Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[Devils_Advocate]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 23776.html

At present I'd say that the guardian is far from credible, just like most of the news outlets during this pandemic.

None of them inspire much confidence at doing their job.
The daily briefings are cringeworthy when it comes to questions from the journalists and several have made themselves look really stupid.

The Gaurdians sources are members of SAGE and therefore very credible. Up until now any criticism of the govts decision making has been defended on the principle the are just following expert and trustworthy scientific advice from these brilliant people at Sage

This impeccable group of experts then speak out at their concern for two govt political advisers attending and influencing the Sage meetings and suddenly these experts become untrustworthy.

You would much rather just trust an unnamed downing street source who could easily just be Cummings himself rubbishing the story

I am happy to wait to see if the govt are prepared to provide full disclosure on the meeting attendees, their roles and the meeting minutes. If that shows the Gaurdians story to be hot air then thats great news

Until then I'll trust the sage members who have spoken out and voiced their concern over an unfounded statement from an unknown downing st source

[dsr]

The only statements alleging what Cummings was doing at these meetings are that he asked questions, and that he answered questions about Whitehall when asked.

What is actually wrong with that?

Is it that the scientists who are actually on the committee should not be influenced by government - to the extent that the government can't even ask questions and should not advise scientists of government plans even when asked? Is it that government should not even observe these meetings and should take only a summary of the conclusions without understanding the arguments behind them?

Or is it, as I suspect, that Cummings is unpopular and certain people disapprove of him being involve din anything, anywhere? If it had been anyone but Cummings observing on behalf of the PM, there would be no controversy.

[AndrewJB]

The only statements alleging what Cummings was doing at these meetings are that he asked questions, and that he answered questions about Whitehall when asked.

What is actually wrong with that?

Is it that the scientists who are actually on the committee should not be influenced by government - to the extent that the government can't even ask questions and should not advise scientists of government plans even when asked? Is it that government should not even observe these meetings and should take only a summary of the conclusions without understanding the arguments behind them?

Or is it, as I suspect, that Cummings is unpopular and certain people disapprove of him being involve din anything, anywhere? If it had been anyone but Cummings observing on behalf of the PM, there would be no controversy.

The involvement of Cummings with SAGE could well explain the brief official policy of herd immunity. I never thought that an actual medical person, or scientific advisor would really advocate such a - well, to put it plainly, Eugenic idea. But if Cummings attended these meetings, and distilled the information provided into this as being a realistic alternative to the WHO advice of test and trace; then that would make sense. Coupled with his alleged remarks about willing to let a lot of elderly people die to achieve this. I know this is only conjecture on my part, but it fits.

We know the herd immunity policy - which lasted officially only for about a week - is a fact. It was the first massive mistake by the government in this crisis. So how did the government come to decide on this policy? They said they were following "the best scientific advice" - so which scientist(s) advocated it? Or was it discussed during a SAGE meeting, and Cummings pushed it to the PM?

[MalaysiaMo]

Surely this is all a big mistake and we're getting mixed up with a plot-line in the HBO series Chernobyl? You know - the plot line that has the Communist party apparatchiks "approving" scientific decisions that were made according to how the failed nuclear plant was designed, built and operated ... and then how the resultant disaster was responded to as it unfolded and subsequently? We all know how that all went.

Surely the UK Government would not make the same mistakes (despite being led by a Boris)? Although didn't Michael Gove say something disparaging about experts not that long ago?

I would hope that all media are all over this, otherwise the UK really has lost sight of what a free press actually is. Much like Communist Russia lost sight of the value of a free press - and look how that ended.

[Grumps]

The involvement of Cummings with SAGE could well explain the brief official policy of herd immunity. I never thought that an actual medical person, or scientific advisor would really advocate such a - well, to put it plainly, Eugenic idea. But if Cummings attended these meetings, and distilled the information provided into this as being a realistic alternative to the WHO advice of test and trace; then that would make sense. Coupled with his alleged remarks about willing to let a lot of elderly people die to achieve this. I know this is only conjecture on my part, but it fits.

We know the herd immunity policy - which lasted officially only for about a week - is a fact. It was the first massive mistake by the government in this crisis. So how did the government come to decide on this policy? They said they were following "the best scientific advice" - so which scientist(s) advocated it? Or was it discussed during a SAGE meeting, and Cummings pushed it to the PM?

Is that all just a guess?

[NottsClaret]

The involvement of Cummings with SAGE could well explain the brief official policy of herd immunity. I never thought that an actual medical person, or scientific advisor would really advocate such a - well, to put it plainly, Eugenic idea.

Don’t know about that.. Having said that, it hasn’t quite been the apocalypse some imagined.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52395866

[Spijed]

Don’t know about that.. Having said that, it hasn’t quite been the apocalypse some imagined.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52395866

Sweden has a population barely any larger than London but is at least twice the size of the UK yet has had far more deaths than any other Scandinavian country - over 2000.

Compare that with Germany and it's a disaster in comparison who have a population of over 80 million and have just over double the number of deaths.

[NottsClaret]

I’m not recommending it, just saying our short lived ‘herd immunity’ plan wasn’t unique.

Sweden do include all care home deaths in their figures too and haven’t overwhelmed their health service. And they won’t spend the next 12-18 months living in fear of a second spike.

Let’s have a bit of balance and a bit less hyperbole.

[Grumps]

It's not unusual for people to attend meetings, or parts of meetings if they have information useful for the meeting that others haven't. It happens all the time, but doesn't mean they have a vote in the meeting.
Local councils will invite certain police officers, or fire or ambulance staff etc if they are discussing holding a large event, so that they can be advised if certain things are possible, who needs to be present etc etc. But it doesn't lead to headlines.. Local police attend council meetings..... Then followed by a load of wrong assumptions in the article. Because its common sense to have people attend who can advise, or speed things along
Perhaps that's all that's happened here?

[AndrewJB]

It's not unusual for people to attend meetings, or parts of meetings if they have information useful for the meeting that others haven't. It happens all the time, but doesn't mean they have a vote in the meeting.
Local councils will invite certain police officers, or fire or ambulance staff etc if they are discussing holding a large event, so that they can be advised if certain things are possible, who needs to be present etc etc. But it doesn't lead to headlines.. Local police attend council meetings..... Then followed by a load of wrong assumptions in the article. Because its common sense to have people attend who can advise, or speed things along
Perhaps that's all that's happened here?

Was that all just a guess?

We know the government embarked upon herd immunity against the advice of the WHO, and many health professionals, and counter to the policies of nearly every other country. The herd immuniyy policy was a mistake that was stopped within a week of it being announced. It was based on scientific advice. These are facts we know. Now we just need to know who the scientists are that advocated the policy. If none did, why was it made a policy? If Cummings introduced the idea, having been exposed to it in a meeting with scientists, then he needs to get sacked, and whoever was responsible for hiring him needs to go too, and then the police should be called in to consider an investigation into whether what happened was criminal or not.

[NewClaret]

Was that all just a guess?

We know the government embarked upon herd immunity against the advice of the WHO, and many health professionals, and counter to the policies of nearly every other country. The herd immuniyy policy was a mistake that was stopped within a week of it being announced. It was based on scientific advice. These are facts we know. Now we just need to know who the scientists are that advocated the policy. If none did, why was it made a policy? If Cummings introduced the idea, having been exposed to it in a meeting with scientists, then he needs to get sacked, and whoever was responsible for hiring him needs to go too, and then the police should be called in to consider an investigation into whether what happened was criminal or not.

Where was it ever announced that herd immunity was government policy? I didn’t hear Boris say that? Did I miss something?

[Devils_Advocate]

It's not unusual for people to attend meetings, or parts of meetings if they have information useful for the meeting that others haven't. It happens all the time, but doesn't mean they have a vote in the meeting.
Local councils will invite certain police officers, or fire or ambulance staff etc if they are discussing holding a large event, so that they can be advised if certain things are possible, who needs to be present etc etc. But it doesn't lead to headlines.. Local police attend council meetings..... Then followed by a load of wrong assumptions in the article. Because its common sense to have people attend who can advise, or speed things along
Perhaps that's all that's happened here?

It is highly unusual and virtually unheard of for non independent field experts and especially political advisors to attend and have input in to Sage and meetings like it.

This is exactly why this story is big news and if true is a shocking indictment of this govts actions

[Grumps]

It is highly unusual and virtually unheard of for non independent field experts and especially political advisors to attend and have input in to Sage and meetings like it.

This is exactly why this story is big news and if true is a shocking indictment of this govts actions

Sage is a sub committee to cobr, so it wouldn't be unusual for cross attendance
Where does it say he had any input, I haven't read that.

[jrgbfc]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 23776.html

At present I'd say that the guardian is far from credible, just like most of the news outlets during this pandemic.

None of them inspire much confidence at doing their job.
The daily briefings are cringeworthy when it comes to questions from the journalists and several have made themselves look really stupid.

I'd be more inclined to believe the Guardian, than a statement from the Tories trying to cover their own arses.

[Grumps]

Was that all just a guess?

We know the government embarked upon herd immunity against the advice of the WHO, and many health professionals, and counter to the policies of nearly every other country. The herd immuniyy policy was a mistake that was stopped within a week of it being announced. It was based on scientific advice. These are facts we know. Now we just need to know who the scientists are that advocated the policy. If none did, why was it made a policy? If Cummings introduced the idea, having been exposed to it in a meeting with scientists, then he needs to get sacked, and whoever was responsible for hiring him needs to go too, and then the police should be called in to consider an investigation into whether what happened was criminal or not.

No not all a guess at all, personal knowledge.

[Devils_Advocate]

Sage is a sub committee to cobr, so it wouldn't be unusual for cross attendance
Where does it say he had any input, I haven't read that.

Not sure if youve bothered to read the article so a few key points to counter your objections

On the issue of political advisers being part of Sage meetings

The government’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King said he was “shocked” to discover there were political advisers on Sage. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias,” he said. “That is just so critically important.”

King said political advisers were never on the equivalent committees of Sage when he chaired them and argued that Cummings, who is not a scientist, could report his own interpretation of Sage advice back to the prime minister.

Other former members of Sage also said they could not recall political appointees being on previous committees. David Lidington, a former Cabinet Office minister and de facto deputy to Theresa May when she was prime minister, said: “I’m not aware of any minister or special adviser, certainly not in Theresa May’s time, ever having been involved in the scientific advisory panels.”

On whether Cummings and Warner had any input

Sage participants told the Guardian the Downing Street advisers were not merely observing the advisory meetings, but actively participating in discussions about the formation of advice.

On the govts cloak and dagger approach to Sage

Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining public trust in the government’s response to Covid-19.

Remember though, that although this might be a Gaurdian story it is based on information provided by highly respected members of the Sage group who are all politically independent

[AndrewJB]

Where was it ever announced that herd immunity was government policy? I didn’t hear Boris say that? Did I miss something?

For those with weak or very selective memories:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/bri ... rt-peston/

https://fortune.com/2020/04/06/uk-boris ... -immunity/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/br ... -it-alone/

[NewClaret]

For those with weak or very selective memories:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/bri ... rt-peston/

Where does a government minister announce here immunity as a policy Andrew?

Is Robert Peston a government minister?

[Paul Waine]

It is highly unusual and virtually unheard of for non independent field experts and especially political advisors to attend and have input in to Sage and meetings like it.

This is exactly why this story is big news and if true is a shocking indictment of this govts actions

Good morning DA, what is your evidence for "it is highly unusual and virtually unheard of....?"

Given that SAGE is advising government I'd expect and want the govt political advisors to be aware of and understand SAGE's advice. Isn't that really the way things should get done.

As I posted yesterday, let's look at the actions that are taken and judge things on the basis of outcomes.

I recommend we all focus on sorting this covid-19 pandemic rather than all the political nonsense that appears still to be "fighting a different war."

It says it all for me that Guardian is appealing for "whistle-blowers." Isn't that how covid-19 is spread, in the droplets exhaled as hot air is blown around.

[Devils_Advocate]

Good morning DA, what is your evidence for "it is highly unusual and virtually unheard of....?"

Given that SAGE is advising government I'd expect and want the govt political advisors to be aware of and understand SAGE's advice. Isn't that really the way things should get done.

As I posted yesterday, let's look at the actions that are taken and judge things on the basis of outcomes.

I recommend we all focus on sorting this covid-19 pandemic rather than all the political nonsense that appears still to be "fighting a different war."

It says it all for me that Guardian is appealing for "whistle-blowers." Isn't that how covid-19 is spread, in the droplets exhaled as hot air is blown around.

Hi Paul, I've covered all that on my next post.

[NewClaret]

Where does a government minister announce herd immunity as a policy Andrew?

Is Robert Peston a government minister?

[Burnley Ace]

This impeccable group of experts then speak out at their concern for two govt political advisers attending and influencing the Sage meetings and suddenly these experts become untrustworthy.

Which expert has spoken out? Which expert has stated that they were so cowed by the presence of Cummings that they changed their advice or what they were going to say. The PMs advisor is sitting in on a meeting and asks questions for clarification - good!

Labour supporters trying to make political capital out of this want us all to believe that SAGE are so weak willed, so concerned about their careers, that they will just say anything that they are told to. Perhaps it’s more a reflection of how the Labour Party and it’s supporters operate.

[NewClaret]

For those with weak or very selective memories:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/bri ... rt-peston/

https://fortune.com/2020/04/06/uk-boris ... -immunity/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/br ... -it-alone/

Read all links. Don’t see a single quote from a government source announcing herd immunity as its strategy.

I think you could argue they were slower to implement some measures. I don’t think that was herd immunity - I think it was about allowing public opinion to develop in favour of the policies before they were announced, or giving UK businesses vital time to see where things were heading and to adapt. Mine, for instance, ordered, received and configured 100’s of laptops and had all staff working from home before lockdown. Arguably important.

And I’m sure you would agree that putting the army on the streets, as I might’ve done, And other European countries did according to these articles, would’ve upset many lefties.

Simple point: there’s no evidence herd immunity was a government policy.

[Devils_Advocate]

Which expert has spoken out? Which expert has stated that they were so cowed by the presence of Cummings that they changed their advice or what they were going to say. The PMs advisor is sitting in on a meeting and asks questions for clarification - good!

Labour supporters trying to make political capital out of this want us all to believe that SAGE are so weak willed, so concerned about their careers, that they will just say anything that they are told to. Perhaps it’s more a reflection of how the Labour Party and it’s supporters operate.

Numerous members of the current Sage group have raised their concerns. The Gaurdian will protect the identity but they would have to go on record to the Gaurdian for them to run the story else they could risk getting sued for libel

The issue about why political advisers should not be close to these meeting has been backed up by the govts former chief scientific adviser (Sir David King) other former Sage members and former Tory Cabinet Office Minister David Liddington

This has nothing to do with the Labour party as it is clearly about the people wanting to hold its govt to account. To be honest if anything stinks of political bias its the desperate attempt to defend anything the govt does from people like yourself

[Grumps]

Not sure if youve bothered to read the article so a few key points to counter your objections

On the issue of political advisers being part of Sage meetings

The government’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King said he was “shocked” to discover there were political advisers on Sage. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias,” he said. “That is just so critically important.”

King said political advisers were never on the equivalent committees of Sage when he chaired them and argued that Cummings, who is not a scientist, could report his own interpretation of Sage advice back to the prime minister.

Other former members of Sage also said they could not recall political appointees being on previous committees. David Lidington, a former Cabinet Office minister and de facto deputy to Theresa May when she was prime minister, said: “I’m not aware of any minister or special adviser, certainly not in Theresa May’s time, ever having been involved in the scientific advisory panels.”

On whether Cummings and Warner had any input

Sage participants told the Guardian the Downing Street advisers were not merely observing the advisory meetings, but actively participating in discussions about the formation of advice.

On the govts cloak and dagger approach to Sage

Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining public trust in the government’s response to Covid-19.

Remember though, that although this might be a Gaurdian story it is based on information provided by highly respected members of the Sage group who are all politically independent

So one person, who can seemingly only talk about Mrs May's time in charge is the font of all knowledge?
Maybe it is unusual, but these are unusual times
Like others have said, if these leading scientists and experts were swayed by the views of a government advisor, perhaps they shouldn't be on the committee
But, there is no evidence that he had any influence in the decisions that were made. Unless, as they say, you know different?

[NewClaret]

Not sure if youve bothered to read the article so a few key points to counter your objections

On the issue of political advisers being part of Sage meetings

The government’s former chief scientific adviser Sir David King said he was “shocked” to discover there were political advisers on Sage. “If you are giving science advice, your advice should be free of any political bias,” he said. “That is just so critically important.”

King said political advisers were never on the equivalent committees of Sage when he chaired them and argued that Cummings, who is not a scientist, could report his own interpretation of Sage advice back to the prime minister.

Other former members of Sage also said they could not recall political appointees being on previous committees. David Lidington, a former Cabinet Office minister and de facto deputy to Theresa May when she was prime minister, said: “I’m not aware of any minister or special adviser, certainly not in Theresa May’s time, ever having been involved in the scientific advisory panels.”

On whether Cummings and Warner had any input

Sage participants told the Guardian the Downing Street advisers were not merely observing the advisory meetings, but actively participating in discussions about the formation of advice.

On the govts cloak and dagger approach to Sage

Several members on Sage, as well as scientists on its advisory subcommittees, are known to be frustrated at what they view as a culture of secrecy that risks straining public trust in the government’s response to Covid-19.

Remember though, that although this might be a Gaurdian story it is based on information provided by highly respected members of the Sage group who are all politically independent

It’s clear people don’t like Cummings. Probably of all political persuasions. I’ve met his type before in my life and disliked them immensely.

Despite his personality flaws, and social inadequacies, I’ll bet he is immensely intelligent and a lateral thinker... which is most likely why the PM trusts him and seeks his opinion. I think you’ll find he more often pulls rank on his ideas than the press would have you believe.

Personally, though, I feel reassured at his presence and engagement at these meetings. It is important to have bright people in government, you know, whether others like them or not.

As for political advisors being present at a meeting of scientists during a global pandemic - - we’d have a lot more to complain about if they weren’t!

[AndrewJB]

Where does a government minister announce here immunity as a policy Andrew?

Is Robert Peston a government minister?

I provided two other links that described it as the strategy of the government. Here’s a Daily Mail link in which a leading scientist describes herd immunity as the governments strategy:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ntist.html

Watching the Tory supporters go into damage limitation mode together on here, I wonder whether you’re on the payroll. I’ve heard it said the government - since Cameron - has had thousands of “opinion forming” keyboard warriors whose job it is to support the government on various social media platforms. Just like the huge increase in the number of SPADs - this is a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy culture they perpetuate in government.

[AndrewJB]

It’s clear people don’t like Cummings. Probably of all political persuasions. I’ve met his type before in my life and disliked them immensely.

Despite his personality flaws, and social inadequacies, I’ll bet he is immensely intelligent and a lateral thinker... which is most likely why the PM trusts him and seeks his opinion. I think you’ll find he more often pulls rank on his ideas than the press would have you believe.

Personally, though, I feel reassured at his presence and engagement at these meetings. It is important to have bright people in government, you know, whether others like them or not.

As for political advisors being present at a meeting of scientists during a global pandemic - - we’d have a lot more to complain about if they weren’t!

If Johnson puts his trust in Cummings, and Cummings is not a civil servant, then if Cummings is found to have done anything wrong, the responsibility rests with Johnson. I’m happy with that.

[MalaysiaMo]

"if these leading scientists and experts were swayed by the views of a government advisor, perhaps they shouldn't be on the committee"

For a start, the scientists are the experts here - there is no "scientists AND experts". It is not that scientists - the experts - would have been swayed it is that their message would have been interfered with, by the political advisors participating in the meeting. And why would political advisors give up their time to attend meetings of scientists during a national crisis if they did not have an agenda to push at those meetings? Or do government officials have nothing better to do than attend meetings that they make no contribution to?

If anyone doubts the dangers of politics distorting science, please watch the HBO series on Chernobyl ....

This is massive - not least because of the thousands of lives that are being lost. Possibly even more than Chernobyl.

[Devils_Advocate]

Let me tell you a story about the Govts slow official reaction to start social distancing and lockdown

In March whilst other countrys were locking down (see St Patricks day Ireland) Johnson was on This Morning talking about taking it on the chin and events like Cheltenham, Champions League football at Anfield and large scale concerts like the Stereophonics in Cardiff were allowed to go ahead

As the volumes then spiked critics of the govt attacked them for this slow response

The defense of the govt from the people was that the govt solely acted on the independent scientific advice from Sage and had any other party or Prime Minister been in charge they would have got the exact same advice to act on

A month later it turns out in the period running up to Johnsons appearance on This Morning and the decision to allow the aforementioned events go ahead that two political advisers including one of the most influential persons around govt policy were attending and influencing these meetngs.

The defense of the govt from the people is of course you would want your political advisers there taking part in crucial decisions. Yes these are the people that less than a month ago were telling us how the govts decisions were all taken 100% on independent scientific advice free from political influence which would have been the same regardless.

Now if you cannot see you own hypocrisy in that chain of events then you are not worth talking to but I hope the more balanced and reasonable posters can see the rewriting of events and see the importance of this current news story

I shared the story and I am happy to wait to see what more comes out as it may well turn out to be overblown and happy to discuss that sensibly with people as good new info emerges.

What I will argue against now is those who are trying to twist it so that whether it is true or not it is a non story because that is veering dangerously toward the realm of Trump politics.

[jrgbfc]

Thing with all the lies and secrecy at the heart of the government is that it makes it very hard for the public to trust and take you seriously when you tell them they have to obey the lockdown and put their lives on hold, which is why the lockdown is starting to crumble.

[NewClaret]

If Johnson puts his trust in Cummings, and Cummings is not a civil servant, then if Cummings is found to have done anything wrong, the responsibility rests with Johnson. I’m happy with that.

Agreed. No arguments there.

[Grumps]

Let me tell you a story about the Govts slow official reaction to start social distancing and lockdown

In March whilst other countrys were locking down (see St Patricks day Ireland) Johnson was on This Morning talking about taking it on the chin and events like Cheltenham, Champions League football at Anfield and large scale concerts like the Stereophonics in Cardiff were allowed to go ahead

As the volumes then spiked critics of the govt attacked them for this slow response

The defense of the govt from the people was that the govt solely acted on the independent scientific advice from Sage and had any other party or Prime Minister been in charge they would have got the exact same advice to act on

A month later it turns out in the period running up to Johnsons appearance on This Morning and the decision to allow the aforementioned events go ahead that two political advisers including one of the most influential persons around govt policy were attending and influencing these meetngs.

The defense of the govt from the people is of course you would want your political advisers there taking part in crucial decisions. Yes these are the people that less than a month ago were telling us how the govts decisions were all taken 100% on independent scientific advice free from political influence which would have been the same regardless.

Now if you cannot see you own hypocrisy in that chain of events then you are not worth talking to but I hope the more balanced and reasonable posters can see the rewriting of events and see the importance of this current news story

I shared the story and I am happy to wait to see what more comes out as it may well turn out to be overblown and happy to discuss that sensibly with people as good new info emerges.

What I will argue against now is those who are trying to twist it so that whether it is true or not it is a non story because that is veering dangerously toward the realm of Trump politics.

Iam not sure who your insults are aimed at, or whether iam worth talking to, but you talk about our slow lockdown in relation to other countries... Which ones? Spain were about a week before us, yet they were allegedly further into the crisis than we were when they locked down, and had holiday resorts full of people from various countries all mixing together. On the 13th March planes filled with passengers were still landing in Spain ready to be transported to their hotels. Is that any different to us?

[NewClaret]

Thing with all the lies and secrecy at the heart of the government is that it makes it very hard for the public to trust and take you seriously when you tell them they have to obey the lockdown and put their lives on hold, which is why the lockdown is starting to crumble.

You can find secrecy, if you want to, and I’m sure there are many things discussed that they don’t disclose (rightly so, as part of a well-functioning Government). Or you can trust that what they are saying in the daily briefings is the truth. It’s a people’s choice.

What I would not do is release the exit plan early when there are still 100’s of deaths being announced a day.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The whole point of advisors is that they are both trusted and also cleverer than the politicians they advise.

Two reasons why Cummings HAS to be in the room, I’ve been laughing out loud at some of the halfwit journalists making a fuss over it. It’s commonplace for advisors to sit on SAGE and brief the PM subsequently (who rightly doesn’t always sit on it). Advisors can also be empowered to instruct other people to do things, as long as they don’t make critical decisions them self.

[Devils_Advocate]

Iam not sure who your insults are aimed at, or whether iam worth talking to, but you talk about our slow lockdown in relation to other countries... Which ones? Spain were about a week before us, yet they were allegedly further into the crisis than we were when they locked down, and had holiday resorts full of people from various countries all mixing together. On the 13th March planes filled with passengers were still landing in Spain ready to be transported to their hotels. Is that any different to us?

Youve completely missed the point. I am not questioning the decisions on lockdown but just how the role of the Sage group has been rewritten in the space of a month to suit the defense of govt actions

[NewClaret]

I provided two other links that described it as the strategy of the government. Here’s a Daily Mail link in which a leading scientist describes herd immunity as the governments strategy:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ntist.html

Watching the Tory supporters go into damage limitation mode together on here, I wonder whether you’re on the payroll. I’ve heard it said the government - since Cameron - has had thousands of “opinion forming” keyboard warriors whose job it is to support the government on various social media platforms. Just like the huge increase in the number of SPADs - this is a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy culture they perpetuate in government.

Mate, are you being serious? That article quotes a “leading expert” from Edinburgh University. Nobody involved in government or the decision making. It’s opinion.

Just give me one article that quotes an official government source that herd immunity was a government strategy & I’ll believe you. Otherwise, you’re just posting commentary - which, you’ll know as a “critical thinker” yourself - could be swayed by political bias. If you can’t, just admit it was never government policy, but it’s your opinion it was government policy. Then we’ll be good.

As for me being a paid Tory “opinion former”... If you can’t engage in debate without bowling out some conspiracy theories, it somewhat undermines your argument.

while we’re on opinion forming, mine is that herd immunity was likely discussed extensively as a strategy, as it should be, alongside all options. Then dismissed. Whether it was right to dismiss it is another question.

Sweden seem to be doing okay, albeit a very different country to ours. My view is that there will come a time where we have to balance lives with livelihoods. For instance, yesterday I was talking to a hairdresser who was genuinely concerned about putting food on the table. This virus won’t go away and we are unlikely to get a vaccine anytime soon. By the time we do, it may have mutated to multiple strains for which vaccines don’t exist. In the end, herd immunity may be the only policy that offers a solution. In that scenario, would you criticise the government for dismissing it so soon?

Oh, and by the way, is the Mail a right wing or left wing paper?

[Devils_Advocate]

The whole point of advisors is that they are both trusted and also cleverer than the politicians they advise.

Two reasons why Cummings HAS to be in the room, I’ve been laughing out loud at some of the halfwit journalists making a fuss over it. It’s commonplace for advisors to sit on SAGE and brief the PM subsequently (who rightly doesn’t always sit on it). Advisors can also be empowered to instruct other people to do things, as long as they don’t make critical decisions them self.

Have you any evidence of a political adviser under any other govt sitting on a sage or other scientific advisory board?

Several people including a former Tory cabinet minister and a knighted former chief scientific adviser have said they are not aware of this ever happening before

[NewClaret]

Have you any evidence of a political adviser under any other govt sitting on a sage or other scientific advisory board?

Several people including a former Tory cabinet minister and a knighted former chief scientific adviser have said they are not aware of this ever happening before

Personally don’t care about historic protocol in these unprecedented times. Nor do I think the vast majority of the general public would do either!

Cannot believe we are having a debate about a political advisor attending a meeting of a committee of scientists at this time of crisis God, we must be bored.

[Burnley Ace]

I provided two other links that described it as the strategy of the government. Here’s a Daily Mail link in which a leading scientist describes herd immunity as the governments strategy:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ntist.html

Watching the Tory supporters go into damage limitation mode together on here, I wonder whether you’re on the payroll. I’ve heard it said the government - since Cameron - has had thousands of “opinion forming” keyboard warriors whose job it is to support the government on various social media platforms. Just like the huge increase in the number of SPADs - this is a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy culture they perpetuate in government.

There is no need for damage limitation! It’s pathetic- We are all on the payroll because the Tories are so worried about people on up the clarets that they are paying us to defend them. It’s the opposition party strategy to constantly undermine and to keep repeating what they think are key points to reinforce their message - how much are you being paid?

[NewClaret]

There is no need for damage limitation! It’s pathetic- We are all on the payroll because the Tories are so worried about people on up the clarets that they are paying us to defend them. It’s the opposition party strategy to constantly undermine and to keep repeating what they think are key points to reinforce their message - how much are you being paid?

[tiger76]

If Johnson puts his trust in Cummings, and Cummings is not a civil servant, then if Cummings is found to have done anything wrong, the responsibility rests with Johnson. I’m happy with that.

That's fair enough,ultimately the buck stops with the PM,and in the UK system also the cabinet,if your not happy with their performance then you'll get your chance to remove them from office at the next election,FWIW i don't think Cummings will be around by then anyway,he'll have moved on to some other projects i suspect.

[upanatem]

For those with weak or very selective memories:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/bri ... rt-peston/

https://fortune.com/2020/04/06/uk-boris ... -immunity/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/br ... -it-alone/

Herd immunity was never government policy. There was an objective scientific discussion around the subject, and it was even raised in the daily Coronavirus briefings. I saw a TV interview of Matt Hancock – and I cannot provide a link – where he was asked about the policy of herd immunity, and he clearly stated that it was NEVER government policy. The subject had been aired in the media so much that people assumed erroneously that it must be government policy.

[NewClaret]

Herd immunity was never government policy. There was an objective scientific discussion around the subject, and it was even raised in the daily Coronavirus briefings. I saw a TV interview of Matt Hancock – and I cannot provide a link – where he was asked about the policy of herd immunity, and he clearly stated that it was NEVER government policy. The subject had been aired in the media so much that people assumed erroneously that it must be government policy.

Suspected as much. Didn’t hear Hancock say that but thanks for clarifying.

But then who’s believe a Government source over some media commentary?

[Burnley Ace]

FYI if there is ever a quote from a leading authority from Edinburgh it will be that Labour supporting, remainer, rent-a-quote Karol Sikora, whose speciality is cancer not a virologist. The irony, when all these Labour are spellbound by his every utterance, is that he is really critical of the NHS, runs a private medical company but that can be overlooked for the moment.

[AndrewJB]

Mate, are you being serious? That article quotes a “leading expert” from Edinburgh University. Nobody involved in government or the decision making. It’s opinion.

Just give me one article that quotes an official government source that herd immunity was a government strategy & I’ll believe you. Otherwise, you’re just posting commentary - which, you’ll know as a “critical thinker” yourself - could be swayed by political bias. If you can’t, just admit it was never government policy, but it’s your opinion it was government policy. Then we’ll be good.

As for me being a paid Tory “opinion former”... If you can’t engage in debate without bowling out some conspiracy theories, it somewhat undermines your argument.

while we’re on opinion forming, mine is that herd immunity was likely discussed extensively as a strategy, as it should be, alongside all options. Then dismissed. Whether it was right to dismiss it is another question.

Sweden seem to be doing okay, albeit a very different country to ours. My view is that there will come a time where we have to balance lives with livelihoods. For instance, yesterday I was talking to a hairdresser who was genuinely concerned about putting food on the table. This virus won’t go away and we are unlikely to get a vaccine anytime soon. By the time we do, it may have mutated to multiple strains for which vaccines don’t exist. In the end, herd immunity may be the only policy that offers a solution. In that scenario, would you criticise the government for dismissing it so soon?

Oh, and by the way, is the Mail a right wing or left wing paper?

Everyone in the media were saying the government had changed policy from contact trace to herd immunity. Peston wouldn't have reported what he did unless someone in government told him it. Columns were written about it, both for and against. Vallance stated it as "a key thing we need to do" - at the same time as testing and contact trace ceased to be important - and the government didn't deny this, which for a government almost paranoid about messaging stretches credulity. It wasn't until two days later, after a report became public that set out how many people we could expect to lose, and how overloaded the NHS could become, that Hancock claimed herd immunity was not a policy.

Why then did they abandon test and contact trace if herd immunity wasn't being followed?

Why did the government allow so many news sources to report that herd immunity was a goal?

Why did they allow the Chief Scientific Officer to state that herd immunity was an aim?

Why is even the right wing press describing it as a U-turn?

Does the government have a track record of lying to us - yes.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12554 ... Government

https://www.vox.com/world/2020/3/15/211 ... ce-johnson

[aggi]

Interesting Guardian link, DA.

This bit is particularly interesting to read:

Covid-19: help us investigate
The Guardian is investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic. We want to learn more about recent decisions taken at the heart of government. If you’re a whistleblower or source and with new information, you can email covid19.investigations@theguardian.com, or (using a non-work phone) use Signal or WhatsApp to message (UK) +44 7584 640566. (The number does not take calls.) For the most secure communications, use SecureDrop. For general advice on confidentially contacting the Guardian, see our guide.

Just wondering why you found this bit particularly interesting? It's been at the end of guardian articles for years.

[Grumps]

"if these leading scientists and experts were swayed by the views of a government advisor, perhaps they shouldn't be on the committee"

For a start, the scientists are the experts here - there is no "scientists AND experts". It is not that scientists - the experts - would have been swayed it is that their message would have been interfered with, by the political advisors participating in the meeting. And why would political advisors give up their time to attend meetings of scientists during a national crisis if they did not have an agenda to push at those meetings? Or do government officials have nothing better to do than attend meetings that they make no contribution to?

If anyone doubts the dangers of politics distorting science, please watch the HBO series on Chernobyl ....

This is massive - not least because of the thousands of lives that are being lost. Possibly even more than Chernobyl.

Perhaps you should tell Mr Powis your thoughts, as he attends Sage, and his own words it comprises of scientists and other experts.

He also states Sage is there to advise the government, so perfectly sensible to have someone who advises the government present.

Also, I wouldnt base anything on a TV drama

[Paul Waine]

Just wondering why you found this bit particularly interesting? It's been at the end of guardian articles for years.

Really, aggi, the Guardian says "Covid-19: help us investigate." Has the Guardian been "investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic" for years?

Remarkable prescient of the Guardian. Pity their journos didn't tell anyone a coronavirus pandemic was coming.

[jrgbfc]

For all we know the "scientists" could be a hand picked group of yes men. It also doesn't exactly empower people to speak their mind when they know someone with the power of Cummings has got his beady eye on them.