Who would have guessed a Minister lying?!
If that were true it would essentially be genocide.Was just reading this... the suggestion (by some) is the government is still persevering in a herd immunity approach, just by stealth tactics.
I think they may well be. Those tube pictures this morning conflicting with what's happening elsware. Just watch the housing minister disseminating at gold medal standards, on all channels.Was just reading this... the suggestion (by some) is the government is still persevering in a herd immunity approach, just by stealth tactics.
What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that...”
The Police need the powers because not everyone has the capacity of "common sense".
Testing...... the reality, we have the kit, that kit needs reagents .
There is a limited supply of quantities, for obvious reasons, we can order 500 litres and get 100, that limits how many tests can take place.
We are testing the living inpatients first.
This is NOT a "pee on a stick" test its complex and needs staff in the labs, many of whom are self isolating.
You can`t magic scientists out of nowhere.
Lots of these folk on the periphery are blowing out of their arses compared to the reality.
The news briefing this afternoon should be interesting! I wonder who will appear to "put the record straight" Won't be Gove, unless he has discovered a spine.According to the Chemical Industry there isn't a shortage of the reagents and nobody has asked them to increase production either if it is needed. As per the Peston tweet above.
The news briefing this afternoon should be interesting! I wonder who will appear to "put the record straight" Won't be Gove, unless he has discovered a spine.
interesting reading- transcript of BBC radio$s World at One With former justice of the supreme court Lord Sumption - (cut n pasted from elsewhere)
Here is the transcript of an interview from BBC Radio 4's World at One , Monday 30th March 2020. With Lord Sumption, former justice of the Supreme Court.
[Thanks to John Burton for providing the text of this important statement.]
“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.
Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.
Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.
A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?
A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.
Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?
A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.
This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.
Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?
A What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.”
According to the Chemical Industry there isn't a shortage of the reagents and nobody has asked them to increase production either if it is needed. As per the Peston tweet above.
This sentence in particular got my goat a bit "What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists." It is rubbish. I am not (particularly) thick, but I would not claim to have the scientific background to be able to analyse the data as an epidemiologist would or to say that the mathematical models developed over years were 'wrong'. It IS a scientific problem and the best group of people to advise on it ARE scientists. Giving people the license to just say 'I don't believe it, so I will act how I want' (which is how that will be interpreted) is the kind of 'magical' thinking employed by Trump, climate change deniers, flat earthers and other fruit loops.
The crunch will come AFTER this has diminished to a lower level - then we have to ensure that personal liberties are fully restored and quickly.