Sunday Times - 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[Devils_Advocate]

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.

Ok your point in principle is a fair one that if the story serves no purpose other than to whip up a frenzy for a certain political group be it left or right its just hyperbole

Where I think you are completely wrong (and I know we wont agree on this) is that the issue has no real importance

Yes you can call it subjective but when you have politicians from all sides (including Tory's) expressing their concerns, leading experts in the field it concerns and pretty much every journalist apart from the click bait ones from the opposite side all flagging it as a big deal then that should be enough to show this story has raised a very important issue

Anyway at least we've managed to agree on something if not it all and whist I disagree with you from you last post I can at least see and understand where you are coming from

[aggi]

see above.

I agree with some of your points, the journalists in the daily briefings have generally been poor with their questions seemingly decided on well in advance and lacking the flexibility to make them relevant to the briefing and previous questions.

However, I'd very much disagree with your point re: testing. The government is trying to shift the narrative to capacity rather than actual tests and the media are doing a decent job in pointing out that wasn't what they promised.

People need to want to have the tests but they also need to be able to take them. I saw something last week saying that the average round journey to be tested was over 60 miles and a care home in Dorset was saying their staff had a 250 mile round trip to be tested (bear in mind that these are people who feel ill and can't use public transport). Hopefully the refusal to accept the government's spin on this will mean a better testing process (hence my earlier comment that this investigative work can also be helping the country).

[Paul Waine]

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

This appears to be the most important information in this Guardian article:

Prof Derek Hill, of University College London, said: “I was on a science advisory group for dementia research when David Cameron was prime minister. Advisers from No 10 often turned up, but just as observers.

Looks like there's "nothing to see here" again.

[CombatClaret]

This appears to be the most important information in this Guardian article:
Prof Derek Hill, of University College London, said: “I was on a science advisory group for dementia research when David Cameron was prime minister. Advisers from No 10 often turned up, but just as observers.
Looks like there's "nothing to see here" again.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

"Scientists on UK government’s coronavirus advisory group say Dominic Cummings was an active participant...

One attendee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said they felt Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

[Paul Waine]

I agree with some of your points, the journalists in the daily briefings have generally been poor with their questions seemingly decided on well in advance and lacking the flexibility to make them relevant to the briefing and previous questions.

However, I'd very much disagree with your point re: testing. The government is trying to shift the narrative to capacity rather than actual tests and the media are doing a decent job in pointing out that wasn't what they promised.

People need to want to have the tests but they also need to be able to take them. I saw something last week saying that the average round journey to be tested was over 60 miles and a care home in Dorset was saying their staff had a 250 mile round trip to be tested (bear in mind that these are people who feel ill and can't use public transport). Hopefully the refusal to accept the government's spin on this will mean a better testing process (hence my earlier comment that this investigative work can also be helping the country).

Hi aggi, I don't think we are "that far apart" re testing. The country started out with only limited testing capacity and, obviously, demand exceeded that capacity. I guess we all expected that to continue. So, the gov't rushed to get testing capacity in place, starting with some big centres. Then we find that capacity is ahead of the initially "controlled demand." Yes, there are logistical reasons for the gaps between capacity and tests performed. Yes, the major centres aren't in locations that are easy for everyone to get to. Those gaps are also being addressed, firstly more, and smaller, testing centres, secondly, postal testing and thirdly, mobile testing teams, where the tests are brought to the people who need the tests, and can't access them through one of the 3 other means.

I'd welcome media that identify the gaps and I've no problem if all they are identifying are gaps that the "gov't machine" is already aware of. Even better if the media is making a meaningful contribution to fixing these gaps. But, you don't do this by saying "capacity doesn't count..." It's much better to say "great that all the additional capacity is in place, can we assist with the messaging to maximise it's use - meanwhile, we are learning of gaps, are you also aware? what is the plan to tackle?"

I'm sure we both agree that it is solutions that help the country.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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

I've no issue with an advisor being at a meeting.

Just need to prove he's chairing them.

[RingoMcCartney]

I wonder if Alistair Campbell attended meetings , in Number 10, during the foot and mouth disease crisis?

Given neither Dominic Cummings nor Campbell are scientists. They are communications men. Wouldn't it be useful for both of them to listen, get involved and ask questions for clarification on a subject they would , through no fault of their own, know little about. Then be in a better , informed, position, to communicate the government's message to the People.

Total and utter none story. Just more Noise , that the majority of people in the Real World couldn't give a tinkers toss about.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

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.

Not really dug it out, it's quite easy to find tbh, we all know what Campbell did, there was a while inquiry into it.

I'll wait for an inquiry in to this one though because all we've got is hearsay about what Cummings is up to and people from the left screaming that Advisors never chaired meetings under previous PM's, yet there is proof it happened.

[TVC15]

Aye that’s spot on Campbell and Cummings were / are just communications men.
They just went to the meetings took a few notes then went back to their PMs and told them what was happening. They probably served the tea and coffee too.

[Grumps]

People make a fuss because its never happened before

Then it's shown in fact it has happened before

I wonder what the next non story will be for them to get their pants in a twist.

[RingoMcCartney]

Just been listening to Majid Nawaz on LBC. He's been very good.

In summary, he points out that following the Iraq war, trust in the media rose. While, trust in the political class plummeted and probably has never recovered.

Conversely, at this moment in time trust / approval in the government has , generally risen , from pre-crisis figures. While the peoples trust in, and view of , the media has plummeted!

[jrgbfc]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

"Scientists on UK government’s coronavirus advisory group say Dominic Cummings was an active participant...

One attendee of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) said they felt Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

So it's now emerged that at least two of the scientists present felt uncomfortable about Cummings presence at the meetings. Do people still see no problem with him being there?

[taio]

So it's now emerged that at least two of the scientists present felt uncomfortable about Cummings presence at the meetings. Do people still see no problem with him being there?

Many people do see it as a problem. Others don't. I haven't read the detail of this but my default position generally is I think Cummings is a t**t and I'd be glad to see the back of him.

[tiger76]

Just been listening to Majid Nawaz on LBC. He's been very good.

In summary, he points out that following the Iraq war, trust in the media rose. While, trust in the political class plummeted and probably has never recovered.

Conversely, at this moment in time trust / approval in the government has , generally risen , from pre-crisis figures. While the peoples trust in, and view of , the media has plummeted!

Can't comment on the LBC guy as i don't listen to him,but the government's ratings are hovering around 50% on average,and this latest poll bears that out.


Opinium Westminster Voting Intention: 21-23/04/2020

CON: 50% (+5)
LAB: 33% (-)
LDem: 7% (-5)
SNP: 5% (+1)
Grn: 3% (-)
PC: 0% (-)

Flavible Projection

CON: 384 (+19)
LAB: 185 (-18)
SNP: 55 (+7)
PC: 4 (-)
LDem: 3 (-8)
GRN: 1 (-)

Whether that will last is doubtful,but they could afford to drop a good few points,and still win a comfortable majority,the Lib Dems are disappearing into obscurity.

[Devils_Advocate]

For anyone interested some back story on Ben Warner and his brother which asks yet more questions around this govts integrity and transparency

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/stat ... 9135151104

[Paul Waine]

So it's now emerged that at least two of the scientists present felt uncomfortable about Cummings presence at the meetings. Do people still see no problem with him being there?

Did these scientists raise their concerns with the chair of the meeting? What was the outcome? Or, did they think it was normal, and useful, for gov't to be represented at a Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies?

[CombatClaret]

Did these scientists raise their concerns with the chair of the meeting? What was the outcome? Or, did they think it was normal, and useful, for gov't to be represented at a Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies?

Regardless of whether an observer is normal and/or useful they're on record as saying he was an "active participant" and "inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

Without knowledge of the technical running of a SAGE meeting which none of us posses you're questions cannot be answered however they feel redundant in light of the above.

“He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.”

“When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going... That’s not what we are supposed to be doing.”

[Paul Waine]

Regardless of whether an observer is normal and/or useful they're on record as saying he was an "active participant" and "inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

Without knowledge of the technical running of a SAGE meeting which none of us posses you're questions cannot be answered however they feel redundant in light of the above.

“He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.”

“When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going... That’s not what we are supposed to be doing.”

OK, come on Combat, are you suggesting that all these "scientific advisors" are wall flowers and too shy to mention that they feel Cummings was "inappropriately influencing..."

What makes you think it's supposed to be "an impartial scientific process?" It's supposed to be a process to provide the government with scientific advice in an emergency. That doesn't sound like "impartial" is what's required. "Dispassionate," "unbiased, "honest," "un-sugared" are some of the terms I'd be looking for. "Honest" about what the scientists know and what they don't know...."Un-sugared" by politeness and niceties around things that might work and things that might not work. Based on what has been send by the co-chairs, chief medical officer and chief scientific advisor have both said, the SAGE meetings are not "quiet" discussions.

[Grumps]

I think the BBC reporter talking about the sage story, summed it up well, stating it was a non story. He clearly doesn't read this message board

[tiger76]

Whatever the details of this SAGE meeting,it's clear Dominic Cummings A)has too much influence on the PM,and B)is getting too big for his boots.

It's crazy that he has more power than many members of the cabinet,who at least have too be accountable to parliament,and the electorate ultimately,who's Dominic Cummings answerable too?

[martin_p]

OK, come on Combat, are you suggesting that all these "scientific advisors" are wall flowers and too shy to mention that they feel Cummings was "inappropriately influencing..."

What makes you think it's supposed to be "an impartial scientific process?" It's supposed to be a process to provide the government with scientific advice in an emergency. That doesn't sound like "impartial" is what's required. "Dispassionate," "unbiased, "honest," "un-sugared" are some of the terms I'd be looking for. "Honest" about what the scientists know and what they don't know...."Un-sugared" by politeness and niceties around things that might work and things that might not work. Based on what has been send by the co-chairs, chief medical officer and chief scientific advisor have both said, the SAGE meetings are not "quiet" discussions.

It’s supposed to be independent. Having Boris’s puppet master there taking an active part makes it a long way from that.

[Grumps]

Whatever the details of this SAGE meeting,it's clear Dominic Cummings A)has too much influence on the PM,and B)is getting too big for his boots.

It's crazy that he has more power than many members of the cabinet,who at least have too be accountable to parliament,and the electorate ultimately,who's Dominic Cummings answerable too?

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just being brainwashed by journalists with a certain agenda.

[martin_p]

I wonder if Alistair Campbell attended meetings , in Number 10, during the foot and mouth disease crisis?

Given neither Dominic Cummings nor Campbell are scientists. They are communications men. Wouldn't it be useful for both of them to listen, get involved and ask questions for clarification on a subject they would , through no fault of their own, know little about. Then be in a better , informed, position, to communicate the government's message to the People.

Total and utter none story. Just more Noise , that the majority of people in the Real World couldn't give a tinkers toss about.

Of course Campbell would be at meetings at Number 10, they’d all be governmental meetings and he was chief advisor to the government. The difference here is that SAGE is supposed to be independent from Number 10 so they had no business having a rep there taking a full and active part.

[martin_p]

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just being brainwashed by journalists with a certain agenda.

The chancellor lost his job because he wouldn’t do what Cummings told him to.

[Grumps]

It’s supposed to be independent. Having Boris’s puppet master there taking an active part makes it a long way from that.

Does it have to be independent? Or just capable of coming to the correct decision
It's a sub committee of cobr... Which is government led, so I guess not classed as independent?

[tiger76]

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just being brainwashed by journalists with a certain agenda.

Just my opinion,no advisers should be able to influence government policy,i thought that's why we had independent experts,or do they know less then Mr Cummings,as he seems to be the font of all knowledge.Ah! blaming the press,yes that's typical,which other politician does that when he's caught on the back foot.

[martin_p]

Does it have to be independent? Or just capable of coming to the correct decision
It's a sub committee of cobr... Which is government led, so I guess not classed as independent?

Absolutely it has to be independent. It has to offer the best medical advice shorn of any political bias (such as is the impact be on the economy acceptable). That advice the goes to the government (in the form of COBR in this instance) who then use that medical advice to formulate a plan.

[Grumps]

Just my opinion,no advisers should be able to influence government policy,i thought that's why we had independent experts,or do they know less then Mr Cummings,as he seems to be the font of all knowledge.Ah! blaming the press,yes that's typical,which other politician does that when he's caught on the back foot.

What's the point of an advisor, if they Carnt advise?
Iam sure the scientific advice, came from the experts, I haven't seen any suggestion that any input Cummings had, made them change their mind, and if it had done I suggest they should be fired.

[Taffy on the wing]

Hi aggi, I don't think we are "that far apart" re testing. The country started out with only limited testing capacity and, obviously, demand exceeded that capacity. I guess we all expected that to continue. So, the gov't rushed to get testing capacity in place, starting with some big centres. Then we find that capacity is ahead of the initially "controlled demand." Yes, there are logistical reasons for the gaps between capacity and tests performed. Yes, the major centres aren't in locations that are easy for everyone to get to. Those gaps are also being addressed, firstly more, and smaller, testing centres, secondly, postal testing and thirdly, mobile testing teams, where the tests are brought to the people who need the tests, and can't access them through one of the 3 other means.

I'd welcome media that identify the gaps and I've no problem if all they are identifying are gaps that the "gov't machine" is already aware of. Even better if the media is making a meaningful contribution to fixing these gaps. But, you don't do this by saying "capacity doesn't count..." It's much better to say "great that all the additional capacity is in place, can we assist with the messaging to maximise it's use - meanwhile, we are learning of gaps, are you also aware? what is the plan to tackle?"

I'm sure we both agree that it is solutions that help the country.

Didn't the Government buy 3 million useless tests from a Chinese company?.....Without testing them first.

[Taffy on the wing]

Sorry 2 Mllionhttps://nyti.ms/2KdOMWo
Testing and Tracing is the only way to get ahead ......see Germany and New Zealand.
The Boris Johnson Government screwed up!.....Thousands are dead as a result.....please stop making excuses for them.

[dsr]

Didn't the Government buy 3 million useless tests from a Chinese company?.....Without testing them first.

I certainly would hope they bought them without testing them first. Why delay? If you're spending £2.4 billion per day on propping up the economy and here's something that might shorten the period significantly, you don't waste a fortnight to save the odd few million; you take the chance. As it happens they didn't work. If they had worked they would have saved billions.

[Taffy on the wing]

I certainly would hope they bought them without testing them first. Why delay? If you're spending £2.4 billion per day on propping up the economy and here's something that might shorten the period significantly, you don't waste a fortnight to save the odd few million; you take the chance. As it happens they didn't work. If they had worked they would have saved billions.

You're the dumbest poster on this site......Congratulations!

[NewClaret]

Ok your point in principle is a fair one that if the story serves no purpose other than to whip up a frenzy for a certain political group be it left or right its just hyperbole

Where I think you are completely wrong (and I know we wont agree on this) is that the issue has no real importance

Yes you can call it subjective but when you have politicians from all sides (including Tory's) expressing their concerns, leading experts in the field it concerns and pretty much every journalist apart from the click bait ones from the opposite side all flagging it as a big deal then that should be enough to show this story has raised a very important issue

Anyway at least we've managed to agree on something if not it all and whist I disagree with you from you last post I can at least see and understand where you are coming from

Before I start this, I’ll confess I have not read the article (other than the snippets posted on here), for reasons previously stated - I don’t care that much and don’t read papers (unless I’m on an airplane or linked on here), because I think they all have an agenda.

Whether it’s relevant depends on the purpose and impact of Cummings’ presence at these meetings.

If the purpose was to listen to the scientific advisors and report back to the PM, even if ultimately he asked questions that raised tensions, I would argue it was very important he was there. Not under normal circumstances, perhaps, but I’d say it’s very important the PM remains fully briefed by his advisors during a health crisis.

If the impact was that it changed the advice/opinions of the scientists advising the Government, regardless of his purpose, that is also wrong. Asking a few antagonist questions, or answering some in an aloof manner, does not constitute causing a change in outcome, and thus irrelevant in my view.

So far, I’ve read nothing that suggests his purpose wasn’t well intentioned or his impact was significant, thus it will, in my opinion, prove to be utterly insignificant in the history of this pandemic.

As for the Tory - is it Jeremy Hunt, per chance? You mention “Tories”, so presumably more than one, but is Hunt one of them?

In summery: the Government paying an interest at a meeting of scientific experts during a pandemic is exactly what I would expect. Scientists being unhappy at someone a sociopath like Cummings gatecrashing their meeting is also something I’d expect. But all in all, a non-story unless you want to make it one.

[Taffy on the wing]

Before I start this, I’ll confess I have not read the article (other than the snippets posted on here), for reasons previously stated - I don’t care that much and don’t read papers (unless I’m on an airplane or linked on here), because I think they all have an agenda.

Whether it’s relevant depends on the purpose and impact of Cummings’ presence at these meetings.

If the purpose was to listen to the scientific advisors and report back to the PM, even if ultimately he asked questions that raised tensions, I would argue it was very important he was there. Not under normal circumstances, perhaps, but I’d say it’s very important the PM remains fully briefed by his advisors during a health crisis.

If the impact was that it changed the advice/opinions of the scientists advising the Government, regardless of his purpose, that is also wrong. Asking a few antagonist questions, or answering some in an aloof manner, does not constitute causing a change in outcome, and thus irrelevant in my view.

So far, I’ve read nothing that suggests his purpose wasn’t well intentioned or his impact was significant, thus it will, in my opinion, prove to be utterly insignificant in the history of this pandemic.

As for the Tory - is it Jeremy Hunt, per chance? You mention “Tories”, so presumably more than one, but is Hunt one of them?

In summery: the Government paying an interest at a meeting of scientific experts during a pandemic is exactly what I would expect. Scientists being unhappy at someone a sociopath like Cummings gatecrashing their meeting is also something I’d expect. But all in all, a non-story unless you want to make it one.

Best to just stick to not reading, i reckon.

[NewClaret]

You're the dumbest poster on this site......Congratulations!

Add me to the list because I agree.

It’s like spending £42m on building a hospital you don’t need.

There would be a lot more moaning if it had turned out to work and they’d fannied around testing it for weeks only to find that it did but the order book was full.

[NewClaret]

Best to just stick to not reading, i reckon.

[dsr]

You're the dumbest poster on this site......Congratulations!

Really? Do you genuinely believe that if the government has found a way that may knock a fortnight off the lockdown, but if it fails it will add the equivalent of a minute's spending to the bill, they should take the fortnight delay?

And yet from all your previous postings you would have been happy for them to spend millions on PPE that might never have been needed. Why the inconsistency?

They shouldn't be running this lockdown with a view to absolute minimum costs and ensuring there is no waste. There are priorities above and beyond the odd couple of million quid.

[Grumps]

For what it's worth, I thought your post was excellent newclaret

[NewClaret]

For what it's worth, I thought your post was excellent newclaret

Thanks Grumps. Glad someone appreciates my ramblings.

[Devils_Advocate]

Before I start this, I’ll confess I have not read the article (other than the snippets posted on here), for reasons previously stated - I don’t care that much and don’t read papers (unless I’m on an airplane or linked on here), because I think they all have an agenda.

Whether it’s relevant depends on the purpose and impact of Cummings’ presence at these meetings.

If the purpose was to listen to the scientific advisors and report back to the PM, even if ultimately he asked questions that raised tensions, I would argue it was very important he was there. Not under normal circumstances, perhaps, but I’d say it’s very important the PM remains fully briefed by his advisors during a health crisis.

If the impact was that it changed the advice/opinions of the scientists advising the Government, regardless of his purpose, that is also wrong. Asking a few antagonist questions, or answering some in an aloof manner, does not constitute causing a change in outcome, and thus irrelevant in my view.

So far, I’ve read nothing that suggests his purpose wasn’t well intentioned or his impact was significant, thus it will, in my opinion, prove to be utterly insignificant in the history of this pandemic.

As for the Tory - is it Jeremy Hunt, per chance? You mention “Tories”, so presumably more than one, but is Hunt one of them?

In summery: the Government paying an interest at a meeting of scientific experts during a pandemic is exactly what I would expect. Scientists being unhappy at someone a sociopath like Cummings gatecrashing their meeting is also something I’d expect. But all in all, a non-story unless you want to make it one.

Not sure why you bother discussing something that you have no interest in and think is trivial but Ive provided the detail from the story that focuses on the alleged impact of Cummings and Warner

I'll repeat again that im happy for people to challenge the validity of the article and would love to see some proper evidence to counter (such as the minutes of the meetings) but what Im not prepared to accept is it being dismissed as a non story. If it was a non story you would have not seen the level of condemnation from politicians (cross party), experts and political journalists

Was Cummings there just to observe?

• "Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

• "I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions.

• “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”

• Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing."

• A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.

• “He was not just an observer, he’s listed as an active participant,” the source said. “He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.” The second attendee said Cumming’s involvement was worrying because of his reputation in Whitehall and the questions his participation raises about Sage’s role as a neutral body of expert advisers.

So the story is claiming Cummings wasnt just an observer but was actively taking part and having an influence on the meeting

It would also be dangerous just for Cummings to listen and then report privately back to Johnson as he would be giving his unqualified opinion. A process is set up to feed the findings and advice directly in to COBR meetings so everyone is able to hear the independent expert version of events. If Johnson couldnt go to COBR then it would be fine for someone to update him on the outcome of that meeting 121

The leading name Tory is David Davis but when I looked into this in detail yesterday there were a few know Tory supporting journalists/commentators showing concern and it is being reported today that Johnson is facing challenge from several of his own MPs on this issue

• Davis said that Cummings’s presence could alter the advice offered in meetings, adding: “We should publish the membership of Sage, remove any non-scientist members, publish their advice in full, and publish dissenting opinions with the advice.”

[Paul Waine]

Didn't the Government buy 3 million useless tests from a Chinese company?.....Without testing them first.

Yes, possibly. They announced the were buying 3 million tests. They later announced the tests didn't work/weren't accurate enough. Would we have preferred that they had proof that they worked/were accurate before they bought them and when they were ready to place an order they discovered that another customer had already bought all that was available? In the scheme of things the £X million they spent was worth the gamble that they might work or might not work.

I can't remember now if these tests were to identify whether the person tested had the coronavirus at the time of testing, or whether it was a test to show that you'd previously had it. I think it may have been the latter that they've now determined that there are no tests accurate enough for this purpose. The "100,000 capacity" tests are all now the former, of which I understand current capacity > 50,000.

[Paul Waine]

Questions over the prime minister’s coronavirus COBR absences are not straightforward

The prime minister's decision to let the health secretary chair the first five coronavirus COBR meetings may have been for good reasons, but questions about Boris Johnson’s role in the early days of the crisis will continue to be asked, says Catherine Haddon - Institute of Government

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ghtforward

This blog by Catherine Haddon is worth reading.

All posters who are interested in the subject of this thread will find her views informative.

She addresses:

Can COBR operate without the prime minister;
The PM's absence raises fair questions about his grip on the emerging crisis;
A future coronavirus inquiry will need to look at when the PM took charge of the response.

[Grumps]

Questions over the prime minister’s coronavirus COBR absences are not straightforward

The prime minister's decision to let the health secretary chair the first five coronavirus COBR meetings may have been for good reasons, but questions about Boris Johnson’s role in the early days of the crisis will continue to be asked, says Catherine Haddon - Institute of Government

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ghtforward

This blog by Catherine Haddon is worth reading.

All posters who are interested in the subject of this thread will find her views informative.

She addresses:

Can COBR operate without the prime minister;
The PM's absence raises fair questions about his grip on the emerging crisis;
A future coronavirus inquiry will need to look at when the PM took charge of the response.

What she doesn't state is how many cases the UK had prior to his first meeting.
I was abroad at the time, but memory suggests perhaps double figure cases, all linked to Italy, and no deaths, so working on her explanation on when a PM should take over cobr, he might just have about got it right?

[android]

Not sure why you bother discussing something that you have no interest in and think is trivial but Ive provided the detail from the story that focuses on the alleged impact of Cummings and Warner

I'll repeat again that im happy for people to challenge the validity of the article and would love to see some proper evidence to counter (such as the minutes of the meetings) but what Im not prepared to accept is it being dismissed as a non story. If it was a non story you would have not seen the level of condemnation from politicians (cross party), experts and political journalists

Was Cummings there just to observe?

• "Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

• "I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions.

• “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”

• Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing."

• A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.

• “He was not just an observer, he’s listed as an active participant,” the source said. “He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.” The second attendee said Cumming’s involvement was worrying because of his reputation in Whitehall and the questions his participation raises about Sage’s role as a neutral body of expert advisers.

So the story is claiming Cummings wasnt just an observer but was actively taking part and having an influence on the meeting

It would also be dangerous just for Cummings to listen and then report privately back to Johnson as he would be giving his unqualified opinion. A process is set up to feed the findings and advice directly in to COBR meetings so everyone is able to hear the independent expert version of events. If Johnson couldnt go to COBR then it would be fine for someone to update him on the outcome of that meeting 121

The leading name Tory is David Davis but when I looked into this in detail yesterday there were a few know Tory supporting journalists/commentators showing concern and it is being reported today that Johnson is facing challenge from several of his own MPs on this issue

• Davis said that Cummings’s presence could alter the advice offered in meetings, adding: “We should publish the membership of Sage, remove any non-scientist members, publish their advice in full, and publish dissenting opinions with the advice.”

Neil Ferguson was at those meetings and when asked - specifically about Cummings - said that a number of observers attended the meetings and they "did not interfere in the business of those meetings at all"

[NewClaret]

Not sure why you bother discussing something that you have no interest in and think is trivial but Ive provided the detail from the story that focuses on the alleged impact of Cummings and Warner

I'll repeat again that im happy for people to challenge the validity of the article and would love to see some proper evidence to counter (such as the minutes of the meetings) but what Im not prepared to accept is it being dismissed as a non story. If it was a non story you would have not seen the level of condemnation from politicians (cross party), experts and political journalists

Was Cummings there just to observe?

• "Cummings’ interventions had sometimes inappropriately influenced what is supposed to be an impartial scientific process."

• "I have been concerned sometimes that Sage has become too operational, so we’ve ended up looking as though we are making decisions,” one of them said, making clear that Cummings had been involved on those occasions.

• “It contravenes previous guidelines about how you make sure you get impartial scientific advice going through to politicians, who make the decisions.”

• Referring to both Cummings and Warner, the Sage attendee added: “When a very senior civil servant or a very well-connected person interrupts, then I don’t think anyone in the room feels the power to stop it. When you get to discussing where advice might be going, there have been occasions where they have been involved, and a couple of times I’ve thought: that’s not what we are supposed to be doing."

• A second Sage attendee said Cummings had played an active role meetings from February onwards. They said they were initially shocked to discover Cummings was taking part in a meeting of supposedly independent scientific experts.

• “He was not just an observer, he’s listed as an active participant,” the source said. “He was engaging in conversation and not sitting silently.” The second attendee said Cumming’s involvement was worrying because of his reputation in Whitehall and the questions his participation raises about Sage’s role as a neutral body of expert advisers.

So the story is claiming Cummings wasnt just an observer but was actively taking part and having an influence on the meeting

It would also be dangerous just for Cummings to listen and then report privately back to Johnson as he would be giving his unqualified opinion. A process is set up to feed the findings and advice directly in to COBR meetings so everyone is able to hear the independent expert version of events. If Johnson couldnt go to COBR then it would be fine for someone to update him on the outcome of that meeting 121

The leading name Tory is David Davis but when I looked into this in detail yesterday there were a few know Tory supporting journalists/commentators showing concern and it is being reported today that Johnson is facing challenge from several of his own MPs on this issue

• Davis said that Cummings’s presence could alter the advice offered in meetings, adding: “We should publish the membership of Sage, remove any non-scientist members, publish their advice in full, and publish dissenting opinions with the advice.”

Because my involvement in this thread started when reading a post that suggested that the Government had adopted a herd immunity strategy. That was news to me, so I asked a question, which I think AndrewJB responded to. The argument then focussed on whether they had, or it was media speculation, which I think I won (obviously), but out of politeness agreed to disagree

It has since mutated in to a debate about a committee of scientists I had never heard of a few days ago. And it’s that specific point I don’t hold a great deal of interest in.

Your bullets don’t really convince me either, to be honest. As stated, I dare say Cummings is a right **** and I wouldn’t want to meet him either. But if his mere presence whips these scientific boffins in to submission, I question their credibility in the first place.

If one stood up and said: “scientist Steve said do X, but Cummings tore strips off him until he changed his mind”, fair play. As it happens, it’s all just conjecture (from people who may have a political bias).

The reason I feel it’s trivia: if I stopped any member of public on the walk I’ve just been on, and said: “whaddaya think to Cummings attending that sage meeting, then?” I doubt they’d have a scooby what I was papping on about. It’s one article in the guardian we’re discussing; what would be tomorrow’s (or yesterday’s, or last weeks) chip wrappings - if they were open. The media agenda has skirted over it and moved on.

David Davis - fair enough. Do like him. Always seems very sensible to me. But again, would not shock me if he were anti-Boris/Cummings and had his own agenda.

Out of interest, if there’s so much uproar about this meeting, why doesn’t one of the committee leak the minutes? They must surely get them?

[bfcmik]

OK, come on Combat, are you suggesting that all these "scientific advisors" are wall flowers and too shy to mention that they feel Cummings was "inappropriately influencing..."

These positions are prestigious to the scientific community. It goes a long way to elevating you to the next level of your career. They are also quite well paid.

Who appoints these 'expert scientists' to these committees? Why, the government of course. If you disagree too vociferously or speak out against the decisions or the government, guess what happens to your place on the advisory committee or any chance of government funded research projects heading your way or your university's way?

[Grumps]

These positions are prestigious to the scientific community. It goes a long way to elevating you to the next level of your career. They are also quite well paid.

Who appoints these 'expert scientists' to these committees? Why, the government of course. If you disagree too vociferously or speak out against the decisions or the government, guess what happens to your place on the advisory committee or any chance of government funded research projects heading your way or your university's way?

I'd be interested how you know this, have you been part of the process?

[Devils_Advocate]

Neil Ferguson was at those meetings and when asked - specifically about Cummings - said that a number of observers attended the meetings and they "did not interfere in the business of those meetings at all"

Yep and this the part that becomes a fair discussion.

I havn't argued that the story is definitely 100% accurate but just that the story itself if true is a big deal and throws a question on this govts integrity and honesty

What people across the board are now calling for is for full disclosure and transparency by making all the attendees and minutes of the Sage meeting public.

For me this needs to happen or something similarly concrete enough to show that Cummings and Warners attendance at the meetings did not influence them and risk the independence of the advice and findings given

I think thats a pretty fair position to take

[bfcmik]

I'd be interested how you know this, have you been part of the process?

I was an advisor to meetings about the resettlement of people with learning disabilities in the mid/late 1980s and then again, as Chair of Policy on a District Council, discussing future social housing and care needs in the 1990s. I have a couple of acquaintances who have been involved in various advisory committees in the past few years who report that little has changed with regard to the unofficial rules of appointment. (All for Conservative governments despite my Labour Party membership)

I looked at applying to be a lay member of the Care Quality Commission a couple of years ago but the job summary, description and preferred skill set seemed to be practically unchanged in the last 35 years!

[keith1879]

Even if Cummings was only present to observe and report back does it not strike anyone as being highly likely that his report will be so slanted as to be potentially useless? Take a look at his wikipaedia page....is this the kind of person who should be trusted to carry reports of scientific procedings? The point is that such reports need to be carried by someone who will pass them on even if he/she disagrees with them. Maybe Alastair Campbell was in the equivalent committee 20 years ago....do two wrongs make a right?