Coronavirus Pandemic

[WMUG]

Can't be seen to look weak. Wouldn't be politically expedient.

[Mac76]

Can't be seen to look weak. Wouldn't be politically expedient.

it would also be the truth

Johnson's liars don't do truth or facts - they have to lie - it's the rule

[Letters]

Can't be seen to look weak. Wouldn't be politically expedient.

It's not a weakness though, is it?
Changing your mind and therefore policy based on new data is something which I think most people would see as a strength.
Just say "Yes, it's a change of policy based on the latest data. We will continue to review our policies around this based on evidence and data".
I, for one, would admire that. Because it's not admitting they were wrong (which they probably were), it's just saying that the situation has changed so the response have to.
It's a U-Turn anyway and such a blatant one that just saying "didn't!" makes them look a lot more stupid.

[WMUG]

This is the incompetence theory. Everything is a series of honest mistakes made during confusing and chaotic periods. Like WMD in Iraq.

The reality though, trained scientists (or weapons inspectors) don't suddenly become inept. They have educations and experience to fall back on and it's rare to non-existent that any set of circumstances would fall so far outside the bounds of established knowledge, expertise and protocols to render them redundant. Not even a nuclear war would fall outside this scope. The chaos of such an event might overwhelm, but the science would hold strong. Perhaps an alien attack would be an instance where we'd finally lack all competence in mounting a response.

So questions should be asked of scientists like Fauci, Whitty and Vallance - in fact ALL of these people, because they have either turned their backs on science in favour of some other imperative (to varying degrees) OR they are critically incompetent (as you are suggesting) which is even more terrifying.

There's a difference between incompetence and not having all the necessary information.

For instance, we don't know yet if the virus can be contracted by those who've already had it. So we act as if it can, just in case.

Not having that information doesn't make scientists incompetent or malevolent, it just means they don't have all the facts yet.

Same goes for almost every aspect of this pandemic.

[Niall_Quinn]

There's a difference between incompetence and not having all the necessary information.

For instance, we don't know yet if the virus can be contracted by those who've already had it. So we act as if it can, just in case.

Not having that information doesn't make scientists incompetent or malevolent, it just means they don't have all the facts yet.

Same goes for almost every aspect of this pandemic.

They had enough information. It's a coronavirus, not a bio-weapon or the bubonic plague. There was no compelling reason to abandon decades of medicine and science, and indeed they followed the established science in the early phases, as would be expected. Then Imperial College and Ferguson (again - how many "mistakes" is that now, over the years?) released their anti-scientific model and the media seized on it, in conjunction with fear porn loops from Italy (which is an interesting and dark case in itself) and the seeds of panic were sown. That is most likely why the government abandoned science and resorted to the first lockdown, and the scientists in charge must surely have known what they were doing or else they aren't fit to carry letters after their names.

However, giving them every benefit of the doubt, taking into account the panic created by Ferguson and the BBC, let's give them the first lockdown as a pass. I was also in favour of limiting the spread when we, the public, didn't really know what we were dealing with. Could have been a serious disease, a Chinese bio-weapon, a deadly pathogen that was being concealed as a coronavirus outbreak, anything really. At that stage, people who hadn't gamed out the whole scenario well in advance (as our so-called experts had) were in the dark, relatively speaking. But once we knew it was a coronavirus and once enough data emerged from around the world it quickly became obvious we were dealing with a mild, flu-like infection.

Now there's talk of a second outbreak. This is plainly a lie, as evidenced by hard data. The fact they have lied about this, quite blatantly and in the face of not just science but common sense discounts all trust that went before, or it should do for any reasonable judgement. Anyone who gives them the benefit of the doubt at this stage is asking to be lied to and is conscientiously uninformed.

I find it strange you'll give them free passage on this issue but are quick to hold them to account in terms of U-turns. We want them to be making U-turns, don't we? Lots of them. A U-turn on almost every issue is what's required. Lockdowns, masks, HCQ, miracle vaccines, rigged statistics, etc, etc. It's a long list.

And there's that matter of sending sick people into care homes. That goes way beyond the realm of incompetence. Even an idiot could avoid such a fundamental "mistake." But not our top scientists, seemingly. How elastic is credulity and does it have a snapping point?

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Johnson speaks to the nation at 8pm.

It'll presumably be a copy and paste from what was said in the Commons.

[Letters]

Hats off to the BBC for this scheduling

[dazthegooner]

Quality.

[Mac76]

[Mac76]

Toilet roll sales up by 23% - a sure sign we're in the sh*t...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...bustoday_email