Jump to content

coronavirus


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, tim2 said:

You need something to protect your stash of "restroom tissue paper roll"

Funnily enough I bought a padlock from Aldi on Saturday , told the checkout girl it was to lock up my bog roll stash ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just as an example on communications...

Listen to the news, awaiting for next official press conf... the news says another country going into lock down as per other countries...

Now each countries lock down is different... that is the measures being taken are different... yet as I listen I would get the impression all those countries gone into lock down are doing exactly the same at the same time... which isn't the case.

The word lock down doesn't make clear what each is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I do have to challenge this view somewhat. I don't think it has been clear. If you go and use the NHS sites then yes, it is clear, but the problem with the forthcoming changes being announced then it is confusing for people. 

When you have Matt Hancock giving an update behind a pay wall (that was remedied), and officials getting into details of herd immunisation which people are accepting as policy, despite denials then the fact of the matter is that the messaging has not been clear. 

We can point at other reasons why it hasn't been clear, but they need to be factored in. 

The daily update should be a positive move, and tbh that should be the only comms each day on policy for health to avoid confusion. Since Boris' last update we have had mixed messages from Vallance and Hancock leading to some confusion. 

As Andy Burnham stated this morning on BBC Breakfast , the statements from the government should come from the experts , not the politicians , because as always the press will then as a stupid question , which will usually result in a stupid reply 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ckn said:

If you're out in public and can't remember to stop touching your face then now is the time to rebel against your parents' advice from long ago and walk around with your hands in your pockets.

But don't walk down steps or indeed terracing like that , a good friend of mine died a couple of years ago from doing exactly that ?

See , this is what happens when you listen to advice from amateurs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, redjonn said:

maybe I ain't listening to the news as much....

Its important to be precise and specific, no doubt and both the CMO and CSO have been in my view. Maybe too precise and specific for how the media then report.

Another question is whether the officials should be forewarning of what measures are coming down the line... say social distancing measures.   They outlined the potential steps coming down the line as the situation worsens and briefed the media on those step by step  plans.   So should they not forewarn and keep quiet entirely on next steps until next step is implemented... or do as they have outline the potential next steps....

I think this is a real challenging one tbh. By announcing something, and then following it up with a conversation on what come next I think it confuses things, as that thing will always be more extreme than what you have just announced, so people will focus on that. It confuses the message. The messaging about 70 year olds is a perfect example of that - instead of the message about why we are keeping schools open and the self isolating for 7 days tactic being rammed home, everyone has been talking about older people being locked away - and that was the government via leaks and official spokespeople that did that.

But it is a tough balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situations for the government. The bottom line is nobody knows what the right course of action to take is, and nobody will know until much further down the line which methods were successful. For the time being I think the government is probably taking the right course of action in following the advice of the CMO and CSO (isn't that what most people argued for during Brexit, the "listen to the experts" line ?) - but of course the problem with that is those type of people tend not look at things from a humanitarian perspective but rather from a raw science and statistical probability one. So the right course of action from a scientific/medical point of view isn't necessarily the right one to appease the masses. It's science versus emotion. A tricky conundrum.

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

But don't walk down steps or indeed terracing like that , a good friend of mine died a couple of years ago from doing exactly that ?

See , this is what happens when you listen to advice from amateurs ?

I am, and always shall be an amateur. I am a professional troublemaker, and that's about it.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As Andy Burnham stated this morning on BBC Breakfast , the statements from the government should come from the experts , not the politicians , because as always the press will then as a stupid question , which will usually result in a stupid reply 

The problem with scientists is they give accurate answers:

Q: How many people will die as a result of this virus?
A: Don't know

Q: What's your worst case guess?
A: 60% of people might get it, 1-2% will die at current rates, so let's say 600,000 or perhaps 750,000 to cover the ones who die because we can't treat them

They may of course say "I refuse to speculate because I don't know", but that may be equally alarming

A good politician would deflect such a question in a slicker way.

"I am the avenging angel; I come with wings unfurled, I come with claws extended from halfway round the world. I am the God Almighty, I am the howling wind. I care not for your family; I care not for your kin. I come in search of terror, though terror is my own; I come in search of vengeance for crimes and crimes unknown. I care not for your children, I care not for your wives, I care not for your country, I care not for your lives." - (c) Jim Boyes - "The Avenging Angel"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Derwent said:

This really is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situations for the government. The bottom line is nobody knows what the right course of action to take is, and nobody will know until much further down the line which methods were successful. For the time being I think the government is probably taking the right course of action in following the advice of the CMO and CSO (isn't that what most people argued for during Brexit, the "listen to the experts" line ?) - but of course the problem with that is those type of people tend not look at things from a humanitarian perspective but rather from a raw science and statistical probability one. So the right course of action from a scientific/medical point of view isn't necessarily the right one to appease the masses. It's science versus emotion. A tricky conundrum.

The government can't win, you're right. They're choosing between the least worst options knowing that whatever they do some people will inevitably suffer. There is no black/white "right" answer.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

As Andy Burnham stated this morning on BBC Breakfast , the statements from the government should come from the experts , not the politicians , because as always the press will then as a stupid question , which will usually result in a stupid reply 

It's embarrassing right now that we have people who have absolutely no qualifications but get treated as if they do (in this case I mean the vast commentariat who make a living out of having contrary opinions for cash - people like Dan Hodges, Owen Jones, Timothy Stanley) mocking other people who have absolutely no qualifications but get treated as if they have no right to a view (in this case, well-meaning but naive slebs) when all they themselves can do is toe whichever party line they've followed and pretend they understand the science behind it.

Idiots everywhere.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Derwent said:

This really is one of those "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situations for the government. The bottom line is nobody knows what the right course of action to take is, and nobody will know until much further down the line which methods were successful. For the time being I think the government is probably taking the right course of action in following the advice of the CMO and CSO (isn't that what most people argued for during Brexit, the "listen to the experts" line ?) - but of course the problem with that is those type of people tend not look at things from a humanitarian perspective but rather from a raw science and statistical probability one. So the right course of action from a scientific/medical point of view isn't necessarily the right one to appease the masses. It's science versus emotion. A tricky conundrum.

The issue I have on that - and I put my hand up and say I do not understand the science behind the CMO's position and thus the government's - is that we now have a government that effectively won a referendum and subsequent election on appeals to populism/don't listen to the experts. I have absolutely no faith that if the science (as presented by the CMO) moves to a position they do not like that they will continue down the path that aligns most closely with their ideology.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tim2 said:

The problem with scientists is they give accurate answers:

Q: How many people will die as a result of this virus?
A: Don't know

Q: What's your worst case guess?
A: 60% of people might get it, 1-2% will die at current rates, so let's say 600,000 or perhaps 750,000 to cover the ones who die because we can't treat them

They may of course say "I refuse to speculate because I don't know", but that may be equally alarming

A good politician would deflect such a question in a slicker way.

He was recalling how as Health Secretary in 2008 he had to deal with bird flu ( I think ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, JohnM said:

No they didn't.  Listen again to exactly  what was said.

In any case, there is no proof, no evidence that the leak was from the govt, though clearly that is a possibility.

Then the leak wasn't to a journalist. It was to someone called Robert Peston,  who then proceed to sensationalise it and misrepresent it.

 

Surely the fact that someone thinks that they did and that you are advising them to listen again suggests that there is confusion and therefore not a clear message. 

Personally I think that it has been ok but if there are any people who aren't clear about what the advice is then it surely isn't clear enough. Especially as there is a high probability that those who are unclear are those who could be most severely affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tim2 said:

The problem with scientists is they give accurate answers:

Q: How many people will die as a result of this virus?
A: Don't know

Q: What's your worst case guess?
A: 60% of people might get it, 1-2% will die at current rates, so let's say 600,000 or perhaps 750,000 to cover the ones who die because we can't treat them

They may of course say "I refuse to speculate because I don't know", but that may be equally alarming

A good politician would deflect such a question in a slicker way.

I think that is right. Vallance the other day shouldn't have been drawn on the detail and numbers around herd immunisation, leaving Hancock to have to clean up that mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

The issue I have on that - and I put my hand up and say I do not understand the science behind the CMO's position and thus the government's - is that we now have a government that effectively won a referendum and subsequent election on appeals to populism/don't listen to the experts. I have absolutely no faith that if the science (as presented by the CMO) moves to a position they do not like that they will continue down the path that aligns most closely with their ideology.

We unfortunately get what we vote for.

Please keep this thread as politics free as possible, there's a perfectly good thread for politics on this subject, and one for rugby related matters, allowing this one for health concerns and general stuff.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It's embarrassing right now that we have people who have absolutely no qualifications but get treated as if they do (in this case I mean the vast commentariat who make a living out of having contrary opinions for cash - people like Dan Hodges, Owen Jones, Timothy Stanley) mocking other people who have absolutely no qualifications but get treated as if they have no right to a view (in this case, well-meaning but naive slebs) when all they themselves can do is toe whichever party line they've followed and pretend they understand the science behind it.

Idiots everywhere.

Fair doo's to Andy , he said in no way am I criticising the actions currently being taken , his point being essentially how having too many politicians answering too many questions in too many different ' forums ' was and will create confusion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ckn said:

We unfortunately get what we vote for.

Please keep this thread as politics free as possible, there's a perfectly good thread for politics on this subject, and one for rugby related matters, allowing this one for health concerns and general stuff.

Yes - I'm not going any further on the politics issue here.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't want are actions being taken driven by politics or media pressure.

My sense is that those pressure are  building, hence behind the scenes spokespersons or advisors briefings to show things will be implemented as to show we aren't sitting on our hands.  Leading to sowing of media stories and hence sowing further confusion...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cracking idea that a lady on Radio 4 ( yes, yes ,yes , I know my car radio has a mind of its own since I broke the ariel ) this morning , she suggested that ' locally ' they should keep open through both the Easter and summer holidays a dedicated school , this school along with the requisite staff needed would be available to health professionals and other dedicated carers for their children to attend , reducing the need for them to find family members ( potentially elderly ) or indeed take time off themselves from their much needed work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popped into sainsbury's at lunch (working from home so needed a walk!).  Carpark was as full as Christmas.  Even more empty shelves.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ckn said:

I am, and always shall be an amateur. I am a professional troublemaker, and that's about it.

Too late, You have professionalised yourself. Expect to be Ostracised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.