substantiate my opinion.

A vaccine  right now would  be great  but could still take a year to administer.

 

 

The reality is this issue is not going to disappear  any time soon. 

 

 

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Is that any excuse for the UK government?

 

It wasn't used as an excuse. NZ is simply not the UK. An incongruity of perspectives. Do you enjoy mixing up context?

 

 

 

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, restlessnomad said:

herd immunity 'strategy' I was referring to has been accepted as mistake by both UK and scottish govt.

I think you will find that government backed itself into a corner on herd immunity, and it became the thing that cannot be discussed. Whether it was said, or not, "it doesn't matter if a few old people die", was the quote that took it off the agenda, and the propaganda machine we now have is not allowed to use the term, in a positive way.

 

However, as Nibble repeats, the only way out of this is "herd immunity", whether that is via mass infection and deaths, or via a vaccine. While we don't have a vaccine, and are merely hoping for one, the former is all that we have. Keeping the curve flat minimises the deaths, whilst waiting for infection to produce the immunity, as well as buying time for a vaccine to be developed, produced, and delivered, if, in fact, one is found.

[Phil.]

10 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Have you ever been in a meeting where there was something you wanted to say, but didn't, because of the presence of someone in the meeting? Cummings is exactly the kind of person who is likely to "discourage" an open discussion - He has the ear of the Prime Minister, and is seen to be a very powerful individual.

Is that any excuse for the UK government?

Anyone so petrified about saying something, that they think someone else might not want to hear, has no business being in such a high profile and important meeting in the first place.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

You can't help yourself - this government doesn't listen to you. 

Of course it doesn't!!! FFS!!!

 

This is an internet discussion forum Higgsy - nobody is listening to us, apart from us. 

[Higgs]

Just now, Richard10002 said:

Of course it doesn't!!! FFS!!!

 

This is an internet discussion forum Higgsy - nobody is listening to us, apart from us. 

 

That's what I said, but in particular, to our NZ friend, who seemed to be messaging the government, or that's what he said he was doing. Ok?

 

 

[Richard10002]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's what I said, but in particular, to our NZ friend, who seemed to be messaging the government, or that's what he said he was doing. Ok?

 

 

Kind of makes everything YOU say redundant, doesn't it

 

( #209 ? )

[Higgs]

23 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Kind of makes everything YOU say redundant, doesn't it 

 

( #209 ? )

 

Only if you want to take everything out of context to suit your irrationality. 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Higgs

[Machpoint005]

4 hours ago, DandV said:

When are Brits going to stop looking for excuses for abysmal performance and actually concentrate on fixing things?

 

That is a very good question. I hope the answer is "soon".

33 minutes ago, Phil. said:

Anyone so petrified about saying something, that they think someone else might not want to hear, has no business being in such a high profile and important meeting in the first place.

It's a shame, then, that the PM has appointed so many of them to his cabinet.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

That is a very good question. I hope the answer is "soon".

 

I think the youngsters probably feel the same way. 

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

40 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I had been challenged to substantiate my opinion.

A vaccine  right now would  be great  but could still take a year to administer.

 

 

The reality is this issue is not going to disappear  any time soon. 

 

 

He pointed out that there are two routes to herd immunity, you challenged him with the opinion that one of those routes could take a long time. I don't see that as relevant to his original point. Especially in the absence of any estimate of how long the other route may take.

[Sir Nibble]

We hear of concerns about how the lockdown might impact on mental health. In the interests of my sanity I would take it kindly if those who have been supportive enough to upvote my posts on the subject of herd immunity would join me in jumping on the misrepresentation of the term to imply that it's some inhuman process of neglect and take the load off a bit. ?

[Alan de Enfield]

I support Herd Immunity.

 

Its the various methods of achieving it that I'm a bit hesitant over :

 

1) let everyone get it and let a lot of oldies die (suggested 500,000)

2) lock up everyone and let a few die, flatten the curve

3) 'free' the youngsters, get back to work, and let some oldies die

4) keep lockdown until a 'pill' or a vaccine is available

 

And, various permutations of the above.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I support Herd Immunity.

 

Its the various methods of achieving it that I'm a bit hesitant over :

 

1) let everyone get it and let a lot of oldies die (suggested 500,000)

2) lock up everyone and let a few die, flatten the curve

3) 'free' the youngsters, get back to work, and let some oldies die

4) keep lockdown until a 'pill' or a vaccine is available

 

And, various permutations of the above.

Given that no method is going to be perfect, and some people are going to die, which method/permutation do you think could be the most appropriate?

 

 

[churchward]

It is far too early to be playing the blame game towards anyone.  This pandemic is far from over we do not know the final position and unlikely to for many months, quite likely well into next year and when or if a viable vaccine is commonly available.

 

It is also not much good saying this and that country has done well, the UK uniquely has done badly.  There has been and will be mistakes made but this is uncharted territory for everyone.

 

When we look with some objectivity at the world status right now it is reasonably clear that northern hemisphere countries have come off worst so far.  Not all of them but all the very worst effected countries are cold climate northern hemisphere.  There are exceptions but on the whole southern hemisphere countries only now coming out of warmer seasons have faired better.  This may not be all but the virus does seem to have followed a flu season like pattern. Even taking USA alone it seems to follow similar patterns in that the northern cold states are the worst (especially NE) and the southern warmer states have done better.  Also North America has many more cases than South America.

 

Countries like New Zealand and Australia have done well (and long may it stay that way) but fortune may have played a part in that as much as decisive action.  One because it has been warmer and also had the advantage that the virus reached their shores a little later and so had observation of what was happening elsewhere and what action to take.  They still had to make the decisions of course and did so quickly and that has helped I am sure.  It did not mean those countries were anymore prepared for a large outbreak in their countries, hearing from the NZ PM recently they were not.

 

BAME people in Europe have not faired well but the Asian and African continents have been largely OK so far, is this again temperature? Asia is half the worlds population but has nothing like the same proportion of Covid infections. Some of the poorest, most densely populated, malnourished and least prepared countries are in these two continents. So, if it is all down to what governments can and do decide to do they have got extraordinarily lucky or there is something else at work that helps these countries.

 

If the normal pattern of flu season being affected by temperature is similar for Covid-19  it may be that the southern hemisphere or parts of it may see a surge in cases. I hope not and that the time they have had to prepare even if this is so will prevent the scale of deaths seen in Europe and Northern America.

 

The point is we do not yet know everything about this virus or why it is effecting some countries more than another or what actions is being the most effective in suppressing it. Which is some of the reason most countries have adopted a blanket lockdown whether early or late because in place of something more granular its likely to be the best you can do.

Edited May 1, 2020 by churchward

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, MartynG said:

I think it has already been acknowledged that a vaccine will take months to develop with trials etc .

It then has to be manufactured in sufficient quantity

It then has to be delivered 

It then has to be injected 

Lets say we have  500 places giving vaccinations and each place vaccinates 50 people per hour x 8 hrs = 400 per day

If they do 200,000 people a day that's 250  days or one working year for 50 million people 

 

According to Wikipedia

 

In 2016 there were 7,613 practices in England, 958 in Scotland, 454 in Wales and 349 in Northern Ireland

 

About 2 weeks

Edited May 1, 2020 by Mike Todd

[Wanderer Vagabond]

6 hours ago, Phil. said:

It is perfectly acceptable to have someone representing the PM at the meetings to observe and if necessary ask questions, provided the end decision is the scientific one. It seems where Cummings is involved you want to have it both ways. First he was allegedly pushing for ‘herd immunity‘ and it doesn’t matter if a few old duffers die, then he was allegedly pressuring SAGE to lockdown the country to prevent huge number of deaths from occurring, an outcome that seems to have worked and you considered necessary. So the fact that it now appears Cummings was asking about an outcome, that you in your limited medical knowledge decided there was no alternative too, precisely what is your problem.

If Cummings, with his total lack of knowledge of the subject, wishes to ask questions, let him do so in the same fashion as the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland has to do, in the form of a pre-submitted written question. I would admit to limited medical knowledge giving me no right to sit on such an 'independent' panel of experts, where lies Cummings expert medical knowledge that allows him to do so and put up verbal questions to those on the panel? He is a POLITICAL adviser not a MEDICAL adviser, what possible active role does a political adviser have on such a panel other than to contaminate the advice that the panel gives? If you start filling it with political advisers (Ben Warner being another political plant) and then claim to be 'following the science' it becomes a lie, Cummings will be telling them what is politically acceptable, which may explain the somewhat mixed messages we have been getting, first it's OK to have Rugby matches, Racing events, pubs and restaurants open.....and then it isn't.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, Phil. said:

Anyone so petrified about saying something, that they think someone else might not want to hear, has no business being in such a high profile and important meeting in the first place.

So a Scientist in receipt of Government financial backing for his current project, that Cummings having the ear of Alexander, could curtail at a moments notice is going to speak up in a way not acceptable to Cummings? unlikely. He'll water down what he may have wanted to say for it to 'become acceptable'.

[Sir Nibble]

2 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

If Cummings, with his total lack of knowledge of the subject, wishes to ask questions, let him do so in the same fashion as the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland has to do, in the form of a pre-submitted written question. I would admit to limited medical knowledge giving me no right to sit on such an 'independent' panel of experts, where lies Cummings expert medical knowledge that allows him to do so and put up verbal questions to those on the panel? He is a POLITICAL adviser not a MEDICAL adviser, what possible active role does a political adviser have on such a panel other than to contaminate the advice that the panel gives? If you start filling it with political advisers (Ben Warner being another political plant) and then claim to be 'following the science' it becomes a lie, Cummings will be telling them what is politically acceptable, which may explain the somewhat mixed messages we have been getting, first it's OK to have Rugby matches, Racing events, pubs and restaurants open.....and then it isn't.

I sat on my local authority. It was usual and productive to have "civil servants" sitting in to temper political aspirations with what is or is not practicable and affordable and elected members guiding the officers as to what is politically acceptable and in line with policy.  It's a necessary bridge between authority and administration. there's nothing sinister or maccavellian about it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I sat on my local authority. It was usual and productive to have "civil servants" sitting in to temper political aspirations with what is or is not practicable and affordable and elected members guiding the officers as to what is politically acceptable and in line with policy.  It's a necessary bridge between authority and administration. there's nothing sinister or maccavellian about it.

So from what you say, so-called 'Local Authorities' are indeed run by central Government, as many of us suspected all along. They are there merely to carry the blame for policies they themselves have little control over (like setting Council Tax).

 

As far as SAGE goes, they are promoted as a science led independent panel, with a political advisor on board the independence rather goes out of the window.

[Sir Nibble]

4 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So from what you say, so-called 'Local Authorities' are indeed run by central Government, as many of us suspected all along. They are there merely to carry the blame for policies they themselves have little control over (like setting Council Tax).

 

As far as SAGE goes, they are promoted as a science led independent panel, with a political advisor on board the independence rather goes out of the window.

By civil servants, I meant the paid employees of the local authority but used the term because it was easier. My mistake. Independance doesn't go out the window, what goes out the window is the committee sending their recommendations then getting them back because it's not possible to carry them out. input from government will often include things outside the thought patters of the scientists like bringing to their attention facilities under the control of the MOD or DEFRA.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

22 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

By civil servants, I meant the paid employees of the local authority but used the term because it was easier. My mistake. Independance doesn't go out the window, what goes out the window is the committee sending their recommendations then getting them back because it's not possible to carry them out. input from government will often include things outside the thought patters of the scientists like bringing to their attention facilities under the control of the MOD or DEFRA.

The point is that the advice given by SAGE is supposed to be independent of Government so they are free to propose what the best policy possible is. It is then up to Government outside of SAGE to make the political decision as to whether the proposal is politically acceptable. By trying to filter what is politically acceptable (through Cummings) into the SAGE meetings, it undermines their position.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

I sat on my local authority. It was usual and productive to have "civil servants" sitting in to temper political aspirations with what is or is not practicable and affordable and elected members guiding the officers as to what is politically acceptable and in line with policy.  It's a necessary bridge between authority and administration. there's nothing sinister or maccavellian about it.

My experience, which is now dated, was that politicians were not expected to sit in on the meetings of officers (ie the other way round from your scenario)

59 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The point is that the advice given by SAGE is supposed to be independent of Government so they are free to propose what the best policy possible is. It is then up to Government outside of SAGE to make the political decision as to whether the proposal is politically acceptable. By trying to filter what is politically acceptable (through Cummings) into the SAGE meetings, it undermines their position.

I did not think that SAGE was supposed to propose policy or even advise - in the briefings the officials are quite careful in this. It is there to advise on the data that will inform piltcal decisions and policy taken by ministers. (Same is supposed to hold for political advisers as well but . . . )