Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[aggi]

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.

Well obviously not Covid 19 but whatever was the main news story at that time (although I suspect you were aware that's what I meant).

[NewClaret]

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

So you’re saying the government took a strategy for two days. 48 whole hours. Then changed their mind because of a leaked report?

This gets better and better.

It was never an official government policy. That is a fact. Your opinion is that it was a policy but never became official, because you don’t trust the government. Mine is that it never was, because I do.

Whoever is right, it is fact that it wasn’t policy for very long, thus will prove to be irrelevant in the history of this crisis.

[Paul Waine]

Well obviously not Covid 19 but whatever was the main news story at that time (although I suspect you were aware that's what I meant).

I don't know about you, aggi, but, it concerns me that a national news media wants to set itself out as "investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic." I'd feel a little better if the Guardian was asking "how can we help the nation at this time of pandemic."

Each to their own, I suppose.

Stay safe.

[Greenmile]

I don't know about you, aggi, but, it concerns me that a national news media wants to set itself out as "investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic." I'd feel a little better if the Guardian was asking "how can we help the nation at this time of pandemic."

Each to their own, I suppose.

Stay safe.

They can, and indeed do, do both.

Are you really saying that the national media should not be investigating the actions of the govt or holding them to account at all, at this time?

[Bordeauxclaret]

This desperation not to hold people to account is getting increasingly bizarre.
I’ve no doubt it’ll continue either.

[TVC15]

I don't know about you, aggi, but, it concerns me that a national news media wants to set itself out as "investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic." I'd feel a little better if the Guardian was asking "how can we help the nation at this time of pandemic."

Each to their own, I suppose.

Stay safe.

That’s not how our media has ever worked.
Whatever the issue they will be one day rousing the troops and headlining this great nation of ours etc but the next day (especially if they get an exclusive) they will not think twice about crucifying an individual.

That will never change - and whilst I don’t agree with a lot of things the media do challenging / scrutinising the government is one thing they should continue to do - whoever is in power.

[keith1879]

So you’re saying the government took a strategy for two days. 48 whole hours. Then changed their mind because of a leaked report?

This gets better and better.

It was never an official government policy. That is a fact. Your opinion is that it was a policy but never became official, because you don’t trust the government. Mine is that it never was, because I do.

Whoever is right, it is fact that it wasn’t policy for very long, thus will prove to be irrelevant in the history of this crisis.

If anyone is interested the news conference from Matrch 12th can be seen here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... s-pandemic

Sir Patrick Vallance starts speaking at around the 50th minute of the clip and quite clearly says (at about 51:30) that it is not desirable to prevent everyone getting the virus because we need some herd immunity. I recommend listening to all of what he says in the lead-up to gain the context. Taken as a whole the three speakers do not create the impression of an attempt to reduce the number of cases but rather to change the spread so that it takes longer for the same number of people to be ill. They have changed their tune by March 16th....unless you can show that herd immunity has been publically embraced by any government spokesman since then it will be difficult to support your view that the policy has not changed. As for your statement that "It was never an official government policy. That is a fact. " ....assuming that you mean herd imunity by "It" then you have to agree that Patrick Vallance was massively off message on March 12th for your statement to be true (which by the way - it isn't)..

[martin_p]

So you’re saying the government took a strategy for two days. 48 whole hours. Then changed their mind because of a leaked report?

This gets better and better.

It was never an official government policy. That is a fact. Your opinion is that it was a policy but never became official, because you don’t trust the government. Mine is that it never was, because I do.

Whoever is right, it is fact that it wasn’t policy for very long, thus will prove to be irrelevant in the history of this crisis.

Go back to 12th March on the COVID thread and look at the ‘the Tories can do no wrong’ crew defending herd immunity. Even if it wasn’t official government strategy it’s certainly the direction they let the whole country think they were taking.

[RingoMcCartney]

WHAT DO WE WANT?

"NAVEL-GAZING!"

WHEN DO WE WANT IT?

"SLAP BANG IN THE MIDDLE AN UNPRECEDENTED GLOBAL PANDEMIC. YOU DAILY MAIL READING, XENOPHOBIC, JINGOISTIC, BREXITEER , RIGHT WING, OR SUMMAT, BUT, ANNOYINGLY , ALWAYS ON THE WINNING SIDE OF VOTES THAT MATTER , AND I DETEST YOU FOR THAT, AND WANT TO SILENCE YOU , AND WISH I COULD BE LIKE YOU. YOU PERPETUAL WINNER OF STUFF, THING, YOU"

[NewClaret]

Go back to 12th March on the COVID thread and look at the ‘the Tories can do no wrong’ crew defending herd immunity. Even if it wasn’t official government strategy it’s certainly the direction they let the whole country think they were taking.

No thanks. Can’t bare that thread. Or this one, really.

I didn’t get the impression they were adopting a strategy of herd immunity. And I watched the briefings closely then (don’t bother now).

You may have done, but I didn’t. And I doubt that the man on the street has even heard the term. I see/hear/read it discussed nowhere but here.

Even if if they did, or it was a strategy, it was a few days. Don’t see why everyone is getting so excited about it.

[RingoMcCartney]

The UTC messageboard keyboard Prime Ministers-

Its just like the medical advisers weren't actually giving the government mixed messages at the beginning of this unprecedented global pandemic. And have admitted so.

Otherwise you could forgive a change in direction of the government's approach to the crisis.

[martin_p]

The UTC messageboard keyboard Prime Ministers-

Its just like the medical advisers weren't actually giving the government mixed messages at the beginning of this unprecedented global pandemic. And have admitted so.

Where?

[aggi]

I don't know about you, aggi, but, it concerns me that a national news media wants to set itself out as "investigating how the UK government prepared for – and is responding to – the coronavirus pandemic." I'd feel a little better if the Guardian was asking "how can we help the nation at this time of pandemic."

Each to their own, I suppose.

Stay safe.

I guess we have a different view on that. Personally I'd say that at a time of a pandemic where thousands are dying it's important that the government realises it will be scrutinised and it can't just assume that the people will swallow whatever story they give them. I also wouldn't necessarily be of the view that such investigations aren't also helping the nation.

[NewClaret]

If anyone is interested the news conference from Matrch 12th can be seen here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... s-pandemic

Sir Patrick Vallance starts speaking at around the 50th minute of the clip and quite clearly says (at about 51:30) that it is not desirable to prevent everyone getting the virus because we need some herd immunity. I recommend listening to all of what he says in the lead-up to gain the context. Taken as a whole the three speakers do not create the impression of an attempt to reduce the number of cases but rather to change the spread so that it takes longer for the same number of people to be ill. They have changed their tune by March 16th....unless you can show that herd immunity has been publically embraced by any government spokesman since then it will be difficult to support your view that the policy has not changed. As for your statement that "It was never an official government policy. That is a fact. " ....assuming that you mean herd imunity by "It" then you have to agree that Patrick Vallance was massively off message on March 12th for your statement to be true (which by the way - it isn't)..

Listened. He says there are two key priorities: 1. to flatten the infection curve so the NHS can cope (the opposite to allowing the virus spread to build immunity ). And 2. to protect the most vulnerable throughout the peak of the infection curve. Basically, common sense.

He does go on to say say building a level of immunity to the virus is important, NOT that herd immunity (which is quite different) is his advice, or the government’s strategy. And, as stated, Matt Hancock categorically denied it was the strategy when asked a few days later.

If you want to believe it was in those few days in between, fine, but fact remains no government minister announced a herd immunity policy.

[RingoMcCartney]

Where?

Days That Changed Britain: "Heated" Debate Between Scientists Forced Boris Johnson To Act On Coronavirus


https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/10 ... s-approach


There was no consensus. Several of the scientists frantically argued that the UK must immediately introduce social distancing to halt the spread of the virus. Some pleaded with the government to change tack or face dire consequences.

But others continued to believe that introducing social distancing now would be unsustainable for a long period and would lead to a more disastrous second wave of infection.

The days-long debate between the experts themselves and with the government was “heated” and “extremely difficult”, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told BuzzFeed News. Vallance admitted as much at a health select committee hearing this week: “If you think SAGE is a cosy consensus of agreeing, you're very wrong indeed”.

The extent of the disagreement between the nation’s top scientists and the government can be revealed at the end of one of the most extraordinary weeks in modern British history.

[ksrclaret]

The extent of the disagreement between the nation’s top scientists and the government can be revealed at the end of one of the most extraordinary weeks in modern British history.

The article points to an argument between the scientists and the government. Not between scientists themselves deciding on what to tell the government.

To put it plainly, the scientists thought one thing. The government thought another thing. That's why the messaging was inconsistent.

[Bordeauxclaret]

The best bit about all this is that clearly the leading scientists know which way the wind is blowing.
They know full well people are looking to put the blame their way which is why more of them are making clear that they just report the facts and it’s the government who makes the call.

[RingoMcCartney]

The article points to an argument between the scientists and the government. Not between scientists themselves deciding on what to tell the government.

To put it plainly, the scientists thought one thing. The government thought another thing. That's why the messaging was inconsistent.

ksr claret- Keep Spouting "Racism" Claret.

[ksrclaret]

ksr claret- Keep Spouting "Racism" Claret.

If you're still smarting about your racist post being removed I suggest you take it up with the mods x

[chadders]

Ah, Ringo man, we're well over 20k dead. We knew this, or something like, was coming in 2011, 2016 and last year. Dec 2019. Raab couldn't 'remember' if he'd read the 2016 report 'excercise' as he'd read a lot recently. Pretty pertinant. Polish it any way you like but people are dying through lack of early action and lack of ppe and there's some ways to go yet. Other countries ahead of us. WHO called it. Boris wanted to be Clarke Kent/Supernan back in Feb. Didn't want to stop liverpool game, Cheltenham or the schools but now social distancing is extended. Which scientists are we listening to? Scientists advise. Politicians call it. I really don't care which party is in power as long as they get it right. We had plenty of warning.

[RingoMcCartney]

If you're still smarting about your racist post being removed I suggest you take it up with the mods x

If you still believe that the Chinese communist party is not actually a brutal murderous tyrannical regime. I I suggest you take it up with the rest of the world!

Mwoah

[RingoMcCartney]

Ah, Ringo man, we're well over 20k dead. We knew this, or something like, was coming in 2011, 2016 and last year. Dec 2019. Raab couldn't 'remember' if he'd read the 2016 report 'excercise' as he'd read a lot recently. Pretty pertinant. Polish it any way you like but people are dying through lack of early action and lack of ppe and there's some ways to go yet. Other countries ahead of us. WHO called it. Boris wanted to be Clarke Kent/Supernan back in Feb. Didn't want to stop liverpool game, Cheltenham or the schools but now social distancing is extended. Which scientists are we listening to? Scientists advise. Politicians call it. I really don't care which party is in power as long as they get it right. We had plenty of warning.

Noise. see you at the ballot box .

[ksrclaret]

If you still believe that the Chinese communist party is not actually a brutal murderous tyrannical regime. I I suggest you take it up with the rest of the world!

Mwoah

Oh yeah I'm always smarting about that me, all the time mate. That one hit me hard

[martin_p]

Days That Changed Britain: "Heated" Debate Between Scientists Forced Boris Johnson To Act On Coronavirus


https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/10 ... s-approach


There was no consensus. Several of the scientists frantically argued that the UK must immediately introduce social distancing to halt the spread of the virus. Some pleaded with the government to change tack or face dire consequences.

But others continued to believe that introducing social distancing now would be unsustainable for a long period and would lead to a more disastrous second wave of infection.

The days-long debate between the experts themselves and with the government was “heated” and “extremely difficult”, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told BuzzFeed News. Vallance admitted as much at a health select committee hearing this week: “If you think SAGE is a cosy consensus of agreeing, you're very wrong indeed”.

The extent of the disagreement between the nation’s top scientists and the government can be revealed at the end of one of the most extraordinary weeks in modern British history.

And now we know that the government was represented on the ‘independent’ panel and who it was it all makes perfect sense. Eventually, after the government strategy of holding off on a lockdown was shown as likely to be leading to more deaths than necessary the scientists finally got their way.

[RingoMcCartney]

And now we know that the government was represented on the ‘independent’ panel and who it was it all makes perfect sense. Eventually, after the government strategy of holding off on a lockdown was shown as likely to be leading to more deaths than necessary the scientists finally got their way.

You're opinion, like the 2016 EU referendum result, like the 2017 general election, like the 2019 EU parliamentary election, like the 2019 general election result, you know where I'm going with this Marty , is in the losing minority.

There has to come a point, where , banging your head against a brick wall, loses it appeal.

[martin_p]

You're opinion, like the 2016 EU referendum result, like the 2017 general election, like the 2019 EU parliamentary election, like the 2019 general election result, you know where I'm going with this Marty , is in the losing minority.

There has to come a point, where , banging your head against a brick wall, loses it appeal.

Not a word of opinion Wrongo, all things that have happened.

[dsr]

And now we know that the government was represented on the ‘independent’ panel and who it was it all makes perfect sense. Eventually, after the government strategy of holding off on a lockdown was shown as likely to be leading to more deaths than necessary the scientists finally got their way.

That's taking the accusation to a new level. The Guardian report didn't say the government was represented on the panel; only that Cummings attended the virtual meetings. Who has told you he was on the panel?

[RingoMcCartney]

Not a word of opinion Wrongo, all things that have happened.

No need. 'til the next election.

Until then, find a convenient wall and fill yer boots!

[martin_p]

That's taking the accusation to a new level. The Guardian report didn't say the government was represented on the panel; only that Cummings attended the virtual meetings. Who has told you he was on the panel?

You’re picking up on a word that’s a red herring. Cummings and a colleague were government reps attending Sage meetings and, according to those that were there, took a full and active part in the discussions.

[chadders]

Sorry Ringo, It's really not about the ballot box. You've missed the point. We need clear decisive leadership. Its missing. We have a member of the family fighting for his life and had we gone into lockdown a week earlier (actually less) he wouldn't be in this situation. His partner wouldn't be at her wits end. She's now recovered from covid 19 , as have his mates, but she's in a complete mess waiting to hear the daily updates as to whether there's any improvement or even hope. She can't visit him. We wait for updates from the hospital. He now has ecoli?! He's been 5 weeks in hospital. That is a fact. Not rumour or heresay. I have pals on the frontline without adequate PPE. It really is a tad bigger than a ballot box 'ol chap. Keep safe x P&L

[AndrewJB]

No thanks. Can’t bare that thread. Or this one, really.

I didn’t get the impression they were adopting a strategy of herd immunity. And I watched the briefings closely then (don’t bother now).

You may have done, but I didn’t. And I doubt that the man on the street has even heard the term. I see/hear/read it discussed nowhere but here.

Even if if they did, or it was a strategy, it was a few days. Don’t see why everyone is getting so excited about it.

It was probably longer than that. The government should release the meeting notes, and if it ends up being Cummings who pushed it, then Johnson should resign. It's just one of a whole series of mistakes made by this government, from austerity that killed 130K, to all the front line staff doomed by the government's failure to protect them. Ringo goes on about China, but this government has a hefty death toll on its hands.

[dsr]

You’re picking up on a word that’s a red herring. Cummings and a colleague were government reps attending Sage meetings and, according to those that were there, took a full and active part in the discussions.

And that's something else that the Guardian didn't say. In the Guardian report, none of the anonymous members said what Cummings was doing or saying. The only explanation of what Cummings was doing was from the government, who said that he was asking questions, and was also answering questions about the workings of Whitehall, when asked.

Is there another report that I have missed? Can you link it?

[martin_p]

And that's something else that the Guardian didn't say. In the Guardian report, none of the anonymous members said what Cummings was doing or saying. The only explanation of what Cummings was doing was from the government, who said that he was asking questions, and was also answering questions about the workings of Whitehall, when asked.

Is there another report that I have missed? Can you link it?

Have you read the article?

‘ 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.’

[dsr]

Have you read the article?

‘ 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.’

That's certainly vague enough to match what the government is saying. If Cummings was chipping in when he shouldn't have been doing, bearing in mind he isn't a scientist and he was essentially as an observer, the Chairman should have switched his microphone off. Problem solved.

I think basically the Guardian is arguing the wrong thing.

If they want to argue that, in principle, no-one representing the government should be allowed to attend these meetings, I think they're wrong.

If they want to argue that, in principle, government representatives and advisors should not be allowed to speak even if it is to direct the discussion to a point of interest to the government, or to advise the committee when asked a question, I think they're wrong.

If they want to argue that it shouldn't be an adviser, it should be a cabinet or junior minister, then they might have a case. They could perhaps make that argument - but they didn't.

but if they want to argue (and in essense, I think they do) that they don't like Cummings and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the government - then that's what they ought to argue. Anything else is just muck-raking and stirring; and this isn't the time for political stirring.

[AndrewJB]

That's certainly vague enough to match what the government is saying. If Cummings was chipping in when he shouldn't have been doing, bearing in mind he isn't a scientist and he was essentially as an observer, the Chairman should have switched his microphone off. Problem solved.

I think basically the Guardian is arguing the wrong thing.

If they want to argue that, in principle, no-one representing the government should be allowed to attend these meetings, I think they're wrong.

If they want to argue that, in principle, government representatives and advisors should not be allowed to speak even if it is to direct the discussion to a point of interest to the government, or to advise the committee when asked a question, I think they're wrong.

If they want to argue that it shouldn't be an adviser, it should be a cabinet or junior minister, then they might have a case. They could perhaps make that argument - but they didn't.

but if they want to argue (and in essense, I think they do) that they don't like Cummings and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the government - then that's what they ought to argue. Anything else is just muck-raking and stirring; and this isn't the time for political stirring.

Why does Cummings need to be there as an observer? What exactly is he observing? He's not qualified to join in the discussions (though we're told he did). The group have their meeting and report back through the usual channels. Cummings isn't even a civil servant in the proper sense. He's only there to support Johnson politically. Cummings' presence is a distraction for the people there trying to do their jobs. Even Tories are saying this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... party-call

[evensteadiereddie]

Cummings "herd" idea was half right, to be fair : there have been lots of older people dying with the prospect of a lot more.............
A shame about the other bit that didn't quite work out for him.

[Paul Waine]

That’s not how our media has ever worked.
Whatever the issue they will be one day rousing the troops and headlining this great nation of ours etc but the next day (especially if they get an exclusive) they will not think twice about crucifying an individual.

That will never change - and whilst I don’t agree with a lot of things the media do challenging / scrutinising the government is one thing they should continue to do - whoever is in power.

Hi TVC15, I've no issue with the media investigating and researching gov't actions and challenging, scrutinising and criticising the gov't. However, last weeks The Sunday Times disclosure that Johnson hadn't attended 5 COBR meetings and the Guardian's report that Cummings has attended SAGE meetings failed to address the question whether these actions resulted in "better or worse" outcomes. They've just reported on something that was "different" than, according to their report, had happened before. They haven't asked, is the "causing harm" or is it contributing positively to the country's response to covid-19 pandemic?

I get the media "taking sides" in a general election and even continuing their campaign position through the Brexit process. But, most of the press coverage of covid-19, and I include what we've seen of their questions at the daily press briefings, don't merit a "pass" for a 6 form general studies student. It's all at the "gotcha" level of journalism. It doesn't show any real understanding of the important issues and, of course, it assumes that, somehow, governments have got "magic wands" and can make everything happen "overnight."

Some examples: a) the question about shift workers being able to sign up for testing - completely missing the point that the testing is for essential workers who have symptoms (or someone in household has symptoms) and, if that is the case, they shouldn't be going to work; b) testing capacity v tests carried out - the capacity is necessary to carry out tests, but people also need to want to have the tests, within the designated categories; c) BAME death rates calculated on whole UK population, but, how about thinking about ratios based on the regions where covid-19 has "hit hardest" - never mind all the other complex questions in this area; d) Germany is doing better than UK, so let's try and understand differences in Germany v UK, population densities? cultures? international travel? health care system?

I'm sure there will be many more before we are finished with covid-19.

I watched The Post last night (Netflix). A great film. The New York Times and Washington Post reported on US gov't reports over 20 years re Vietnam. It appears many of our journalists are inspired by this film, but don't understand that covid-19 is not in any way comparable.

[Paul Waine]

I guess we have a different view on that. Personally I'd say that at a time of a pandemic where thousands are dying it's important that the government realises it will be scrutinised and it can't just assume that the people will swallow whatever story they give them. I also wouldn't necessarily be of the view that such investigations aren't also helping the nation.

see above.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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

Turns out the Guardian put out an article that included a comment about a PM's advisor chairing meetings he wasn't qualified for.
Weird how they aren't mentioning that now, but maybe because it's about Blair/Campbell...

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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

Good news then, because the Guardian have reported that Campbell chaired meetings that he had no experience for when it came to Iraq.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

[TVC15]

Hi Paul
So in short some journalists are poor, exaggerate things or even make things up.
I agree - and it’s been like that forever.
They aren’t all of a sudden going to become good or honest journalists just because of Covid.
This is a problem that we have never been able to solve in the UK and unlikely we ever will.
So we just learn to live with it and rely on the good journalists to unearth real stories, scrutiny and challenge which have a positive impact which as you know there has also been plenty of positive examples of in our history.

[quoonbeatz]

Good news then, because the Guardian have reported that Campbell chaired meetings that he had no experience for when it came to Iraq.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

Fair play for digging out an article from 17 years ago sid but I'm not sure what your point is? That one talks of scathing criticism at Campbell chairing the meeting, just as the recent one does the same re Cummings and SAGE.

If anything, it shows the guardian have been pretty consistent in reporting these things, regardless of who is in power.

[AndrewJB]

Good news then, because the Guardian have reported that Campbell chaired meetings that he had no experience for when it came to Iraq.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

Remind me how the Iraq fiasco played out. Glad you're coming round to understanding why Cummings shouldn't be in these meetings.

[tiger76]

Good news then, because the Guardian have reported that Campbell chaired meetings that he had no experience for when it came to Iraq.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

That ended well didn't it,just an idea maybe the spin doctors/advisers should stick to what they know,and leave the details to the experts,the last thing we need in this crisis is layman pretending they have any knowledge in these specialist fields,christ it's bad enough with that fruitcake Trump across the pond offering second-hand medical advice.

[NewClaret]

Hi Paul
So in short some journalists are poor, exaggerate things or even make things up.
I agree - and it’s been like that forever.
They aren’t all of a sudden going to become good or honest journalists just because of Covid.
This is a problem that we have never been able to solve in the UK and unlikely we ever will.
So we just learn to live with it and rely on the good journalists to unearth real stories, scrutiny and challenge which have a positive impact which as you know there has also been plenty of positive examples of in our history.

I fully support a free press, but sadly journalists are under so much pressure to generate content, be that for web clicks, to fill column inches, or a slot on TV, they often write stories with no basis whatsoever. This is particularly prevalent in sports journalism, but also political journalism, where the subject is more serious.

They are under so much pressure for their reports to be most popular/read/liked/discussed/commented - either so they stay in a job, or, aspirationally, climb the slippery pole - that they’ll literally write any old s***e. Exclusive scoops are so few and far between, and the domain of the top journalists, that most spend their days regurgitating news from other sources - chinese-whispers, fake news-style. They write, (very cleverly) opinion, as fact, to make a story with no/little substance sound informative, often quoting contacts that they may know or friends of the organisation (who will say anything they want to support their story in return for the personal publicity).

It’s an incredibly stressful job and most are just trying to feed their families, like the rest of us, but unfortunately it can mean the free press is quite dangerous sometimes. On both the left and right.

[NewClaret]

It was probably longer than that. The government should release the meeting notes, and if it ends up being Cummings who pushed it, then Johnson should resign. It's just one of a whole series of mistakes made by this government, from austerity that killed 130K, to all the front line staff doomed by the government's failure to protect them. Ringo goes on about China, but this government has a hefty death toll on its hands.

To be honest, I don’t really care what Cummings’ role was, or even how he behaved, in a few meetings. It’s a minor minor issue in the scheme of this crisis that I can’t even believe I’m debating Even in lockdown I should have better things to do

I will leave the herd immunity debate there. I won’t convince you it wasn’t official government strategy, you won’t convince me it was (because it was not announced as such, and denied to be), so no point discussing further.

As for the govt being responsible for 130k deaths - that is your opinion, not mine. Again, you are presenting that as fact when it’s opinion. For the same reason as above, I won’t respond to save this thread from more o/t inane discussion.

[Devils_Advocate]

I fully support a free press, but sadly journalists are under so much pressure to generate content, be that for web clicks, to fill column inches, or a slot on TV, they often write stories with no basis whatsoever. This is particularly prevalent in sports journalism, but also political journalism, where the subject is more serious.

They are under so much pressure for their reports to be most popular/read/liked/discussed/commented - either so they stay in a job, or, aspirationally, climb the slippery pole - that they’ll literally write any old s***e. Exclusive scoops are so few and far between, and the domain of the top journalists, that most spend their days regurgitating news from other sources - chinese-whispers, fake news-style. They write, (very cleverly) opinion, as fact, to make a story with no/little substance sound informative, often quoting contacts that they may know or friends of the organisation (who will say anything they want to support their story in return for the personal publicity).

It’s an incredibly stressful job and most are just trying to feed their families, like the rest of us, but unfortunately it can mean the free press is quite dangerous sometimes. On both the left and right.

Trouble is there's a big distinction between news story's like the Gaurdian story that is well researched, raises important questions, has good sources and is basically very good journalism than the clickbait crap you describe above

The irony is the majority of the political clickbait stuff is right wing hyperbole aimed at people not wanting to think critically and challenge their own view but instead want to boost the sound of their safe echo chamber

Below is an example of one of the right wing news commentators doing what they do best and showing complete disingenuous hypocrisy

[Devils_Advocate]

Turns out the Guardian put out an article that included a comment about a PM's advisor chairing meetings he wasn't qualified for.
Weird how they aren't mentioning that now, but maybe because it's about Blair/Campbell...

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssion=true

Looks like this has been suitably discussed but just wanted to say thanks for helping illustrate my point and respect for changing your view when you can see you have been talking sh*t

Its a pity there isn't more people like you on these political threads so well done

[dsr]

Why does Cummings need to be there as an observer? What exactly is he observing? He's not qualified to join in the discussions (though we're told he did). The group have their meeting and report back through the usual channels. Cummings isn't even a civil servant in the proper sense. He's only there to support Johnson politically. Cummings' presence is a distraction for the people there trying to do their jobs. Even Tories are saying this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... party-call

It's absolutely normal for the committe in overall charge (the Cabinet, essentially) to send a prepresentative to sub committees (Sage) to see and hear what is happening. There is no principle involved there unless there is reason to believe that Sage doesn't want the government to know or understand some aspect of their discussions - which is possible.

The question should be, is Cummings the right man. I have my doubts. But that's not what the Guardian is trying to make its point of principle - and it should be.

[NewClaret]

Trouble is there's a big distinction between news story's like the Gaurdian story that is well researched, raises important questions, has good sources and is basically very good journalism than the clickbait crap you describe above

The irony is the majority of the political clickbait stuff is right wing hyperbole aimed at people not wanting to think critically and challenge their own view but instead want to boost the sound of their safe echo chamber

Below is an example of one of the right wing news commentators doing what they do best and showing complete disingenuous hypocrisy

Didn’t dispute it occurs on the right. For that reason I don’t read right wing (or any) newspapers.

The Guardian article probably was well sourced/researched. Won’t argue that. For me, it was left wing hyperbole, in the sense I don’t attach any importance to the issues it raises. Again, that is subjective.