Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
It is not necessarily about trust. The regulations change fairly frequently, and changes are briefed out often after hours. In that situation the folk memory of what Cummings did (which is all it amounts to for many of the people who aren't glued to the news like most here) becomes part of the background against which they interpret their understanding of the regulations.
If they forget they will still have Labour politicians to remind them and Labour claim to be supporting the government on Covid
Labour politicians have been giving advice on the guidelines (in this case rightly in my view, as that would muddy an already muddy situation).
Whether it's official Labour policy or not, I don't know, but they do seem to be taking note of Napoleon Buonaparte's advice not to interrupt one's enemy whilst he is making a mistake...
Mr. Cummings’ example is part of what is responsible for the here and now. If he’d at least fessed up after the event and admitted it was wrong to take his possibly infected family across the country to be cared for by his parents (older and more vulnerable than he).
If he’d not perpetrated the absurdity of an excuse that his subsequent trip to Barnardo’s Castle was to check out his eyesight*, then there’d be fewer people saying, ‘if it was that serious he wouldn’t have done it’ and disobeying the rules on their own account, and fewer people who think it’s a laugh to offer the same excuse for their own breach of the rules, and fewer people who resentfully feel ‘its one rule for them, but another for us’. Equally egregious was the scientific adviser who was carrying on an affair, but at least he lost his position over the infringement.
It all chips away at trust in the government when there are plenty of crackpot conspiracy theories doing that already, and when the government needs every iota of trust it can retain if the public at large are going to continue to observe regulations the impact of which becomes increasingly onerous as time goes on.
*If he though his eyesight was a problem, behind a steering wheel was the last place he should have been.
Cummings was wrong and should have been dealt with at the time. It is now far too late to take action aagainst him for his conduct back then.
My point is that people cannot keep using him as an excuse for their own bad behaviour.
But they do. So it is relevant. Also it is part of the mix of things that lead to not trusting this government. Things that happened a long time ago can be relevant. Things that happened 2 mins ago can be irrelevant
It's not the government they need to trust. It's their own instincts.
Is it sensible to agnore good advice just because of something that happened 6 months ago ?
It is not necessarily about trust. The regulations change fairly frequently, and changes are briefed out often after hours. In that situation the folk memory of what Cummings did (which is all it amounts to for many of the people who aren't glued to the news like most here) becomes part of the background against which they interpret their understanding of the regulations.
If they forget they will still have Labour politicians to remind them and Labour claim to be supporting the government on Covid
Labour politicians have been giving advice on the guidelines (in this case rightly in my view, as that would muddy an already muddy situation).
Yeah, apologies there was a missing *not* in there: "Labour politicians have not been giving advice on the guidelines"
I think that also, and apart from that, a lot of folk have seen people disobeying the rules (illegal raves, crowds flocking to beaches, squashed-up queues outside pubs, even - dare I say - political demonstrations such as "Black Lives Matter") without much apparent police or other intervention and have said, "What's the point of me obeying the rules if so many others aren't bothering and aren't being made to?"
To parallel another crisis, it's a bit like the person who says, "Why should I stop using my polluting car when China keeps on building coal-fired power stations?"
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
Oddly enough, I read your post as if the missing *not* was there...
IYSWIM.
Sir Keir, and his colleagues, have been very restrained indeed. Hopefully, a good sign for when they eventually get to form our next *proper* government...though I appreciate that that Happy Day may be a long way off.
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
I think that also, and apart from that, a lot of folk have seen people disobeying the rules (illegal raves, crowds flocking to beaches, squashed-up queues outside pubs, even - dare I say - political demonstrations such as "Black Lives Matter") without much apparent police or other intervention and have said, "What's the point of me obeying the rules if so many others aren't bothering and aren't being made to?"
To parallel another crisis, it's a bit like the person who says, "Why should I stop using my polluting car when China keeps on building coal-fired power stations?"
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling, or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
I assume you think I am wrong. Care to explain what I said is wrong .
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
So your proposal is that the government should have lied to people in order to make them act in the way that the government wanted them to act?
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does lead to the implication that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
...which were hardly the sole preserve of the young.
Anyway, as has been said upthread, the relative lower risk of complications or death in younger people is a fact - are you proposing it should have been suppressed?
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does lead to the implication that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
Outside the various long lens photos from earlier in the year there hasn't been a particular problem with crowded beaches and streets. House parties are largely in the news because they are exceptional rather than specific. Pubs have been encouraged to open by the government.
The number of people who have had to go back to work in the retail and hospitality sectors (indoors, frequently unmasked and in proximity with customers) will dwarf those going to demonstrations (a tiny percentage of the population -- which afaict have been outdoors, masked and distanced); in picking the latter as the explanation you are showing your prejudices.
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does lead to the implication that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
Outside the various long lens photos from earlier in the year there hasn't been a particular problem with crowded beaches and streets. House parties are largely in the news because they are exceptional rather than specific. Pubs have been encouraged to open by the government.
The number of people who have had to go back to work in the retail and hospitality sectors (indoors, frequently unmasked and in proximity with customers) will dwarf those going to demonstrations (a tiny percentage of the population -- which afaict have been outdoors, masked and distanced); in picking the latter as the explanation you are showing your prejudices.
Nobody has forced young people into pubs and other crowded places.
How can I be prejudiced against young people. I used to be one and I have grandchildren.
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does lead to the implication that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
Outside the various long lens photos from earlier in the year there hasn't been a particular problem with crowded beaches and streets. House parties are largely in the news because they are exceptional rather than specific. Pubs have been encouraged to open by the government.
The number of people who have had to go back to work in the retail and hospitality sectors (indoors, frequently unmasked and in proximity with customers) will dwarf those going to demonstrations (a tiny percentage of the population -- which afaict have been outdoors, masked and distanced); in picking the latter as the explanation you are showing your prejudices.
Nobody has forced young people into pubs and other crowded places.
How can I be prejudiced against young people. I used to be one and I have grandchildren.
Neither have they forced middle aged people to go to pubs. On my way home from work the pubs seem to have more middle aged people to in them. At least on the seats outside and from what can be seen through the window. That may just Cardiff.
The government made a fuss of pubs opening. They encouraged people to go into them.
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling,
No.
or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
Yes. Just look at the statistics.
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does lead to the implication that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
Outside the various long lens photos from earlier in the year there hasn't been a particular problem with crowded beaches and streets. House parties are largely in the news because they are exceptional rather than specific. Pubs have been encouraged to open by the government.
The number of people who have had to go back to work in the retail and hospitality sectors (indoors, frequently unmasked and in proximity with customers) will dwarf those going to demonstrations (a tiny percentage of the population -- which afaict have been outdoors, masked and distanced); in picking the latter as the explanation you are showing your prejudices.
Nobody has forced young people into pubs and other crowded places.
Except all those young people who work in pubs of course, and discounting the governments outriders in the press encouraging people to go out and spend. Even before we get to questioning your asserting that young people were more likely to be out in crowded pubs.
To return to the original question; No, you don’t have any evidence your theory. And a personal preference for the just so story you thought up isn’t evidence.
Nobody has forced young people into pubs and other crowded places.
How can I be prejudiced against young people. I used to be one and I have grandchildren.
I think that belongs in the same box as how can I possibly be sexist - I love women, my Mother was one...
Let's just recap what we've covered in the past 2-3 pages:
1) Lockdowns work. They are effective at controlling the pandemic and stopping the spread of the virus.
2) The earlier you act, the better because a) you save lives and b) you can relax restrictions earlier thus you overcome the saving lives vs economic cost trade-off
3) Compliance with lockdown (and other measures) was hugely compromised by Dominic Cummings' actions (and more than that the government's response).
4) Coming out of lockdown, test and trace is the key to keeping control. The UK's Test and Trace system is not fit for purpose. The government continue to over-promise and under-deliver.
You have repeatedly claimed not to be a government supporter and yet you continually parrot their excuses and pathetic arguments.
I want to be clear; the majority of the responsibility rests with the government, not only because they are the government of the day and thus it is on their watch but because they have demonstrably made the wrong decisions again and again.
This matters for two reasons;
Firstly, the lives lost are real people who matter. We all know nothing can bring them back but the past is the past and move on type arguments are dehumanising and deeply offensive.
Secondly, going forward, more key decisions need to be made. A government that has shown stunning incompetence in the previous decisions is going to struggle to get it right. Although that is not impossible. It is however virtually impossible, whilst they pretend no mistakes were made.
Except all those young people who work in pubs of course, and discounting the governments outriders in the press encouraging people to go out and spend. Even before we get to questioning your asserting that young people were more likely to be out in crowded pubs.
To return to the original question; No, you don’t have any evidence your theory. And a personal preference for the just so story you thought up isn’t evidence.
You would never accept any evidence that you do not like so I am giving up trying.
Except all those young people who work in pubs of course, and discounting the governments outriders in the press encouraging people to go out and spend. Even before we get to questioning your asserting that young people were more likely to be out in crowded pubs.
To return to the original question; No, you don’t have any evidence your theory. And a personal preference for the just so story you thought up isn’t evidence.
You would never accept any evidence that you do not like so I am giving up trying.
O dear. Another typical Telfordian whine. We've heard it all before, and didn't believe it then.
Except all those young people who work in pubs of course, and discounting the governments outriders in the press encouraging people to go out and spend. Even before we get to questioning your asserting that young people were more likely to be out in crowded pubs.
To return to the original question; No, you don’t have any evidence your theory. And a personal preference for the just so story you thought up isn’t evidence.
You would never accept any evidence that you do not like so I am giving up trying.
O dear. Another typical Telfordian whine. We've heard it all before, and didn't believe it then.
That's not a whine. It's merely a statement of fact
@Telford, just so you know, time stamps show differently in different time zones. So a link is always helpful. As it happens, in this case, I think Robert Armin is in the same time zone as you.
@Telford, just so you know, time stamps show differently in different time zones. So a link is always helpful. As it happens, in this case, I think Robert Armin is in the same time zone as you.
Thans for that. It's difficult without post numbers .
I assume you think I am wrong. Care to explain what I said is wrong .
It's always a good idea to provide links with which to back up one's assertions. We don't expect those doing the asserting to leave it to their readers to come up with the backup.
Sunak confirms that £12bn has been spent on test and trace, but hasn't this mainly gone to Serco? I've also heard that Serco themselves outsource to other companies, I wonder if there is any check on this money, and how much has been wasted.
In the latest developments, 16,000 positive Covid cases go missing ... because the results are transferred from the labs to Test and Trace via an Excel spreadsheet, which hit its maximum row count. Source.
In the latest developments, 16,000 positive Covid cases go missing ... because the results are transferred from the labs to Test and Trace via an Excel spreadsheet, which hit its maximum row count. Source.
Deloitte were involved, and they probably never needed to generate a spreadsheet that big.
Apart from the issue of using a spreadsheet when they should have been using a database, Office software comes with a warning it should not be used for safety critical functions.
In the latest developments, 16,000 positive Covid cases go missing ... because the results are transferred from the labs to Test and Trace via an Excel spreadsheet, which hit its maximum row count. Source.
Here's a question ... how many rows would each entry in the spreadsheet take? Obviously more than one, because how else could the spreadsheet hold more than a million rows of data? Though I suppose they could still be on Excel2003 or earlier with a 65536 row limit. Surely even the government IT doesn't still use Excel95 with a 16384 row limit?
In the latest developments, 16,000 positive Covid cases go missing ... because the results are transferred from the labs to Test and Trace via an Excel spreadsheet, which hit its maximum row count. Source.
Here's a question ... how many rows would each entry in the spreadsheet take? Obviously more than one, because how else could the spreadsheet hold more than a million rows of data? Though I suppose they could still be on Excel2003 or earlier with a 65536 row limit. Surely even the government IT doesn't still use Excel95 with a 16384 row limit?
No it was because they exceeded 16000 columns - having laid out the data badly in the first place
Comments
Labour politicians have been giving advice on the guidelines (in this case rightly in my view, as that would muddy an already muddy situation).
Yeah, apologies there was a missing *not* in there: "Labour politicians have not been giving advice on the guidelines"
The point is that you could be saving your own life and the lives of others. There is an old saying. " Do not cut off the nose to spite your face
IYSWIM.
Sir Keir, and his colleagues, have been very restrained indeed. Hopefully, a good sign for when they eventually get to form our next *proper* government...though I appreciate that that Happy Day may be a long way off.
A normal person has two different appetites for risk. There's the risk that they, personally, are prepared to undertake, and the wider risk to the country as a whole. A successful Covid containment strategy relies on younger people, who in general can tolerate much more exposure to Covid, because their risk of serious illness is small, being prepared to curtail their movements in order to reduce the risk to their older neighbours. But there's only any point in doing that if other people are doing it too.
If your younger neighbours are all idiots, then nothing you do is going to have a chance of reducing the wider spread of Covid, so you ignore the second risk, and only consider your personal danger (and perhaps that of your close family).
One could, of course, these days add And Covidiots...
In general people are very bad at judging risk.
It was unavoidable but the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour. Not all of them, but enough of them to make a difference
Are you just spit-balling, or do you have actual evidence for this assertion?
I assume you think I am wrong. Care to explain what I said is wrong .
The statistics show a rise in infection rates among young people, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that "the biggest mistake made was to explain to young people that although they MIGHT be a bit ill, it was very unlikely that they would die. This has had a big impact of their behaviour."
There are a large number of other possible explanations that fit the facts; Firstly as young people are more likely to be asymptomatic they were less likely to get tested before any sort of track and trace system was in place, meaning that they probably had a higher peak infection rate but it largely went undetected. Secondly they are far more likely to be in customer/public faces roles in the hospitality industry (the rise is most pronounced within the last half of August -- which also conincided with a peak in the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme), they are also far more likely to live in shared accomodation of some kind. The rise in infection rates among students in particular comes several weeks after they started to go back to college/school/university.
Just because a particularly statistical indicator went up, it doesn't mean that you are free to make up an explanation as to why.
So your proposal is that the government should have lied to people in order to make them act in the way that the government wanted them to act?
All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties
Anyway, as has been said upthread, the relative lower risk of complications or death in younger people is a fact - are you proposing it should have been suppressed?
Outside the various long lens photos from earlier in the year there hasn't been a particular problem with crowded beaches and streets. House parties are largely in the news because they are exceptional rather than specific. Pubs have been encouraged to open by the government.
The number of people who have had to go back to work in the retail and hospitality sectors (indoors, frequently unmasked and in proximity with customers) will dwarf those going to demonstrations (a tiny percentage of the population -- which afaict have been outdoors, masked and distanced); in picking the latter as the explanation you are showing your prejudices.
Nobody has forced young people into pubs and other crowded places.
How can I be prejudiced against young people. I used to be one and I have grandchildren.
Neither have they forced middle aged people to go to pubs. On my way home from work the pubs seem to have more middle aged people to in them. At least on the seats outside and from what can be seen through the window. That may just Cardiff.
The government made a fuss of pubs opening. They encouraged people to go into them.
Except all those young people who work in pubs of course, and discounting the governments outriders in the press encouraging people to go out and spend. Even before we get to questioning your asserting that young people were more likely to be out in crowded pubs.
To return to the original question; No, you don’t have any evidence your theory. And a personal preference for the just so story you thought up isn’t evidence.
I think that belongs in the same box as how can I possibly be sexist - I love women, my Mother was one...
Let's just recap what we've covered in the past 2-3 pages:
1) Lockdowns work. They are effective at controlling the pandemic and stopping the spread of the virus.
2) The earlier you act, the better because a) you save lives and b) you can relax restrictions earlier thus you overcome the saving lives vs economic cost trade-off
3) Compliance with lockdown (and other measures) was hugely compromised by Dominic Cummings' actions (and more than that the government's response).
4) Coming out of lockdown, test and trace is the key to keeping control. The UK's Test and Trace system is not fit for purpose. The government continue to over-promise and under-deliver.
You have repeatedly claimed not to be a government supporter and yet you continually parrot their excuses and pathetic arguments.
I want to be clear; the majority of the responsibility rests with the government, not only because they are the government of the day and thus it is on their watch but because they have demonstrably made the wrong decisions again and again.
This matters for two reasons;
Firstly, the lives lost are real people who matter. We all know nothing can bring them back but the past is the past and move on type arguments are dehumanising and deeply offensive.
Secondly, going forward, more key decisions need to be made. A government that has shown stunning incompetence in the previous decisions is going to struggle to get it right. Although that is not impossible. It is however virtually impossible, whilst they pretend no mistakes were made.
God help us all.
AFZ
You would never accept any evidence that you do not like so I am giving up trying.
O dear. Another typical Telfordian whine. We've heard it all before, and didn't believe it then.
See my post at 4.31pm today
That's not a whine. It's merely a statement of fact
Thans for that. It's difficult without post numbers .
I'm reading this on Wednesday morning. By now the times on Tuesday's posts have disappeared, and only the date remains. A simple quote would suffice.
As I understand it, the post referred to was:
"All true but you forgot to mention the crowded pubs, crowded beaches, crowded streets, crowded demonstrations and crowded house parties"
Your arrogance is world-beating...
I did not know how to provide a link.
See?
Thanks. I bet you enjoyed repeating the last bit.
Thanks. I will try it.
Thank you.
Deloitte were involved, and they probably never needed to generate a spreadsheet that big.
No it was because they exceeded 16000 columns - having laid out the data badly in the first place
... at a world beating, eye wateringly high fee 😉!