The Politics Thread 2020

[1967Ram]

4 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

You're missing the point. I want to know what is going on, i don't want it filtered in anyway or questions not answered and the current situation prevents that.

I don't listen to the briefings everyday and yes I turn off when I have got the headlines.

Are the media repeatedly asking similar questions because the questions they ask are not being adequately answered? Some say, well politicians never answer the question anyway. Well, if that's true there's no point in asking the question. Imagine if this happened:

Govt representative: "Laura Kuenssberg, BBC, we'll come to you first"

Laura: "In the past week I have asked six questions. None of them have been answered properly, instead evasion tactics have been used. Therefore I'm not asking a question today. I hope that next time I ask a question it will be answered properly".

[ramit]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Comparing Iceland to the UK is pointless though.

Population and population density are worlds apart.

 

Population does not matter in the least, population density indeed does.  Most Icelanders live in the Reykjavík area where by far most cases have been recorded, the population density there is 451.5 per square kilometer, which is rather high, although British cities are on average higher.  Britain on the other hand has far more resources per capita to tackle the virus, so that in some way evens it out.

[Uptherams]

11 minutes ago, Norman said:

Tbh, track and trace looks like it worked well in Germany. But with no cure, it's impossible to stop the spread. Their R rate is near 1 again after coming out of lockdown. Looks like they will be going into another one. Did we accidentally get it right by not having a strict lockdown and not acting too soon. Obviously, numbers of deaths are horrendous, but long term have we managed to get herd immunity and take the NHS to near its capacity as well as keeping the economy going? 

The only thing that mattered all along was capacity. To prevent people who would have otherwise survived, but died due to a lack of resources to treat them. 

That being said, bizzarely and in hinsight, a ventilator shortage would have proven to be a positive impact.

Important to continue to clarify, reported as having died with Covid-19 and not because of. 

[Angry Ram]

22 minutes ago, 1967Ram said:

Are the media repeatedly asking similar questions because the questions they ask are not being adequately answered? Some say, well politicians never answer the question anyway. Well, if that's true there's no point in asking the question. Imagine if this happened:

Govt representative: "Laura Kuenssberg, BBC, we'll come to you first"

Laura: "In the past week I have asked six questions. None of them have been answered properly, instead evasion tactics have been used. Therefore I'm not asking a question today. I hope that next time I ask a question it will be answered properly".

That’s the situation we find ourselves in. It makes the whole thing pointless. Both sides need to grow up. We are all on the together it as it is 5PM everyday is a wasted hour. 
 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, ramit said:

Population does not matter in the least, population density indeed does.  Most Icelanders live in the Reykjavík area where by far most cases have been recorded, the population density there is 451.5 per square kilometer, which is rather high, although British cities are on average higher.  Britain on the other hand has far more resources per capita to tackle the virus, so that in some way evens it out.

Of course population matters.

Is it easier to track and test 1 person or 1m people?

Is it easier to provide care to 1 person or 1m people?

If you've got 1 person in hospital or 1m people in hospital where would you think it is more likely to spread. 

I guess the counter argument is that there is no correlation between populations and cases.

Agree that population density is more relevant when it comes to spread.

 

 

[Archied]

The problem with the gov giving the 100000 test figure by end April and the media holding them to account on it ( both as bad as each other in my view ) is the you get the feeling now that targeting the tests for best use and most needed has just totally gone out the window and there’s a vibe that making it easier to get tests to front line falls by the wayside in favour of filling testing stations willy nilly, 

government v media argument s going on on this thread doesn’t interest me as I think neither are doing a very good job 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Norman said:

Tbh, track and trace looks like it worked well in Germany. But with no cure, it's impossible to stop the spread. Their R rate is near 1 again after coming out of lockdown. Looks like they will be going into another one. Did we accidentally get it right by not having a strict lockdown and not acting too soon. Obviously, numbers of deaths are horrendous, but long term have we managed to get herd immunity and take the NHS to near its capacity as well as keeping the economy going? 

Or maybe herd immunity has always remained our end goal and the Government decided to risk how close we could get to NHS capacity in the first wave so they know how we can control this going forward?

Unlikely but you never know.

[ramit]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Of course population matters.

Is it easier to track and test 1 person or 1m people?

Is it easier to provide care to 1 person or 1m people?

If you've got 1 person in hospital or 1m people in hospital where would you think it is more likely to spread. 

I guess the counter argument is that there is no correlation between populations and cases.

Agree that population density is more relevant when it comes to spread.

 

 

On second thought, i take it back, population does matter when the inhabitants are few enough, then the lack of qualified people to track and test is the major issue.  In the hypothetical case of 1 person you mentioned it would actually be impossible to provide care ?

Resources and qualified professionals per capita is what matters.  i take it, you are happy with the response within your nation, i would not be if i were a Brit.

[Eddie]

34 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

From listening to what Mat Hancock has said, it appears that the test and trace method only works if implemented when numbers are low.

Could it be that by time a pandemic had been declared and the UK finally got their arse into gear, that they realised it would be a futile exercise and efforts would be best placed elsewhere?

 

We had a darned sight more notice than South Korea. South Korea's cases spread like wildfire by a lunatic god-botherer (over 60% of cases in the country have been attributed to that source). Their solution was to step up contact tracing - ours was to abandon it. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the reasoning behind that decision.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Eddie said:

We had a darned sight more notice than South Korea. South Korea's cases spread like wildfire by a lunatic god-botherer (over 60% of cases in the country have been attributed to that source). Their solution was to step up contact tracing - ours was to abandon it. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the reasoning behind that decision.

Not sure of the details but did they not already have the infrastructure in place following the SARS virus?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, ramit said:

On second thought, i take it back, population does matter when the inhabitants are few enough, then the lack of qualified people to track and test is the major issue.  In the hypothetical case of 1 person you mentioned it would actually be impossible to provide care ?

Resources and qualified professionals per capita is what matters.  i take it, you are happy with the response within your nation, i would not be if i were a Brit.

Think we were slow to react and think mistakes have been made but its easy to say that in hindsight. 

This is a, hopefully, once in a lifetime occurrence and there are very few countries coming out of it smelling of roses.

[Eddie]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not sure of the details but did they not already have the infrastructure in place following the SARS virus?

Indeed they did - but the warning signs for the UK were there in 2016 when the NHS failed a pandemic stress test. 

[Bob The Badger]

32 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

This is a, hopefully, once in a lifetime occurrence and there are very few countries coming out of it smelling of roses.

True.

But there are some.

And by and large, they are the ones who you would predict.

Ya know, countries who, for the most part, do well at penalties.

[RamNut]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

That graph shows March? And unless I missed it the end of the month is the 30th not the 21st?

It shows March and April

[Rev]

2 hours ago, Uptherams said:

The only thing that mattered all along was capacity. To prevent people who would have otherwise survived, but died due to a lack of resources to treat them. 

That being said, bizzarely and in hinsight, a ventilator shortage would have proven to be a positive impact.

Important to continue to clarify, reported as having died with Covid-19 and not because of. 

Why do you say a ventilator shortage could have had a positive impact?

Not knocking, genuinely want to know.

I've seen the figures that say deaths of ventilated patients have a 33% survival rate, but are you saying ventilation is causing more problems than its solved?

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Indeed they did - but the warning signs for the UK were there in 2016 when the NHS failed a pandemic stress test. 

What were the recommendations arising from this?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It shows March and April

Part of April, it still hasnt finished yet.

[RamNut]

On 28/04/2020 at 08:38, Angry Ram said:

This really grinds my gears  So what if they don’t reach it, they are trying their best to get there. What do you want of them, to do nothing? I am sure they are all sitting there chuffed to bits that they may not get there. Still better to try and fail than not try at all. 
They set an ambitious target, good on them.. If they get to 70,000 in extremely difficult circumstances, then so be it. We can try and reach the 100,000 sometime next month. Its like you people get some sort of satisfaction that they don’t reach it, well good for you. 
You can wait till Thursday to wallow in your smugness. 

Does it grind your gears? Oh that’s a pity. I expect if Jeremy Corbyn had set that target and the missed by a mile, you’d be equally supportive. It doesn’t matter that essential workers have been exposed to risk. All that matters is that some numpty set an ambitious target. You’ve got your priorities right,?

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Does it grind your gears? Oh that’s a pity. I expect if Jeremy Corbyn had set that target and the missed by a mile, you’d be equally supportive. It doesn’t matter that essential workers have been exposed to risk. All that matters is that some numpty set an ambitious target. You’ve got your priorities right,?

It's utterly remarkable how many people I have seen say on Twitter something like 'yeh, but if Corbyn had been PM it would have been much worse'

If there was an Olympics of stupidity those people would all be vying for gold.

It's like saying 'if I'd bought my lottery ticket 10 minutes later, it would have been a winner'

Impossible to say your wrong, but stupid af to think you're right.

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

It's utterly remarkable how many people I have seen say on Twitter something like 'yeh, but if Corbyn had been PM it would have been much worse'

If there was an Olympics of stupidity those people would all be vying for gold.

It's like saying 'if I'd bought my lottery ticket 10 minutes later, it would have been a winner'

Impossible to say your wrong, but stupid af to think you're right.

What’s the difference between Jeremy Corbyn and a lottery ticket? With the latter at least you have a small chance of winning.