[arista]

Originally Posted by Smithy

“Boris fury at smears”

Aye telling everyone you skipped Cobra meetings to go on holiday is a smear isn’t it

He Claims he was updated.
Anyone can backtrack and attack.


Soon Johnson PM
is to return to Work.
The he can answer direct to the Press
again

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by arista

He Claims he was updated.
Anyone can backtrack and attack.


Soon Johnson PM
is to return to Work.
The he can answer direct to the Press
again

I have been told that he doesn't actually have to attend all the meetings ,He has a competent team and IF anything was needed for him to be there,then he would.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Smithy

“Boris fury at smears”

Aye telling everyone you skipped Cobra meetings to go on holiday is a smear isn’t it

He's such a tool bag !

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

[BBC text:
That's just inzayn," is the Daily Star's headline
as it reports lessons for pupils in lockdown
brand Winston Churchill a war criminal
who is less important
than One Direction's Zayn Malik.]

[Crimson Dynamo]

PPE procurement is not the job of HM government it's the senior NHS staffer.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

PPE procurement is not the job of HM government it's the senior NHS staffer.

I know.How do they spin it as the PMs fault for items not getting there on time,maybe ,just maybe it might be the fault of the top cats at the NHS and bad admin, we all know they can be imcompetent and waste money etc.just because something comes under the name NHS, does not make it perfect.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

PPE procurement is not the job of HM government it's the senior NHS staffer.

Management can only put in the orders - they don't have any ability to bring it in in bulk from abroad, or to ensure that production rates are increased in the UK for ongoing availability. It's up to NHS management to order enough of it but when there's a massive supply issue in an emergency, it really needs to be the government that sources it from elsewhere or makes arrangements with manufacturers.

[MTVN]

The government has posted quite a lengthy rebuttal to many of the claims made in the article: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020...sight-article/

It seems there is quite a growing backlash to what is being regarded as pretty sloppy journalism on the part of the Sunday Times

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The government has posted quite a lengthy rebuttal to many of the claims made in the article: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020...sight-article/

It seems there is quite a growing backlash to what is being regarded as pretty sloppy journalism on the part of the Sunday Times

A growing backlash from a certain section. The times has always been the paper with the closest ties to the conservative party, and suddenly, the party who spaffed Ł100m on no deal preparation propaganda are suddenly all out in force to knock down an article they didn't like, and their pushback is somehow seen as more truthful?

The same cabal that acted illegally during the referendum? The same folks with the big red bus? The people funded by Russia? Yeah, it's no surprise that the tory party is putting out an extensive rebuttal, when they can't even be arsed to record the number of care home deaths.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

A growing backlash from a certain section. The times has always been the paper with the closest ties to the conservative party, and suddenly, the party who spaffed Ł100m on no deal preparation propaganda are suddenly all out in force to knock down an article they didn't like, and their pushback is somehow seen as more truthful?

The same cabal that acted illegally during the referendum? The same folks with the big red bus? The people funded by Russia? Yeah, it's no surprise that the tory party is putting out an extensive rebuttal, when they can't even be arsed to record the number of care home deaths.

I've seen quite a few journalists starting to unpick the story now and question its accuracy. It's not about who's telling the truth as such, it's about the quality of the journalism and giving it appropriate scrutiny. Like can we really infer that Hancock wasn't bothered about the virus because he was said to have 'bounced out of Whitehall' after a meeting about it and been 'breezy' with journalists? And like this article points out, how much credence can we give to some of the sources:

The piece says: 'Last week a senior adviser to Downing Street broke ranks and blamed the weeks of complacency on a failure of leadership in cabinet. The prime minister was singled out.' This would be a very serious thing for a genuine No. 10 staffer to do. But was this a No. 10 staffer? The phrase 'a senior adviser to Downing Street' is not how the Sunday Times usually describes No. 10 sources. It may be because the article has not been penned by the politics team. But the phrasing leaves room for it to be an external adviser to No. 10 rather, than a staffer. In fact, it could be anyone on any committee advising government – and from what the report doesn’t say it seems that the source didn’t have very good access.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...mpression=true

And more problems with the articles sources

Then there was the big focus put on us sending PPE to China. It was true that we sent a small supply when they were at the height of the crisis but then it doesn't point out how we have received more than forty times what we donated from China

Keeps being said on here how healthy it is to question things so surely the same applies to this article.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The government has posted quite a lengthy rebuttal to many of the claims made in the article: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020...sight-article/

It seems there is quite a growing backlash to what is being regarded as pretty sloppy journalism on the part of the Sunday Times

The rebuttal has some inconsistencies too, look at the response relating to the editor of the Lancet on 23rd Jan...
He rejects the findings of one study on the global impact without evidence, it was basically his opinion.
One week later as further evidence emerged he called for a global public health emergency, essentially this vilified the original article as entirely correct.

Can I also point out that this is the same editor of the Lancet that refused to retract an article that suggested vaccines cause autism for 12yrs.

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/s...449072128?s=19

The responses to this tweet are very interesting.

The COBRA meetings the PM Missed were not due to his presence not being required, he was on holiday.

There was a COBRA meeting on 29th Jan the global health emergency was declared on the 30th and in a speech to the nation on the 31st boris mentioned nothing in relation to covid 19.

[Crimson Dynamo]

In the middle of January, a WHO delegation declared that there was ‘no clear evidence of human to human transmission’. Yet by then it was already quite obvious that Chinese authorities had sought to engage in a cover-up. The police had actually threatening a Wuhan doctor, Li Wenliang, with arrest for daring to warn colleagues of a new illness which had reminded him of Sars. In the end, Dr Li died of Covid-19 himself.

(Spectator)

Did the ST do anything about this article wise ,?

Or does in not suit the owners agenda?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

In the middle of January, a WHO delegation declared that there was ‘no clear evidence of human to human transmission’. Yet by then it was already quite obvious that Chinese authorities had sought to engage in a cover-up. The police had actually threatening a Wuhan doctor, Li Wenliang, with arrest for daring to warn colleagues of a new illness which had reminded him of Sars. In the end, Dr Li died of Covid-19 himself.

(Spectator)

Did the ST do anything about this article wise ,?

Or does in not suit the owners agenda?

Seeing as the owner is the most pro government person in the media who knows. Maybe he's had enough of the bull? Haven't we all? ...

[Kizzy]

Oh dear...Oh dear oh dear...

Every scientist of integrity on SAGE should resign immediately'

Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet medical journal, has accused the government of having 'Utterly corrupted independent scientific advice."

He tweeted:*"If true that Dominic Cummings attended meetings of SAGE, then every scientist of integrity on SAGE should resign immediately. You have forfeited any claim you might have had to providing independent scientific advice to government.

"If it is true that Dominic Cummings attended meetings of SAGE, then the government led by Boris Johnson has utterly corrupted independent scientific advice; but I’m afraid to say that the scientists who sit on SAGE have allowed themselves to be corrupted, including the CSA/CMO."

The chuckle bros of politics boris and Cummings in bovver again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9481346.html

[James]

Making SAGE scientists resign at this time would be about as sensible as injecting disinfectant.

[arista]

Originally Posted by James

Making SAGE scientists resign at this time would be about as sensible as injecting disinfectant.

Very True
James.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by James

Making SAGE scientists resign at this time would be about as sensible as injecting disinfectant.

But Mr Horton is the person relied upon in the government rebuttal of the times article remember, are his services no longer required as the voice of reason against fake noos?

This is yet another example of why the public lose faith in the govt, they keep being found out in areas like this where independent advisors are anything but. As the saying goes, don't shoot the messenger!

[Kizzy]

Can I just leave this here? It's to counter the boring It's new they didn't know'! Trope.... They very much DID know.

Youtube video

[Livia]

How funny is it that people who hate the Tories come up with all the "they knew all along..." bunkum? Politicising a national emergency is dumb.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

How funny is it that people who hate the Tories come up with all the "they knew all along..." bunkum? Politicising a national emergency is dumb.

Anyone can state the obvious Livia. ..it's not an exclusive club.

[user104658]

Meh. Obviously I'm no Tory but I don't see the dishonesty on this one. They didn't lockdown earlier because, no matter how hard we wish, hope and pray otherwise, no matter how many times Arista insists we'll be on lockdown until 2029, the simple fact is that lockdown is functionally voluntary and extremely finite.

They didn't lock down earlier because the earlier they locked down, the earlier in the curve people would have started to give up on it.

Did they mistime it? Who knows, maybe, but the logic was sound. The lockdown is starting to disintegrate already, if we had locked down two weeks earlier, it would have been collapsing two weeks ago - at peak deaths.

Now... would earlier lockdown have meant earlier and lower peak? Maybe, that's possible, but it's also possible that it wouldn't have and we would have had increasing numbers breaking it before it had any effect at all.

In short; the idea that we could and should have locked down earlier hinges on the idea that we can lock down indefinitely when in terms of social psychology it was always obvious, and now becoming increasingly evident, that that just isn't the case.

[Livia]

That's fair enough, TS. The fact for some people is that the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't. I'd just like to see the criticism saved for the post match analysis.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

That's fair enough, TS. The fact for some people is that the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't. I'd just like to see the criticism saved for the post match analysis.

I agree with that, there's a lot of overly-confident talk about what was and wasn't done right, which country had the right idea, who-dun-it-best... when to continue your metaphor, we're just finishing up the second game of the first set, in a 5-set Wimbledon final that's going to stretch on into the evening.

There are so many variables that are going to play into what was right, we won't know until someone properly crunches the numbers - the initial Covid deaths, the effect of lockdown, the knock-on non-covid health effects, the longer term effect of the economic damage... and that's data we're not going to have for several years.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course, to say "Hmm I'm not so sure about this?" but the concrete "THIS was right, THIS was wrong, they should have done THIS" is all very premature and like I said over-confident.

There's no evidence base for this. It doesn't exist, this has never happened before. On the plus side... ? ... there will be one next time .