I bet all the Labour members are so ecstatic that they didn't get lumbered with it. They wouldn't have done any better.
Coronavirus Page 72
I'm fairly sure that Labour wouldn't set out a "Let's lie at 4:30pm" programme. But keep your biases.
Yeh, Boris is doing a pretty lousy job of it, but I don't see anyone who would have done any better.
Corbyn's substitute is just going through the same old motions he did as a Lawyer, picking out the bad points of past events (hind-sight is a wonderful tool for critics) with no viable suggestions as to what should happen in future. I believe he would be even more useless than Boris at this task.
Still, Keir Starmer's quite good at rooting out past events so perhaps there should be a cross-party committee to find out where the missing PPE has gone and Starmer can be put in charge of that. It would give him something to do instead of moaning at Boris.
My point is that the right wing press would have crucified Corbyn if his government had performed anywhere near as badly as this
Yet nobody seems particularly arsed about Boris's piss poor leadership
P.s.
The booking system for the UK government's Covid-19 hotel quarantine programme crashed within hours of going live on Thursday.
F**k up after f**k up
If the govt. had taken action when Starmer asked them to (typically not long after scientists had said it was vital) rather than a fortnight to a month later, less people would have died.
It's just maths.
I think Labour would have had it a bit easier because they wouldn't have had big business in their ear - or a load of Lockdown Sceptics (the ERG renamed as the CRG) shouting from the back benches. Before the Brexit deal that was a big worry for BoJo - 80 or so trouble maker who could do him over - especially as the Labour vote was not guaranteed.
Woulda coulda shouda.
Biggest and best vaccine program in most of the world
Ordering the vaccine long before others.
But we don't mention that because that's good things the government has done.
Get ya blinkers off and see this country will be back to normal before many others - including your beloved EU membets.
Quote: Lazzard @ 12th February 2021, 2:47 PMIf the govt. had taken action when Starmer asked them to (typically not long after scientists had said it was vital) rather than a fortnight to a month later, less people would have died.
It's just maths..
I think the same number of people would die. 100%.
Quote: Chappers @ 12th February 2021, 2:54 PMI think the same number of people would die. 100%.
Well that's that sorted then.
Clarity at last.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 12th February 2021, 2:54 PM- including your beloved EU membets.
Are you STILL not over Brexit?
I'm just saying you can't know what would have happened if other decisions were made. What happened happened and it seems to be that decisions were made to help the NHS cope.
Quote: Chappers @ 12th February 2021, 3:22 PMI'm just saying you can't know what would have happened if other decisions were made.
You can.
It's called epidemiology.
Earlier/longer lockdowns would have meant less deaths.
Functioning track, trace and isolate would have meant less deaths.
Closing schools when the scientists said "Close the schools" would have meant less deaths.
Less contact = less transmission = less cases = less deaths.
Like I said.
Maths.
Maths? No significant rise in annual deaths from all causes.
Some past years higher raises.
And we have a higher population now
The government had to weigh up health, over wealth
Not easy
Health - worst death rate in the world per population
Wealth- worst economic figures in a century
Result - total shambles on both counts
Fail.
Quote: Lazzard @ 12th February 2021, 3:32 PMYou can.
It's called epidemiology.
Earlier/longer lockdowns would have meant less deaths.
Functioning track, trace and isolate would have meant less deaths.
Closing schools when the scientists said "Close the schools" would have meant less deaths.
Less contact = less transmission = less cases = less deaths.
Like I said.
Maths.
Except:
Longer lockdowns = worse mental health & more domestic abuse = more suicides
Longer lockdowns = more operations & ongoing treatment cancelled = more deaths
Longer lockdowns = a worse economy & less money to fund the NHS in the future = more deaths
Longer closure of schools = a less educated & socially able generation = more future impoverishment = more potential deaths.
It's not all one way.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 12th February 2021, 4:02 PMExcept:
Longer lockdowns = worse mental health & more domestic abuse = more suicides
Longer lockdowns = more operations & ongoing treatment cancelled = more deaths
Longer lockdowns = a worse economy & less money to fund the NHS in the future = more deaths
Longer closure of schools = a less educated & socially able generation = more future impoverishment = more potential deaths.It's not all one way.
1. Yes - some extra suicides. Nothing compared to Covid deaths if we let it run riot.
2. Hospitals weren't in lockdown. Treatments were cancelled to prevent NHS meltdown. Would have been far worse without lockdown measures.
3. No. We'll just have to pay more tax to fund it. The odd billionaire might have to sell a yacht.
4. Possibly. Personally I think kids are pretty resilient.Plus everyone will be in the same boat. And still nothing close to the deaths Covid is capable of causing.
People complained when they made seatbelts the law - said what about people who get stuck in their car in a fire.
This makes about as much sense.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 12th February 2021, 3:48 PMMaths? No significant rise in annual deaths from all causes.
Incorrect.
From previous experience, I shan't brother asking for your sources.
Here are mine btw -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9140499/More-600-000-people-died-England-Wales-2020.html
Daiy Mail?
Ah that explains it.
Rated about 33% on the reliability scale.
Don't bother with any figures mangled by ANY of the media, go straight to the 'horses mouth' in this case the ONS (Office of National Statistics)
The data is here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlyfiguresondeathsregisteredbyareaofusualresidence
Download the XLS sheets for deaths in 2020 and look directly at the figures.
And of course to make it look worse, the Daily Mail reporters haven't subtracted the number of deaths that would have occurred anyway, it's only the Excess deaths that really matter statistically.
On the same ONS page, further down the web page you can download the same type of spreadsheet for 10 years earlier, so subtracting the latter from the 2020 figures should give a good estimate of the excess deaths.
I make it 608016 total deaths for 2020 and 401995 for 2010, so the EXCESS DEATHS for 2020 estimates at 204,021. Which doesn't make such a flashy headline for the Daily Mail does it??