Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most care homes are in the private sector so as private companies surely their employees well being is in their hands and not up to the government or NHS to provide them with PPE.This pandemic has taken the world by surprise so most of the planning has been done with very little notice and it's always easy to be wise after an event." We had at least two months to prepare, that is not a ‘surprise’ in any real sense of the term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most care homes are in the private sector so as private companies surely their employees well being is in their hands and not up to the government or NHS to provide them with PPE.This pandemic has taken the world by surprise so most of the planning has been done with very little notice and it's always easy to be wise after an event." It's not about PPE, it's about numbers. France, for instance, includes numbers from care settings, we are not. It's projected that we will be the hardest hit in Europe when these figures finally come in. There were simulations of what would happen with a pandemic. King referenced them in his interview. He said that an outbreak would take 3 months to go global due to air travel. This was known and still the lockdown was slow. Austerity was a political decision, we all knew how stretched the NHS was before this. It isn't rocket science to know it would be utterly pushed to breaking in this scenario. They knew and chose to cut funds to these areas. That is negligence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care home deaths are reported in the weekly figures released by ONS " It's the lag in reporting, it's huge.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly." I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? " Makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I'll take what he says over your opinion. No offense meant, he is one of those pesky experts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? " So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? Makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I'll take what he says over your opinion. No offense meant, he is one of those pesky experts." What doesn't make sense? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy." The academic is not presenting the facts so it would be fair to assume he is seeking something else . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whys everyone so surprised about the reporting of deaths. There are many ways of deciding what to and not to report. If you report it one way, the government looks bad, report it another, then someone else does. Arguing and discussing is a distraction from getting on with solving the problem." This.. It's not like any governments prior to this have distorted and embellished multiple performance criteria in order to flim flam or look good.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? Makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I'll take what he says over your opinion. No offense meant, he is one of those pesky experts." It's not about being my opinion vs his. 1. Transparency re fatalities. Updates from ons when received. 2. Austerity is a fact. I'm not and have never been a Tory supporter. 3. There are differences of opinion regarding measures taken, eg start of lockdown. I didn't state my opinion. So, ermmm  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? Makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I'll take what he says over your opinion. No offense meant, he is one of those pesky experts. It's not about being my opinion vs his. 1. Transparency re fatalities. Updates from ons when received. 2. Austerity is a fact. I'm not and have never been a Tory supporter. 3. There are differences of opinion regarding measures taken, eg start of lockdown. I didn't state my opinion. So, ermmm "But feel it's safe to question his with a '5 minutes of fame' claim....erm | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy." How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. " Why an agenda? Hey maybe his agenda is to try and learn from mistakes as a scientist who has studied such matters to save lives?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? Makes absolutely no sense. I mean, I'll take what he says over your opinion. No offense meant, he is one of those pesky experts. It's not about being my opinion vs his. 1. Transparency re fatalities. Updates from ons when received. 2. Austerity is a fact. I'm not and have never been a Tory supporter. 3. There are differences of opinion regarding measures taken, eg start of lockdown. I didn't state my opinion. So, ermmm
But feel it's safe to question his with a '5 minutes of fame' claim....erm"Questioning his agenda, that's all. And a flippant remark from myself (unusual I know  ).
As far as I'm concerned, questions re accountability need to be asked after we're through the pandemic, but poignant ones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. Why an agenda? Hey maybe his agenda is to try and learn from mistakes as a scientist who has studied such matters to save lives?? " Then that would be positive agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I dont know a huge amount about LBC but did notice a lot of stuff around Brexit, and the way they handle things does appear to be very bias and agenda based so maybe this is more of the same?" LBC has a number of different presenters who, politically, are very diverse. King was on Nick Ferrari's show, a guy who is fairy pro Tory. So strange he should have somebody with an 'agenda' on, especially some sort of anti government bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. " So rather than address the concerns he raised, you are questioning why he is bringing this up and making the assumption he has an agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is this the daily ‘Its all going to shit thread’?" Next door, lad. Sign the book on your way in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Care home deaths are reported in the weekly figures released by ONS It's the lag in reporting, it's huge.." The true figures will not be available until they can compare year on year figures.People who are on end of life care are being reported of dying of covid 19 which is probably true but does not paint the true picture. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is this the daily ‘Its all going to shit thread’? Next door, lad. Sign the book on your way in." Wash your hands on the way out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how strange we have become...a scientist appears in an interview, stating facts and straight away there is an 'agenda'. It's the Brexit hangover...'don't believe experts' " He hasn't presented facts though has he. "If I look at the figures, I am really saddened by the omission of deaths outside of hospitals. It means we really haven't a clue where we are." he basis of his criticism of the deaths is not correct. By doing so makes the listeners believe the government are misleading the public. I find it extraordinary this expert has not presented the correct information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly." Lets face it only one country on the planet seemed to get it right and that was Germany.We have to learn from this yes but condemning government is stupid we need to concentrate on beating this virus and getting into the future and so called clever professor blaming austerity is very sad and pathetic as this virus was unknown at the time and you cannot use these sort of things as blame factors,another so called arsehole claiming to be an expert on the unknown.No doubt a remoaner to.These idiots make me so angry | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how strange we have become...a scientist appears in an interview, stating facts and straight away there is an 'agenda'. It's the Brexit hangover...'don't believe experts' He hasn't presented facts though has he. "If I look at the figures, I am really saddened by the omission of deaths outside of hospitals. It means we really haven't a clue where we are." he basis of his criticism of the deaths is not correct. By doing so makes the listeners believe the government are misleading the public. I find it extraordinary this expert has not presented the correct information. " So let me get this right, the govt isn't attempting to mislead the public, "this expert" is, what do you think his agenda is, damage the govt, muddy the waters. Does this sound like a candidate for such actions, from his govt bio: "Sir David King was the permanent Special Representative for Climate Change from September 2013 until March 2017. Sir David was previously the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000 to 2007, during which time he raised awareness of the need for governments to act on climate change and was instrumental in creating the Energy Technologies Institute. He also served as the Founding Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at Oxford; was Head of the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University 1993-2000 and Master of Downing College at Cambridge 1995 -2000. Sir David has published over 500 papers on science and policy, for which he has received numerous awards, and holds 22 Honorary Degrees from universities around the world. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1991, a Foreign Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002 and knighted in 2003, Sir David was also made an Officier of the French Legion d’Honneur’ in 2009, for work which has contributed to responding to the climate and energy challenge." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how strange we have become...a scientist appears in an interview, stating facts and straight away there is an 'agenda'. It's the Brexit hangover...'don't believe experts' " Do you not think the government haven’t consulted experts all through this? What makes your expert any better than their experts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how strange we have become...a scientist appears in an interview, stating facts and straight away there is an 'agenda'. It's the Brexit hangover...'don't believe experts' He hasn't presented facts though has he. "If I look at the figures, I am really saddened by the omission of deaths outside of hospitals. It means we really haven't a clue where we are." he basis of his criticism of the deaths is not correct. By doing so makes the listeners believe the government are misleading the public. I find it extraordinary this expert has not presented the correct information. So let me get this right, the govt isn't attempting to mislead the public, "this expert" is, what do you think his agenda is, damage the govt, muddy the waters. Does this sound like a candidate for such actions, from his govt bio: Sir David King was the permanent Special Representative for Climate Change from September 2013 until March 2017. Sir David was previously the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000 to 2007, during which time he raised awareness of the need for governments to act on climate change and was instrumental in creating the Energy Technologies Institute. He also served as the Founding Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at Oxford; was Head of the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University 1993-2000 and Master of Downing College at Cambridge 1995 -2000. Sir David has published over 500 papers on science and policy, for which he has received numerous awards, and holds 22 Honorary Degrees from universities around the world. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1991, a Foreign Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002 and knighted in 2003, Sir David was also made an Officier of the French Legion d’Honneur’ in 2009, for work which has contributed to responding to the climate and energy challenge. " Follow the thread . I haven’t questioned his qualifications I have questioned why he has stated something that is not factual and could be considered misleading for the listeners . I have posted the ONS link data and the gov.uk link which clearly states exactly what is included, what isn’t included, why daily data is different and why the data is equally important. What he has said about death rates is misleading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. So rather than address the concerns he raised, you are questioning why he is bringing this up and making the assumption he has an agenda."
I did address the points. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It says a lot about how strange we have become...a scientist appears in an interview, stating facts and straight away there is an 'agenda'. It's the Brexit hangover...'don't believe experts' " Bless you for holding on to the word agenda .
You cannot argue my points because they are logical so you hang on to "agenda". The thing is, the agenda (the reason for being on the programme) may belong to the interviewer.
Oddly there's no comment when I stated the agenda could be positive.
Again, bless  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. " Yeah but some people think that being an expert in one thing qualifies their opinions in other things.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. " Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. " Or indeed to scrutinise the ‘experts’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. " I wonder if he is out of touch, and so his opinion on lockdown is not based on the modelling at the time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. " So what you're saying is that he's an expert cos he agrees with you, unknowingly .
Fortunately I've been educated to question everything (actually I grew up as a child forever asking why), so although I agree about the underfunding of the NHS and condemning governments for that, I won't simply agree to his other opinions.
Have you never come across with experts in their field opposing other experts in the same field? They all come up with research to back their claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. So rather than address the concerns he raised, you are questioning why he is bringing this up and making the assumption he has an agenda.
I did address the points. "So by addressing the points you mean that you acknowledge "UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly." This is a quote from David King from the interview "If I look at the figures, I am really saddened by the omission of deaths outside of hospitals. It means we really haven't a clue where we are. "If it is 50% more, which is quite likely as we see now, than the deaths in hospital, then the comparison with other countries is beginning to look really awful. "I'm very saddened by the predicament we're in. Why we didn't respond so much sooner once this epidemic broke out in China, I simply don't know. And I say this because in 2006, we published a report on actions needed to deal with a pandemic and in that report, we showed that if an outbreak occurred of any new virus of this kind anywhere in the world, within three months, due to air travel, it would be everywhere in the world. "That of course is what has happened and it seems like we were unprepared and we didn't take action. We didn't manage this until too late and every day's delay has resulted in further deaths in the United Kingdom. " So he questions the statistical methods used to count the deaths. He then criticises the slow response to the pandemic and says this delayed response has cost peoples lives. Further in the interview he says "It goes right back to 2010 when the government came in with a very clear policy to reduce public spending across the board, including the National Health Service. "I"m afraid these austerity measures did lead to cutting back on the risk management programmes. Clearly this also managed to cause problems with flooding across the UK. We were much better prepared for better spending with the Environment Agency on that and less prepared for pandemics." He then says that reduced public spending led to lower preparedness. Sounds quite sensible to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just heard him on LBC. Expressed alarm that care home deaths were not included in the fatality figures saying 'we don't know where we are' regarding death rates. He was also stated that austerity, leading up to this, had cost lives. Funds were cut for risk assessment programs. Lastly he stated that the lockdown was implemented to slowly and the government dragged its feet. Obviously, we need to be fighting this thing at the moment, but when this is all over, there are some pretty serious questions that need to be asked about why the UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly. I have no idea whether what you say is true but he's pretty short-sighted to state (if he did) re death figures. There's been no bullshitting that the rates are hospital death rates. We know it's not the big picture and just an indicator. He's also not telling us anything new re state of NHS. Lastly, strategies for flattening the curve is one opinion against another. I'm guessing he wants his 5 minutes of fame? So rather than attack the argument, you're attacking the individual? Do you really believe an academic is seeking 5 minutes of fame by questioning the way deaths are recorded and government policy. How am I attacking him? I'm wondering about his agenda that's all. So rather than address the concerns he raised, you are questioning why he is bringing this up and making the assumption he has an agenda.
I did address the points.
So by addressing the points you mean that you acknowledge UK has been effected so badly and it's citizens let down so badly.
This is a quote from David King from the interview
If I look at the figures, I am really saddened by the omission of deaths outside of hospitals. It means we really haven't a clue where we are.
"If it is 50% more, which is quite likely as we see now, than the deaths in hospital, then the comparison with other countries is beginning to look really awful.
"I'm very saddened by the predicament we're in. Why we didn't respond so much sooner once this epidemic broke out in China, I simply don't know. And I say this because in 2006, we published a report on actions needed to deal with a pandemic and in that report, we showed that if an outbreak occurred of any new virus of this kind anywhere in the world, within three months, due to air travel, it would be everywhere in the world.
"That of course is what has happened and it seems like we were unprepared and we didn't take action. We didn't manage this until too late and every day's delay has resulted in further deaths in the United Kingdom.
So he questions the statistical methods used to count the deaths. He then criticises the slow response to the pandemic and says this delayed response has cost peoples lives.
Further in the interview he says
It goes right back to 2010 when the government came in with a very clear policy to reduce public spending across the board, including the National Health Service.
"I"m afraid these austerity measures did lead to cutting back on the risk management programmes. Clearly this also managed to cause problems with flooding across the UK. We were much better prepared for better spending with the Environment Agency on that and less prepared for pandemics.
He then says that reduced public spending led to lower preparedness.
Sounds quite sensible to me.
"I did point out that I was responding to the OP's version. If it was something medical I would have gone to the source and then scanned for other resources. All things medical interest me and will improve my knowledge as I recuperate before returning to uni. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. So what you're saying is that he's an expert cos he agrees with you, unknowingly .
Fortunately I've been educated to question everything (actually I grew up as a child forever asking why), so although I agree about the underfunding of the NHS and condemning governments for that, I won't simply agree to his other opinions.
Have you never come across with experts in their field opposing other experts in the same field? They all come up with research to back their claims. "Yet, you seem uneasy that he is questioning the government's response? Just seems odd that he stating actual things that have happened but has an 'agenda' but our government didn't?? It's not about agreeing with him or not. If he is staying things that have actually happened, what's the problem. If he has an 'agenda' to try and do things differently if it happened again to save lives, again, problem??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future." Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others?" Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. So what you're saying is that he's an expert cos he agrees with you, unknowingly .
Fortunately I've been educated to question everything (actually I grew up as a child forever asking why), so although I agree about the underfunding of the NHS and condemning governments for that, I won't simply agree to his other opinions.
Have you never come across with experts in their field opposing other experts in the same field? They all come up with research to back their claims.
Yet, you seem uneasy that he is questioning the government's response? Just seems odd that he stating actual things that have happened but has an 'agenda' but our government didn't?? It's not about agreeing with him or not. If he is staying things that have actually happened, what's the problem. If he has an 'agenda' to try and do things differently if it happened again to save lives, again, problem???"I've already responded re positive agenda, yet you're still here arguing. As for questioning the government on things done, well an inquiry will sort that out at an appropriate time. So I'm hardly uneasy about it and will welcome it. I just think you want to argue for the sake of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. So what you're saying is that he's an expert cos he agrees with you, unknowingly .
Fortunately I've been educated to question everything (actually I grew up as a child forever asking why), so although I agree about the underfunding of the NHS and condemning governments for that, I won't simply agree to his other opinions.
Have you never come across with experts in their field opposing other experts in the same field? They all come up with research to back their claims.
Yet, you seem uneasy that he is questioning the government's response? Just seems odd that he stating actual things that have happened but has an 'agenda' but our government didn't?? It's not about agreeing with him or not. If he is staying things that have actually happened, what's the problem. If he has an 'agenda' to try and do things differently if it happened again to save lives, again, problem???
I've already responded re positive agenda, yet you're still here arguing.
As for questioning the government on things done, well an inquiry will sort that out at an appropriate time. So I'm hardly uneasy about it and will welcome it.
I just think you want to argue for the sake of it. "And you seem not to want any kind of scrutiny. Fair do's | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no?" As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The mans obviously an eminent scientist. In environmental and climate change science. I drive a truck and am fucking good at it. I know nothing about laying tarmac. Again, I'm sure he will bow to your superior knowledge. You don't need to be a scientist to know we locked down late. It seems a crime now to scrutinize the government.....very worrying. So what you're saying is that he's an expert cos he agrees with you, unknowingly .
Fortunately I've been educated to question everything (actually I grew up as a child forever asking why), so although I agree about the underfunding of the NHS and condemning governments for that, I won't simply agree to his other opinions.
Have you never come across with experts in their field opposing other experts in the same field? They all come up with research to back their claims.
Yet, you seem uneasy that he is questioning the government's response? Just seems odd that he stating actual things that have happened but has an 'agenda' but our government didn't?? It's not about agreeing with him or not. If he is staying things that have actually happened, what's the problem. If he has an 'agenda' to try and do things differently if it happened again to save lives, again, problem???
I've already responded re positive agenda, yet you're still here arguing.
As for questioning the government on things done, well an inquiry will sort that out at an appropriate time. So I'm hardly uneasy about it and will welcome it.
I just think you want to argue for the sake of it.
And you seem not to want any kind of scrutiny. Fair do's""an inquiry will sort that out" really suggests no scrutiny. Rightio. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation?" And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future." The problem is that you only seem to post stuff that appears to support your world view. What about the stuff the government seem to have got right, including furlough, support for small business and building temporary hospitals in record time? Yeah we can look at faults in everything but how about some balance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. The problem is that you only seem to post stuff that appears to support your world view. What about the stuff the government seem to have got right, including furlough, support for small business and building temporary hospitals in record time? Yeah we can look at faults in everything but how about some balance?" Hey, don't get me wrong that is all really good stuff. The support for victims of domestic violence, brilliant. That is not the subject though. Why is everybody so touchy about the strategy the government adopted that may see us have the highest death rate in Europe? Why can we not question why that happened? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.." Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now?" I don't see it's about belief. I know that we went for herd immunity (the time lost to this approach has cost lives) and locked down later. Is this disputed?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could turn that around and ask why you are so against the approach being scrutinized??" . I’m not. And for the record I don’t vote for this government either. Scrutiny is fine. Driving an ideological agenda I find irritating. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could turn that around and ask why you are so against the approach being scrutinized??. I’m not. And for the record I don’t vote for this government either. Scrutiny is fine. Driving an ideological agenda I find irritating. " No agenda, just asking legitimate questions. Strange you find that annoying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could turn that around and ask why you are so against the approach being scrutinized??. I’m not. And for the record I don’t vote for this government either. Scrutiny is fine. Driving an ideological agenda I find irritating. No agenda, just asking legitimate questions. Strange you find that annoying" No agenda? Let’s go with that if it makes you feel better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now?" The main ones is that he knows what he's talking about and he is free to speak his mind. I quoted from his interview earlier, you've took issue with his point about the stats. Would you take issue with his comments about reduced public sector spending or the lack of preparation and delay in acting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I could turn that around and ask why you are so against the approach being scrutinized??. I’m not. And for the record I don’t vote for this government either. Scrutiny is fine. Driving an ideological agenda I find irritating. No agenda, just asking legitimate questions. Strange you find that annoying No agenda? Let’s go with that if it makes you feel better. " What? That is such an odd response? Is nobody allowed to ask questions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now? The main ones is that he knows what he's talking about and he is free to speak his mind. I quoted from his interview earlier, you've took issue with his point about the stats. Would you take issue with his comments about reduced public sector spending or the lack of preparation and delay in acting? " I have not commented on his other comments - what he says is his opinion. It does however worry me that he provided misleading factually incorrect information at the start of his interview, as a lead in to supporting his own personal opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now? The main ones is that he knows what he's talking about and he is free to speak his mind. I quoted from his interview earlier, you've took issue with his point about the stats. Would you take issue with his comments about reduced public sector spending or the lack of preparation and delay in acting? I have not commented on his other comments - what he says is his opinion. It does however worry me that he provided misleading factually incorrect information at the start of his interview, as a lead in to supporting his own personal opinion. " Misleading that we may be heading for the highest death rate in Europe? His own opinions....the lockdown was late and austerity has led to risk assessment units being cut. So this did not happen? I must be in a different universe! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the record, wouldn't matter which government was in power, I'd still listen to somebody with more expertise than myself if they were trying to improve things in the future. Why would you listen to this expert and not the others? Because he is stating the lockdown was late. Why? If I lost a relative, I'd be asking why? Why did we lockdown more slowly than others in Europe? Why do we not even know who is in the SAGE group advising the government? Why we're we 'following the science' yet the science in Europe led them to go down the herd immunity route. Seems to me, these are all legitimate questions..no? As i have already suggested, he is out of touch, not involved with the data. Why would you listen and accept the view of the former Chief Scientific Advisor from 2000-2008 but dismiss the person who is in that role now and at the heart of the situation? And why do you not want them to be scrutinized? You don't actually know who they are? Who is in SAGE? Amazing that we can be advised but don't even know who is doing the advising.. Sir Patrick Vallance - Chief Scientific Adviser. The job your man on LBC used to have back in 2000-2008. So why believe the guy from over a decade ago rather than the guy at the heart of the situation right now? The main ones is that he knows what he's talking about and he is free to speak his mind. I quoted from his interview earlier, you've took issue with his point about the stats. Would you take issue with his comments about reduced public sector spending or the lack of preparation and delay in acting? I have not commented on his other comments - what he says is his opinion. It does however worry me that he provided misleading factually incorrect information at the start of his interview, as a lead in to supporting his own personal opinion. " So you think that it only his opinion that the UK was poorly prepared and late in taking action? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everybody wants this government to get it right, madness not to. I think the Chancellor has be superb. However, 'following the science' has posed some massive questions. That's all I'm saying. Us and Europe 'followed the science' but ours was different. Why? That seems a pretty legit question" The route hasnt been vastly different anywhere in europe as far as I can see,some countres have tested a lot more but in populated countries it was never going to be possible to stop it once it had arrived we were in France from mid Jan to mid March,they did nothing after it arrived apart from around mid Feb decided it would be good to stop shaking hands and kissing, the general population were still doing both two days before lockdown, the ony difference has been the timing of lockdown depending on the speed of the spread and available hospital capacity in each country, some asian countries have had experiance of the sars virus and reacted differently, but of course sars and mers both have much higher death rates but dont transmit anywhere as easily partly due to the higher death rate and speed of onset compared to corvid19, both the other viruses have been able to be removed, this one wont | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
