I should have added that some of the outliers argue that partial herd immunity has been achieved, since a lot of people have had it, e.g., 20 or 30 million. See Sikora on twitter. This often leads to lavish praise for Sweden, groan.
It would be unfair to lay it all at Johnson's door. Whilst he was part of the government at the time, he wasn't leading it. However, there is a continuity about the Conservative government from 2010 to now that he tries to ignore. This continuity includes a love-affair with 'low-regulator' epitomized by Brexit which is yet another big lie. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Good regulations save lives. (Brexit and regulation thoughts here).
Coming back to our current Prime Minister. This is what he said at Prime Minister's Questions this week:
As we approach the third anniversary, this coming Sunday, of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our heartfelt sympathies and thoughts to the families and friends of the 72 people who lost their lives and to the survivors. Across Government, we remain committed to ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again.
Empty words. Real lives in danger. He has been PM for nearly a year. This is a matter of political will. The HoC would pass emergency legislation for this in about 2 days. But this where is becomes all Brexity again. Nothing important gets done right now because the government has spent 4 years trying to making Brexit happen.
And so it goes on.
No, Prime Minister you are not committed to ensuring anything. If you were, things would be different.
The Conservatives have spent the last decade progressively turning overseas aid into promoting British business. This step is just the logical next step into not helping others unless there's a bigger return to the UK.
DfID employs about 600 people here, though last year the government had promised they wouldn't go anywhere when there was talk of restructuring (at the time there was a suggestion of slimming down the UK staff and relocating the offices to London ... there's a chance that a merger with the FCO could still result in job cuts but hopefully not the retrograde step of concentrating jobs in London). There are a lot more jobs in Embassies and Consulates coordinating work in country, and of course the people who do the development and aid work on the ground supported by UKAid money.
At the peak of the crisis, student nurses were recruited to work in the NHS to ensure we had sufficient staff. They were signed up for 6 months.
Now the government is planning to cancel all contracts in July (rather than October).
This is why I am so underwhelmed by the sight of government ministers 'clapping for heroes' - clearly government policy is to view all heroes as disposable.
Yeah I saw that uturn, to be slightly fair, I think they are either (yr 3) being paid over any days required to complete their qualifications and then applying for qualified posts - or returning to their course (yr2).
But I still think they ought to have been paid the full six months as originally promised - plus we have existing staff shortages and a massive backlog of work so the idea the NHS doesn’t require any extra help across the transition to the winter seems ridiculous.
Also a large number of nursing (and other) staff who have worked long hours with minimal breaks for months. Having a few extra hands around so that they can take a few days off to spends with their families before the next wave of infection sweeps the country would be a good idea.
Anyone remember that scene from the Hannibal series where Hannibal gets Mason Verger high on angel dust and then suggests that he eat his own nose? That is what I think of when I hear the phrase "national self-harm". Except the government aren't doing it to their own noses, they're doing it to my nose.
I'm reading credible warnings from customs and freight-forwarding experts that we all need to stockpile six months of food and consumer goods because there will be bottlenecks at customs in six months' time even with a deal and even with handwaving tariffs away on incoming goods. Not on a scale of "fruit and veg more expensive" but on a scale of most of the population going hungry because they're physically obstructed from getting the food into the country. And having THIS EVENING read that the government has a spec for the customs software system they will need to have deployed by the end of the year... and that somebody's saying it's good but they need clearer specification of data inputs... among many other details, it's terrifyingly plausible. (And apparently no, making friends with a farmer won't help, any more than eating cake will help you through a bread shortage.)
The large uptick in racial harassment, and the kind of material people post online about why they voted they did do lend the idea creedance.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
I've yet to engage with a leave voter who wasn't either (a) a bigot or (b) monumentally clueless about what the EU does and how it operates or (c) both. The idea that there is a silent mass of well-informed, decent people who nonetheless voted leave is a pipe dream.
Your problem was that the clueless bigots were in the majority and we have left the EU.
Yes, the UK being outside the EU is a big problem. One that I hope will be rectified at the earliest opportunity, because I want my children to grow up with the opportunities that EU membership gave us.
Not if the Gruesome Ghastly Gang of Gobshites in Government have their way - and the Great Gobshitter Himself is, alack, alas, woe, woe, and thrice woe, likely to be Gobshitting at us for a while yet..
Yes, the UK being outside the EU is a big problem. One that I hope will be rectified at the earliest opportunity, because I want my children to grow up with the opportunities that EU membership gave us.
If a majority of the UK's voters ever voted to join the EU I would certainly accept it.
PMQs are surreal. Starmer asks about Johnson's latest lies, e.g. we didn't know about asymptomatic transmission, Boris bluffs, doubles down, thinks of an insult. Then Starmer brings up another lie, same result. I suppose scrutiny is good, but what's the point of this?
Yes, the UK being outside the EU is a big problem. One that I hope will be rectified at the earliest opportunity, because I want my children to grow up with the opportunities that EU membership gave us.
If a majority of the UK's voters ever voted to join the EU I would certainly accept it.
If the majority of the UK's voters ever vote to leave the EU I'd (grudgingly) accept it.
PMQs are surreal. Starmer asks about Johnson's latest lies, e.g. we didn't know about asymptomatic transmission, Boris bluffs, doubles down, thinks of an insult. Then Starmer brings up another lie, same result. I suppose scrutiny is good, but what's the point of this?
I like Starmer but he needs to be more accurate. He cannot expect Johnson to apologise for insulting care workers when his comments were about care homes.
To be pedantic (what, someone on the Ship being pedantic? Never!) care workers include those who work in care homes as there are many who care for people in their own homes.
But, the context is well known, in that Mr Johnson has attempted to blame those who work and manage care homes as being responsible for the abject failings of his own government to provide clear and sensible advice to care homes or to procure sufficient PPE to make sure that care home staff (and, other care workers) weren't forced to improvise and do they best they could. Not to mention the decision to empty hospital wards into care homes without first testing patients (though the move would also need to have been conducted in recognition that a test isn't definitive and some of those who came back negative would still be carrying the coronavirus into care homes, which would have necessitated additional measures in the homes).
To be pedantic (what, someone on the Ship being pedantic? Never!) care workers include those who work in care homes as there are many who care for people in their own homes.
But, the context is well known, in that Mr Johnson has attempted to blame those who work and manage care homes as being responsible for the abject failings of his own government to provide clear and sensible advice to care homes or to procure sufficient PPE to make sure that care home staff (and, other care workers) weren't forced to improvise and do they best they could. Not to mention the decision to empty hospital wards into care homes without first testing patients (though the move would also need to have been conducted in recognition that a test isn't definitive and some of those who came back negative would still be carrying the coronavirus into care homes, which would have necessitated additional measures in the homes).
Yes, quite right. Those who care for people in the patient's own home do tend to get left out of the reckoning, I'm afraid.
I would like to know how many infected patients were transfered from hospitals and how they caught the virus in hospitals
In the first month after lockdown (17 March - 16 April) 25060 patients were transferred from hospitals to care homes in England (Independent article). There were probably very few showing symptoms, because they'd quite likely not be considered medically fit. How many were asymptomatic is much harder to ascertain, but it's certain that some of them were.
As for how they caught it, prior to mid March the coronavirus was already transmitting through the community - that included people being admitted to hospital, families visiting people in hospital, and hospital staff. There are plenty of opportunities to transmit the virus within any large building with lots of people coming and going - hospitals are no exception.
I would like to know how many infected patients were transfered from hospitals and how they caught the virus in hospitals
In the first month after lockdown (17 March - 16 April) 25060 patients were transferred from hospitals to care homes in England (Independent article). There were probably very few showing symptoms, because they'd quite likely not be considered medically fit. How many were asymptomatic is much harder to ascertain, but it's certain that some of them were.
As for how they caught it, prior to mid March the coronavirus was already transmitting through the community - that included people being admitted to hospital, families visiting people in hospital, and hospital staff. There are plenty of opportunities to transmit the virus within any large building with lots of people coming and going - hospitals are no exception.
and there would be many peopled in care homes who were infected by staff. Now I do not say that any of this was deliberate but we do know that most staff were not given the right PPI and that most staff in privately run care homes would not be paid if they did not turn up for work.
I would add that I do not think that staff did not turn up for work knowing they would infect other staff and residents
In respect of testing, it is clear that there were insufficient tests available for staff in care homes AND hospitals
Staff would have the same problem as workers in other places where employers do not give sick pay.
I don't think anyone is claiming that patient transfer from hospitals was the only route by which coronavirus got into care homes. The question that will be answered at some point is whether it was a route, and whether there could have been steps taken to reduce that. But, a review of coronavirus transmission in care homes will also need to look at provision of PPE and testing (which was woeful) and whether these could have been provided in greater quantity earlier than they were, whether the advice given was the best possible based on what was known at the time (and, more generally how rapidly the knowledge of, for example, asymptomatic transmission, was assimilated by government and factored into the advice being given - and, it seems that at the moment Mr Johnson is saying he didn't know about this route even as late as mid March) and how well that was communicated, and also the long term problems with staff terms and conditions such as staff of minimum wage with no sick pay meaning they had little choice to come in when ill (that would always be wrong - no one should be forced to work under those conditions - especially not in a care environment in close contact with elderly patients with complex medical needs). All of these issues ultimately sit at the door of the Johnson government, and they need to be held accountable.
Staff at care homes have additional problems compared to other workers. If someone comes into my workplace with a contagious disease (be that covid or a common cold) the worse that happens is that a few of the generally fit and healthy work force come down with it and pass it onto more vulnerable people they live with. If someone comes into a care home with a contagious disease then they're going to pass it on directly to people who are most vulnerable - the elderly with various underlying health conditions. Even a common cold in that sort of environment can be deadly.
I don't think anyone is claiming that patient transfer from hospitals was the only route by which coronavirus got into care homes. The question that will be answered at some point is whether it was a route, and whether there could have been steps taken to reduce that. But, a review of coronavirus transmission in care homes will also need to look at provision of PPE and testing (which was woeful) and whether these could have been provided in greater quantity earlier than they were, whether the advice given was the best possible based on what was known at the time (and, more generally how rapidly the knowledge of, for example, asymptomatic transmission, was assimilated by government and factored into the advice being given - and, it seems that at the moment Mr Johnson is saying he didn't know about this route even as late as mid March) and how well that was communicated, and also the long term problems with staff terms and conditions such as staff of minimum wage with no sick pay meaning they had little choice to come in when ill (that would always be wrong - no one should be forced to work under those conditions - especially not in a care environment in close contact with elderly patients with complex medical needs). All of these issues ultimately sit at the door of the Johnson government, and they need to be held accountable.
Staff at care homes have additional problems compared to other workers. If someone comes into my workplace with a contagious disease (be that covid or a common cold) the worse that happens is that a few of the generally fit and healthy work force come down with it and pass it onto more vulnerable people they live with. If someone comes into a care home with a contagious disease then they're going to pass it on directly to people who are most vulnerable - the elderly with various underlying health conditions. Even a common cold in that sort of environment can be deadly.
A good post and I agree with all of it. It's bit of a tradition that politicians of all persuasions are very reluctant to admit mistakes.
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
Yes, we need them to cock things up a bit more. We need to know how much worse it could be if they were in charge by leaving them in charge.
It seems somewhat similar to an abused spouse thinking they need to stay with their partner, even if they get hit every night and can't do what they want.
Yes, we need them to cock things up a bit more. We need to know how much worse it could be if they were in charge by leaving them in charge.
It seems somewhat similar to an abused spouse thinking they need to stay with their partner, even if they get hit every night and can't do what they want.
Whatever party is in power, I never want things to get worse.
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
There is an established tradition of senior politicians (and, advisers and other public servants) resigning when they get something seriously wrong. Which seems to have been ignored by the current government.
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
The Guardian says that the process of nominating Chris Grayling to be head of the Intelligence and Security Committee has taken so long because the government took that long to find five Tory MPs whom it thought would vote for Grayling.
The government having thought it had done, it turns out that actually the government had only found four.
Yes, well - the only thing you can trust this *government* to do is to Get It Wrong...
But possibly failing to put Failing Grayling in charge of the Intelligence Committee* might be Getting It Right in the long run, if Mr. Lewis gets them to publish the Russian report.
* apologies for putting the words "intelligence" and "Grayling" in the same sentence ...
Comments
It would be unfair to lay it all at Johnson's door. Whilst he was part of the government at the time, he wasn't leading it. However, there is a continuity about the Conservative government from 2010 to now that he tries to ignore. This continuity includes a love-affair with 'low-regulator' epitomized by Brexit which is yet another big lie. There are good regulations and bad regulations. Good regulations save lives. (Brexit and regulation thoughts here).
Coming back to our current Prime Minister. This is what he said at Prime Minister's Questions this week:
On the other hand, this is the reality: 2000 Buildings still covered with dangerous cladding, three years on.
Empty words. Real lives in danger. He has been PM for nearly a year. This is a matter of political will. The HoC would pass emergency legislation for this in about 2 days. But this where is becomes all Brexity again. Nothing important gets done right now because the government has spent 4 years trying to making Brexit happen.
And so it goes on.
No, Prime Minister you are not committed to ensuring anything. If you were, things would be different.
You remain a cynical liar.
AFZ
Three years - Lord, have mercy.
Folding the Overseas Development into Foreign Policy??!!
What a Bastard.
Why should we help them, and get no profit out of it? Just think of all the £££ that could be put to militaryNHS use...
Now the government is planning to cancel all contracts in July (rather than October).
This is why I am so underwhelmed by the sight of government ministers 'clapping for heroes' - clearly government policy is to view all heroes as disposable.
I wish I was surprised.
But I still think they ought to have been paid the full six months as originally promised - plus we have existing staff shortages and a massive backlog of work so the idea the NHS doesn’t require any extra help across the transition to the winter seems ridiculous.
I'm reading credible warnings from customs and freight-forwarding experts that we all need to stockpile six months of food and consumer goods because there will be bottlenecks at customs in six months' time even with a deal and even with handwaving tariffs away on incoming goods. Not on a scale of "fruit and veg more expensive" but on a scale of most of the population going hungry because they're physically obstructed from getting the food into the country. And having THIS EVENING read that the government has a spec for the customs software system they will need to have deployed by the end of the year... and that somebody's saying it's good but they need clearer specification of data inputs... among many other details, it's terrifyingly plausible. (And apparently no, making friends with a farmer won't help, any more than eating cake will help you through a bread shortage.)
fuck
Rt Hon A.B.dP. Johnson, Prime Minister:
Your problem was that the clueless bigots were in the majority and we have left the EU.
If a majority of the UK's voters ever voted to join the EU I would certainly accept it.
I like Starmer but he needs to be more accurate. He cannot expect Johnson to apologise for insulting care workers when his comments were about care homes.
I hardly think there's any doubt as to what Sir Keir was getting at.
YMMV, of course.
But, the context is well known, in that Mr Johnson has attempted to blame those who work and manage care homes as being responsible for the abject failings of his own government to provide clear and sensible advice to care homes or to procure sufficient PPE to make sure that care home staff (and, other care workers) weren't forced to improvise and do they best they could. Not to mention the decision to empty hospital wards into care homes without first testing patients (though the move would also need to have been conducted in recognition that a test isn't definitive and some of those who came back negative would still be carrying the coronavirus into care homes, which would have necessitated additional measures in the homes).
Yes, quite right. Those who care for people in the patient's own home do tend to get left out of the reckoning, I'm afraid.
As for how they caught it, prior to mid March the coronavirus was already transmitting through the community - that included people being admitted to hospital, families visiting people in hospital, and hospital staff. There are plenty of opportunities to transmit the virus within any large building with lots of people coming and going - hospitals are no exception.
and there would be many peopled in care homes who were infected by staff. Now I do not say that any of this was deliberate but we do know that most staff were not given the right PPI and that most staff in privately run care homes would not be paid if they did not turn up for work.
I would add that I do not think that staff did not turn up for work knowing they would infect other staff and residents
In respect of testing, it is clear that there were insufficient tests available for staff in care homes AND hospitals
Staff would have the same problem as workers in other places where employers do not give sick pay.
Staff at care homes have additional problems compared to other workers. If someone comes into my workplace with a contagious disease (be that covid or a common cold) the worse that happens is that a few of the generally fit and healthy work force come down with it and pass it onto more vulnerable people they live with. If someone comes into a care home with a contagious disease then they're going to pass it on directly to people who are most vulnerable - the elderly with various underlying health conditions. Even a common cold in that sort of environment can be deadly.
A good post and I agree with all of it. It's bit of a tradition that politicians of all persuasions are very reluctant to admit mistakes.
Henry McLeish resigned over financial irregularities
David Blunkett over potential conflict of interest
Peter Hain over funding for his leadership bid
David Laws for expenses
Michael Fallon for sexual harassment
And, others besides noting that I originally included advisers and civil servants as well as just politicians (including several over breaking the rules to control coronavirus).
They can't resign as they consider that the country needs them.
The country may have other views, but since when did they count?
It seems somewhat similar to an abused spouse thinking they need to stay with their partner, even if they get hit every night and can't do what they want.
Whatever party is in power, I never want things to get worse.
No different to any other government we have had.
The government having thought it had done, it turns out that actually the government had only found four.
At election time?
But possibly failing to put Failing Grayling in charge of the Intelligence Committee* might be Getting It Right in the long run, if Mr. Lewis gets them to publish the Russian report.
* apologies for putting the words "intelligence" and "Grayling" in the same sentence ...