that was pretty awful Max Hancock

1356713

Comments

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    Which one ?

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.
  • Odd how this thread (ostensibly about one Hancock) seems to have become yet another anti-Corbyn thread...

    As for New Town's childish ripostes, well, the less said, the better.
    :disappointed:

    What are you on about Gloucester ?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Poor little Mattie indeed - nearly 3000 new cases of infection, and yet he insists that schools are safe, and that workplaces to which people have returned are Covid-secure (whatever that may mean).

    From BBC News:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54050342

    I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for this hapless man, clearly out of his depth, and losing touch with reality by the day...
  • Poor little Mattie indeed - nearly 3000 new cases of infection, and yet he insists that schools are safe, and that workplaces to which people have returned are Covid-secure (whatever that may mean).

    I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for this hapless man, clearly out of his depth, and losing touch with reality by the day...

    How many new hospital admissions? How many were children attending school or teachers brave enough to earn their salary?

  • Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
  • Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?

    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...
  • @JonahMan - I agree entirely with your assessment of the way in which the English *government* has dealt with/is dealing with the pandemic.

    I doubt, however, if you're ever going to get a straight answer from the New Town - history will prove that, if you are ever bored enough to check out most of his posts on this, and other, threads...

    As to the unfortunate Hancock, where could he go? And who would replace him, apart from some other useless non-entity, of which species the present *Cabinet* appears to be entirely composed?
  • In respect of *teachers brave enough to earn their salary*, I posted this on the Schools Reopening thread in Purg:

    One of our congregation (L) returned to work at her school last week, but only a few days later this appeared in the local news:

    A secondary school...has taken urgent action after a member of staff was tested positive for Covid-19 today.

    As a result of the diagnosis of the...employee, three other members of staff have been advised to self isolate.


    L herself is not one of those involved, but it has increased her concern about how safe schools are. AIUI, the school is carrying on as *normal*, with all its existing Covid-19 precautions in place.

    If the congregation member does get Covid-19, and has to go into hospital, I will be sure to let the New Town know, so that suitable thoughts and prayers can be sent.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    Bollocks.

    I apologise that it is me that went towards a Corbyn direction here but my point is an important one: this government is bloody terrible by any measure.

    And no one has provided anything close to an argument as to why the alternative we were offered could be worse. Beyond the fact that one can never prove a counterfactual, it's just nonsense.

    So... has anyone actually got a defence for Mr Hancock or any of his colleagues?

    AFZ
  • Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.
  • In respect of *teachers brave enough to earn their salary*, I posted this on the Schools Reopening thread in Purg:

    One of our congregation (L) returned to work at her school last week, but only a few days later this appeared in the local news:

    A secondary school...has taken urgent action after a member of staff was tested positive for Covid-19 today.

    As a result of the diagnosis of the...employee, three other members of staff have been advised to self isolate.


    L herself is not one of those involved, but it has increased her concern about how safe schools are. AIUI, the school is carrying on as *normal*, with all its existing Covid-19 precautions in place.

    If the congregation member does get Covid-19, and has to go into hospital, I will be sure to let the New Town know, so that suitable thoughts and prayers can be sent.

    Any evidence that the virus was caught at school ?
  • Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?
  • Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?

    I'm not sure Telford has any point.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    This.
    :disappointed:

    Telford makes me think of bed-bugs - they're blind, useless, irritating, but ultimately not harmful.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ
  • I think that's really one of the worst things about the English *government*. It's not the making of mistakes that's the problem, but the lack of acceptance of responsibility.
    :disappointed:
  • I listened a BBC interview with the sister of Tony Abbott (if I have it right). They discussed that he's entitled to his views and went on a quite a bit about that. What they didn't seem to get to is that he's entitled to his views and that those might mean he was unsuitable for a consulting or negotiating role. That there can be consequences to certain views.

    I'm remembering some past discussions of, say couples' counsellors who have views against same-sex couples. They're entitled to their views as well, but they may be unsuitable for employment to counsel couples in positions requiring them to serve the general public.

    This isn't that hard is it?
  • Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?
    Can't you see the difference between the school and the pub ?
    Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?

    I'm not sure Telford has any point.

    You need to try harder.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

  • Where is Telford's evidence that Corbyn is a communist? The last time I asked all I got was that Corbyn unlike Wilson never won an election.

    That would make Ian Duncan Smith a communist.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?
    Can't you see the difference between the school and the pub ?

    Yes.


  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

    I’m guessing it’ll be in the blog post.
  • Telford wrote: »

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I realise you appear to have a short - or possibly selective memory, but perhaps this article might jog it: https://express.co.uk/news/uk/1255536/Coronavirus-herd-immunity-plan-UK-2020-Boris-Johnson-update-news

    Source chosen deliberately because I don't think anyone would claim that the Express is likely to be biased against the Conservatives.

    If you want to have a serious discussion as you claimed above, at least be prepared to acknowledge the facts instead of making up any old shit. Or maybe making up shit is your only method of argumentation?
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I realise you appear to have a short - or possibly selective memory, but perhaps this article might jog it: https://express.co.uk/news/uk/1255536/Coronavirus-herd-immunity-plan-UK-2020-Boris-Johnson-update-news

    Source chosen deliberately because I don't think anyone would claim that the Express is likely to be biased against the Conservatives.

    If you want to have a serious discussion as you claimed above, at least be prepared to acknowledge the facts instead of making up any old shit. Or maybe making up shit is your only method of argumentation?

    I will refrain from unsulting you but would point out that I do not read newspapers.
  • Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?

    I'm not sure Telford has any point.

    I think he does, although he's making it badly. I think he's trying to claim that if all of the Covid transmission occurred in the pub, then perhaps it's safe to have Covid-positive people in schools. If it were true - if the precautions being taken in schools were sufficient to prevent an infection if an infectious person was present - then he might have a point.

    Unfortunately, the precautions being taken are not sufficient to prevent infections. The Kingspark cluster certainly provides evidence of this, and I'm expecting that we'll have similar evidence from English schools in the upcoming weeks.
  • I listened a BBC interview with the sister of Tony Abbott (if I have it right). They discussed that he's entitled to his views and went on a quite a bit about that. What they didn't seem to get to is that he's entitled to his views and that those might mean he was unsuitable for a consulting or negotiating role. That there can be consequences to certain views.

    I'm remembering some past discussions of, say couples' counsellors who have views against same-sex couples. They're entitled to their views as well, but they may be unsuitable for employment to counsel couples in positions requiring them to serve the general public.

    This isn't that hard is it?

    False equivalence. Ones ability to negotiate a trade deal is not directly affected by ones views on unrelated matters, whereas if one is counselling couples then ones views on whether those couples should even exist are very much relevant.

    This isn’t about whether his beliefs affect his ability to do the job or not, it’s about punishing him for having those beliefs in the first place. You all could at least be honest about that.
  • Does it matter? What is your point, exactly?

    I'm not sure Telford has any point.

    I think he does, although he's making it badly. I think he's trying to claim that if all of the Covid transmission occurred in the pub, then perhaps it's safe to have Covid-positive people in schools. If it were true - if the precautions being taken in schools were sufficient to prevent an infection if an infectious person was present - then he might have a point.

    Unfortunately, the precautions being taken are not sufficient to prevent infections. The Kingspark cluster certainly provides evidence of this, and I'm expecting that we'll have similar evidence from English schools in the upcoming weeks.

    Let me be clear about this. It not safe to have covid positive people in schools. To pretend that I implied this is disgusting
  • Abbott wants a knighthood. He has always wanted a knighthood. That's his motivation.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

    Oh dear.

    As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.

    But seeing as you clearly can't wait; here's just one of a huge number of papers on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400753/

    More to follow.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I listened a BBC interview with the sister of Tony Abbott (if I have it right). They discussed that he's entitled to his views and went on a quite a bit about that. What they didn't seem to get to is that he's entitled to his views and that those might mean he was unsuitable for a consulting or negotiating role. That there can be consequences to certain views.

    I'm remembering some past discussions of, say couples' counsellors who have views against same-sex couples. They're entitled to their views as well, but they may be unsuitable for employment to counsel couples in positions requiring them to serve the general public.

    This isn't that hard is it?

    False equivalence. Ones ability to negotiate a trade deal is not directly affected by ones views on unrelated matters, whereas if one is counselling couples then ones views on whether those couples should even exist are very much relevant.

    This isn’t about whether his beliefs affect his ability to do the job or not, it’s about punishing him for having those beliefs in the first place. You all could at least be honest about that.
    From my point of view, I don’t wish to punish him for his views, but I don’t wish the country of which I am part to be represented by someone who is known to have and openly expresses such views. Further, there seems to be considerable doubt about his alleged expertise.
  • He is being appointed as an unpaid “advisor” on some kind of a board that will meet quarterly. Seems like knighthood and sinecure for the boys to me.
  • He is being appointed as an unpaid “advisor” on some kind of a board that will meet quarterly. Seems like knighthood and sinecure for the boys to me.

    Absolutely.

    There will be plenty more in this line to come. I remember my Dad, fifty years ago, commenting on some news item “jobs for the boys”. The old boys club - alive and well in 2021.

  • Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I realise you appear to have a short - or possibly selective memory, but perhaps this article might jog it: https://express.co.uk/news/uk/1255536/Coronavirus-herd-immunity-plan-UK-2020-Boris-Johnson-update-news

    Source chosen deliberately because I don't think anyone would claim that the Express is likely to be biased against the Conservatives.

    If you want to have a serious discussion as you claimed above, at least be prepared to acknowledge the facts instead of making up any old shit. Or maybe making up shit is your only method of argumentation?

    I will refrain from unsulting you but would point out that I do not read newspapers.

    I'm very pleased not to be unsulted, whatever that is.

    Obviously it's fine not to read newspapers, or watch TV news or listen to the radio. Ignorance can be bliss. But, if you know that you are ignorant, why make the effort to spout off factually incorrect drivel?

    Let's be clear about the timeline:

    1. I say "the UK government's initial strategy was herd immunity"
    2. You say "No it wasn't"
    3. I provide proof that indeed it was, using a newspaper article as evidence - one of many such I could have directed you to.
    4. Your excuse for being factually wrong is that you don't read newspapers. So why make the claim if you had no idea?

    If Hancock, Johnson and co weren't already sweeping the medal table for a noxious combination of laziness, incompetence, blindness to the facts, intellectual dishonesty, a sense of entitlement unencumbered by any reference to actual merit and an overblown sense of their own importance, you, Telford, would be on the winner's podium clutching gold to your sweaty, uninformed body. As it is, you are merely a Tory cabinet minister wannabee; a more pathetic dream of grandeur it is hard to imagine.
  • To date two primary schools in my area have closed - and I think since re-opened; and a number of year groups closed down or sent off for tests, while isolating. With a number of school-related infections tracked and traced to the schools themselves. More infections have been tracked to a couple of secondary schools in surrounding towns.

    Largely, things seem sort of okay for now thanks to the localising of track and trace and quick response. Though I can only imagine how difficult the working conditions must be, especially for the teachers. A friend's child was coughing in class; cue, banishment for the lot of them, and instructions to get tested - while the whole families of course had to isolate. Testing is still a mess, though. He was given two test centres to try for: Stranraer and Belfast. He lives just outside Glasgow.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

    Oh dear.

    As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.

    But seeing as you clearly can't wait; here's just one of a huge number of papers on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400753/

    More to follow.

    It doesn't answer my question.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I realise you appear to have a short - or possibly selective memory, but perhaps this article might jog it: https://express.co.uk/news/uk/1255536/Coronavirus-herd-immunity-plan-UK-2020-Boris-Johnson-update-news

    Source chosen deliberately because I don't think anyone would claim that the Express is likely to be biased against the Conservatives.

    If you want to have a serious discussion as you claimed above, at least be prepared to acknowledge the facts instead of making up any old shit. Or maybe making up shit is your only method of argumentation?

    I will refrain from unsulting you but would point out that I do not read newspapers.

    I'm very pleased not to be unsulted, whatever that is.

    Obviously it's fine not to read newspapers, or watch TV news or listen to the radio. Ignorance can be bliss. But, if you know that you are ignorant, why make the effort to spout off factually incorrect drivel?

    Let's be clear about the timeline:

    1. I say "the UK government's initial strategy was herd immunity"
    2. You say "No it wasn't"
    3. I provide proof that indeed it was, using a newspaper article as evidence - one of many such I could have directed you to.
    4. Your excuse for being factually wrong is that you don't read newspapers. So why make the claim if you had no idea?

    If Hancock, Johnson and co weren't already sweeping the medal table for a noxious combination of laziness, incompetence, blindness to the facts, intellectual dishonesty, a sense of entitlement unencumbered by any reference to actual merit and an overblown sense of their own importance, you, Telford, would be on the winner's podium clutching gold to your sweaty, uninformed body. As it is, you are merely a Tory cabinet minister wannabee; a more pathetic dream of grandeur it is hard to imagine.

    I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.
  • Telford wrote: »

    I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.

    So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.

    So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.
    Oh well as I am dyslexic if I follow Telford’s example I will not answer anyone who points out an error in a place where it is ok to point out an error. I will never be able to post again.
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.

    So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.
    You'll have noticed why most of us don't try to engage Telford in sensible discussion.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

    Oh dear.

    As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.

    But seeing as you clearly can't wait; here's just one of a huge number of papers on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400753/

    More to follow.

    It doesn't answer my question.

    Sauce for the goose...
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I think I might like to be sulted - it sounds rather Fun...
    Anselmina wrote: »
    To date two primary schools in my area have closed - and I think since re-opened; and a number of year groups closed down or sent off for tests, while isolating. With a number of school-related infections tracked and traced to the schools themselves. More infections have been tracked to a couple of secondary schools in surrounding towns.

    Largely, things seem sort of okay for now thanks to the localising of track and trace and quick response. Though I can only imagine how difficult the working conditions must be, especially for the teachers. A friend's child was coughing in class; cue, banishment for the lot of them, and instructions to get tested - while the whole families of course had to isolate. Testing is still a mess, though. He was given two test centres to try for: Stranraer and Belfast. He lives just outside Glasgow.

    Well, at least Stranraer is in the same country as Glasgow! I have no idea where our local test centres might be, down here in Kent. Calais, perhaps?

    Meanwhile, I've not heard of any closures, though a local secondary school has had to advise some staff to self-isolate (one teacher tested positive for Covid-19 - the others presumably had been in contact). The school is big enough to cope with the temporary shortage of staff.

  • But...but...he's not English...

    Oh, but he desperately wants to be. In fact at one time there were murmured questions about whether he'd actually given up his citizenship, having been born in London. And then there's the small matter of how he reinstated Australian knighthoods and then bloody well ended up giving once to Prince Philip.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    As to all this argument about Abbott's views, I have to admit that it does slightly obscure a more important issue, which is that I cannot see any sensible explanation as to what would make him a good trade negotiator. For any country.

    Apparently being a PM has automatically made him a good negotiator? Okay... except I cannot remember any evidence of that. I can't remember Australia having some kind of spectacular run of trade success while he was in charge, plus the lead on that would have been taken by the actual Minister for Trade.

    As for negotiation skills in general, he spectacularly failed at this in 2010 when the election created a split House of Representatives. It was Julia Gillard, not Abbott, who showed her negotiation skills in getting the support she needed to form minority government (and indeed, negotiation was consistently Gillard's greatest skill).

    Abbott completely failed a test set by one independent who deliberately made unreasonable demands to see how each leader would respond. Gillard came back with a more moderate alternative proposal, saying "we can't give you all that but here's what we could do". Abbott, on the other hand, basically said immediately that he would give the independent anything he wanted so long as he'd get to be PM. Which was exactly the kind of non-governing the independent didn't want to see, and so he supported Gillard.

    So forget whether Abbott is disqualified from a position by reason of being a cultural dinosaur. Maybe even put to one side the more pertinent question as to whether a non-UK person makes sense as the trade envoy for the UK. The most important point is that Abbott's political career provides no evidence that he can actually negotiate well, and plenty of evidence that he is either aggressive and negative or collapses. He's not a diplomat, he's a headkicker.
  • Yes, it's his political *career* that's important.

    That would seem to show that he's just the chap England needs to kick the heads of Bloody Johnny Foreigner, whether BJF is a horrid *European* or from some other Terra Incognita, Where Be Dragons.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Have a look at the BBC link (added after you posted).

    And stop being so bloody offensive about teachers...
    :rage:
    I was being complimentary.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I thought there was at least one person posting to this thread who might need it spelt out.

    Problem is that what you said is not true.

    Do we really have to explain to you what Communism is and how it differs from Democratic Socialism?

    If you think that Corbyn isn't a communist, you would not be able to.

    Can you actually identify a policy he aimed to implement that actually meets the description of communism ? Even one ?

    Yes

    So this is one of those cases where you actually can't but will either stalk out temporarily in high dudgeon or claim it was a joke when you are called on it.

    I answered the question.

    I wonder if your arse still throbs at night after you answered your Latin teacher's question about whether you could conjugate the present subjunctive of Ire in the same manner...

    ab irato
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    JonahMan wrote: »
    Sorry Telford, I didn't realise you wanted a serious conversation.

    Are you satisfied with Hancock's performance, or if you want to see him as a cog in a larger machine, that of the current administration? If you are, on what basis do you think this? What evidence would make you change your mind?

    As I am answering "No" to the first question, the other questions are irrelevant.

    So, you aren't happy with his performance - do you think he is capable of a dramatic improvement? If not, he needs to go. If you think he is, what evidence is there of this?
    I never said that I wasn't happy. I said that I wasn't satisfied as I have not been totally satisfied.
    Returning to the English response to the pandemic, it seems to me they got it badly wrong with their 'herd immunity' policy and the delayed lockdown; broadly right with the hard lockdown, including support for workers and businesses, though with cock-ups with the care homes and PPE provision; then wrong again with the 'whack-a-mole' strategy which seems to me to be the most dangerous. You are never going to win that one.

    Dominic Cummings excursion really did not help at all - to me that was the point at which the government went from at least appearing to be trying, in difficult circumstances, to deal with the situation, even if they got it wrong, to only really caring about their inner circle. Subsequent events like the contracts offered to firms with no experience of PPE, the appointment of Dido Harding etc have reinforced this impression.

    There was never a herd immunity policy. The lock down was delayed because it was reasoned that it would be ignored because so few people had died.

    I'm gonna do a blog post on this coz I've been looking at the numbers again. I have mentioned elsewhere that some professional mathematicians and epidemiologists have done this work properly but I realised there's a quick-and-dirty method that approximates really well and is easy to understand intuitively. So watch this space but here's the headline:

    Delaying the lockdown cost tens of thousands of lives.

    There is no sane argument that says that isn't grounds for resignation of several ministers responsible.

    But I have never seen any evidence that any of them is prepared to take any responsibility for anything.

    AFZ

    Where is your evidence that a weeks delay cost tends of thousands of lives.

    Oh dear.

    As I said, I'm working on writing this is full. On the main Coronavirus thread I linked to a couple of studies that showed this.

    But seeing as you clearly can't wait; here's just one of a huge number of papers on this point: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400753/

    More to follow.

    It doesn't answer my question.

    That's 100% untrue.

    AFZ: I can show you the maths but simply a week's delay in lockdown caused tens of thousands of deaths.
    Telford: Where's the evidence for that?
    AFZ: <provides link to a paper that shows the effect of lockdown timings on death rates - to quote "The previous sub-section presented clear evidence that the choice of when to impose lockdown drastically affects the likely number of deaths.">
    Telford: That doesn't answer my question
    AFZ: um... um... ??? Do you actually speak English???
  • Salopian, I think. Not quite the same - or else he's related to Humpty 'Words mean what I want them to mean' Dumpty.
  • Yes, it's his political *career* that's important.

    That would seem to show that he's just the chap England needs to kick the heads of Bloody Johnny Foreigner, whether BJF is a horrid *European* or from some other Terra Incognita, Where Be Dragons.

    But he is perfect to parrot what Dominic/Boris want him to say and do. Anyone good at negotiating might use their brain.
  • JonahMan wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »

    I gave up reading after your first sentence and the reference to my typing error.

    So you are lazy as well as ill-informed.

    Never the less I am polite and respectful

Sign In or Register to comment.