Coronavirus

[oddoneout]

They have managed to have enough ventilators and ICU beds . Although whether they would have if all the people who really needed them were admitted is another thing. Unfortunately, the focus on this one aspect, which is pretty much to save the goverments skin, has come at the cost of other health care provision, people being afraid to call for help for possible heart attacks etc. So only a qualified success on this one, even though it has been the key objective.

But was this anything to do with direct government action? Given the failings, now very much in the public domain, of Operation Cygnus I'm not sure this is anything other than good luck, since the country wasn't equipped for a flu pandemic, let alone what we now have?
Same with food supplies mentioned in a later post - surely that's down to the firms concerned, which is why there were different policies re item limits etc. Getting food to those in need hasn't happened from successful government initiatives.
Too many things that have worked or functioned reasonably well have been in spite of rather than because of government - and that still is the case.
So sorry johnb, the answer is no, I can't come up with anything. Doesn't bode well for the next crisis on the horizon.

[Dave2002]

BJ wasn't too bad in his message, though he used conditionals "if"s - which I suspect that many in England do not understand, or choose not to.
Also there is mention of quarantine for new arrivals by air, but not all incomers come by air. Some come by ship, ferry or train.

Finally, the BBC has a medical correspondent who thinks that "r" value is a rate. I really wish that people would not keep perpetuating this. It is not a rate unless times are taken into consideration.

[MrGongGong]

BJ wasn't too bad in his message, though he used conditionals "if"s - which I suspect that many in England do not understand, or choose not to.
Also there is mention of quarantine for new arrivals by air, but not all incomers come by air. Some come by ship, ferry or train.

Finally, the BBC has a medical correspondent who thinks that "r" value is a rate. I really wish that people would not keep perpetuating this. It is not a rate unless times are taken into consideration.

Why on earth do you listen to the lying scumbag ?

I could spout a thousand words of gibberish and there would be a few that might connect together into some kind of "sense".

[Petrushka]

Why on earth do you listen to the lying scumbag ?

I could spout a thousand words of gibberish and there would be a few that might connect together into some kind of "sense".

Starmer is right to say that Johnson's message raises more questions than it answers. I suspect that what most people will take away from it is that the so-called 'lockdown' is as good as over and never mind granny in the care home. Second wave here we come and we haven't got through the first one yet! The appalling mixed messages will see to that.

[Dave2002]

Why on earth do you listen to the lying scumbag ?

I could spout a thousand words of gibberish and there would be a few that might connect together into some kind of "sense".

Did you watch or listen?

I do so because I want to see if he ever has anything to say which is worth hearing. Your views and mine are perhaps not so far apart as you'd suggest.
I felt that what he said tonight wasn't totally unreasonable, but he failed to take into account the "intelligence" of the British/English public. We'll see what happens in the next few days.

[MrGongGong]

Did you watch or listen?

I do so because I want to see if he ever has anything to say which is worth hearing. Your views and mine are perhaps not so far apart as you'd suggest.
I felt that what he said tonight wasn't totally unreasonable, but he failed to take into account the "intelligence" of the British/English public. We'll see what happens in the next few days.

No, I don't watch or listen to him
I'm not going to waste my life listening to an abusive lying ^&%$$

What I think has NO influence and never has.
I think people are far too generous and kind to him
never forget the suffering he has caused not least to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

I don't think your views and mine are apart at all.
But I think when people are as abusive and damaging as he is they shouldn't be facilitated to continue.

Lies lies lies and more lies

[Braunschlag]

Did you watch or listen?



I do so because I want to see if he ever has anything to say which is worth hearing. Your views and mine are perhaps not so far apart as you'd suggest.
I felt that what he said tonight wasn't totally unreasonable, but he failed to take into account the "intelligence" of the British/English public. We'll see what happens in the next few days.

I listened and was reasonably convinced that there were some plans, proposals and ideas worth taking note of and workable. Lots of ifs indeed but I’d expect that, there’s no easy simplistic or Guardian centric way out of it. Starmers noodlings in Radio 4, fronted by the ever ineffectual Evan Davies, certainly confirmed my opinion that he is ineffective and waffling. I’d certainly rather have a BJ at the rudder than any representative of yesterday’s men.

[MrGongGong]

I’d certainly rather have a BJ at the rudder than any representative of yesterday’s men.

Surely having a BJ "at the rudder" might affect your steering ?

[Dave2002]

Surely having a BJ "at the rudder" might affect your steering ?

The rudder would fall off, so there wouldn't be any steering anyway. Probably forget to attach it! Now I'm being cruel - maybe.

[Braunschlag]

I don’t drive.......

[MrGongGong]

I don’t drive.......

That's a "relief"

[oddoneout]

I don’t drive.......

Rudders are generally found on boats rather than cars.

[Braunschlag]

Or pilot boats....

[johnb]

BJ's speech left me puzzled and confused. Much of it seemed very vague and ill thought out. It will be "interesting" to see how things develop in the coming days and weeks.

One thing that has been annoying me over recent days is all the talk about the need to keep the effective reproductive number (R) below 1. This surely is the very minimum that the government should be striving for. If the R is, say, 0.9 we can expect a very slow and very protracted decline in infections with many, many more deaths. Surely the government should be striving for the R to be as far below 1 as possible.

[oddoneout]

This is the bit that bothers me

And to chart our progress and to avoid going back to square one, we are establishing a new Covid alert system run by a new Joint Biosecurity Centre.

It isn't even a reality yet, but moves are being made to get more people out and about and at risk of spreading and contracting infection. There isn't even a reliable high volume testing procedure in place yet to provide some sort of base line, so even if this new Biosecurity thing gets going quickly and reliably(and how likely is that) isn't it going to be on the back foot from the beginning?