Agentgonzo
Landlord.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 3,763
... In other news. Man does not recall pushback from scientists about a scheme he didn't tell them about. Shocker
The downfall of the Tory party.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
the covid inquiry questioning is so one sided it is hard not to conclude that it has an agenda
- as we have covered on this thread before, the obvious challenge to the theory that EOTHO caused the second wave is why most of western Europe had a second wave around the same time. Did they all have EOTHO schemes too ? Or is the theory that a family going for a Wagamama in Swindon on a Monday night somehow stoked the second wave in Dusseldorf ?
- and the inquiry has failed to question Vallence on his call for an Omicron lockdown in Dec 2021. Cabinet rejected this, the NHS was not overwhelmed and the Sage models were exposed (because we finally got to see the no lockdown counterfactual) as over estimating hospitalisations and deaths by many orders of magnitude. If Vallence was wrong this time, how do we know he was right before ? But you wont hear the inquiry ask him that.
Data on Sage projections (which Vallence was ultimately responsible for) below.
https://data.spectator.co.uk/sage
- as we have covered on this thread before, the obvious challenge to the theory that EOTHO caused the second wave is why most of western Europe had a second wave around the same time. Did they all have EOTHO schemes too ? Or is the theory that a family going for a Wagamama in Swindon on a Monday night somehow stoked the second wave in Dusseldorf ?
- and the inquiry has failed to question Vallence on his call for an Omicron lockdown in Dec 2021. Cabinet rejected this, the NHS was not overwhelmed and the Sage models were exposed (because we finally got to see the no lockdown counterfactual) as over estimating hospitalisations and deaths by many orders of magnitude. If Vallence was wrong this time, how do we know he was right before ? But you wont hear the inquiry ask him that.
Data on Sage projections (which Vallence was ultimately responsible for) below.
https://data.spectator.co.uk/sage
on the off chance that anyone here wants to look past hysterical media headlines, I would really encourage you to watch Chris Whitty's appearance today. The Counsel to the Inquiry is repeatedly trying to goad him into making further lurid headlines (as if we have not seen enough of those from the inquiry so far) and he is repeatedly holding his ground - refusing to take cheap shots at others but trying genuinely to offer reflections that will help us take better decisions in any future pandemic - one of the very few witnesses so far to focus on this.
The Counsel (Hugo keith KC) was twice slapped down by baroness Hallett in the run up to lunch for refusing to acknowledge Whitty had answered his questions. But because he didn't like the answer he kept asking the same thing.
This is not to say Whitty is necessarily right on everything, but he is one of the very few witnesses so far that seems to want to focus on facts, rather than peddling some narrative.
Finally a bit of balance.
The Counsel (Hugo keith KC) was twice slapped down by baroness Hallett in the run up to lunch for refusing to acknowledge Whitty had answered his questions. But because he didn't like the answer he kept asking the same thing.
This is not to say Whitty is necessarily right on everything, but he is one of the very few witnesses so far that seems to want to focus on facts, rather than peddling some narrative.
Finally a bit of balance.
Predictions that we will be having an early General Election have been doing the rounds on the news phone-in's the tax cut would have normally started in April -
BBC News Summary
- Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has unveiled the government's tax and spending plans, and independent forecasts for the economy
- National Insurance paid by employees will be cut from 12% to 10%, taking effect from 6 January
- Hunt also made permanent a tax break for businesses that allows them to save on corporation tax by investing
- But even with the cuts, the tax burden is still on track to reach a post-war high by 2028, says the Office for Budget Responsibility
- The OBR also forecasts that the economy will grow slower than expected - 0.7% next year instead of the 1.8% previously forecast
- NI is currently charged at 12% on earnings between £12,571 and £50,271 - and 2% on anything above that
- Labour says the tax cut will not "remotely compensate" for hikes already in place
- Separately, the state pension will increase by 8.5% from April 2024, while universal credit and disability benefits will rise by 6.7%
- Welfare recipients who do not get a job within 18 months will have to do work experience - those who don't look for work for a six-month period will have benefits stopped
Last edited:
Sweden had the right idea IMO to put a ring of protection around the vulnerable and not close down society , yet they failed to stop care homes getting hit bad.... but the rest of their society suffered less. Chris witty did appear to have an eye on the other health impacts a lockdown would have. but no-one had data as to the best trade of covid vs delayed treatment deaths.
reform the energy pricing by stopping electric price being based on gas generating electricity costs. will any gov't do this??
if gas is 38% of the mix it should only be 38% the cost of our bill, of course when renewables cost more than gas they were guaranteed the highest energy generation price to encourage renewables but now they cost less. yet the high price remains.....
Last edited:
It's all bluff and ********, every body moans but does nothing, evil will always win when good people stand idle. just carry on brewing
What do you suggest we do other than vote this evil out and replace it with evil two, politicians don't give a **** about the pleds all they care about is keeping the gravy train rolling knowing the plebs cannot do anything about it, it's a two party system and until they change the system it'll remain so.
Last edited:
Then change it by voting for reform, i am breaking the habit of a life time i am going to vote this time, first time since 1972
But that won't change anything because the majority of voters will still vote for Labour or Conservative, the only way we can have a fair election is to bring in proportional representation but they won't do it as it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Last edited:
Agentgonzo
Landlord.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 3,763
I assume your mean PR or STV or something. We already have FPTP
Thanks for this - but a small clarification re "no-one had data.....". The root cause of this is the complete failure of the UK state apparatus (ie civil servants, scientific advisers and politicians) to analyse the costs (health and economic) of lockdown. That might be forgive-able for lockdown 1, but for lockdowns 2 and 3, when we had known about Covid for months, it is in my view criminally negligent that they failed to do this. Furthermore, we also didn't have data (and still don't) on how many people Covid would have killed without lockdowns. What we did have and still have are models - and these are different to data in that they are entirely indicative. And this exposes the double standards of the UK state - they were perfectly happy to use Ferguson's mad models to scare us into complying with lockdown, but were unwilling to model the massive costs (health and economy) of those lockdowns.
reform the energy pricing by stopping electric price being based on gas generating electricity costs. will any gov't do this??
if gas is 38% of the mix it should only be 38% the cost of our bill, of course when renewables cost more than gas they were guaranteed the highest energy generation price to encourage renewables but now they cost less. get the high price remains.....
i think this is very complex - i dont disagree with your point on pricing but I am cautious about anyone saying that renewables are cheaper. Renewables currently benefit from massive subsidies (read about the recent wind power auctions) without which I am pretty sure they would be uneconomic. But I may misunderstand as this is so complicated and untransparent - I hope we can all agree that more simplicity and transparency in pricing would be a good thing.
i have changed my mind on this. I used to support FPTP on the basis it delivered decisive outcomes, but now the 2 main parties are equally incompetent and disregarding of the views of real people I would now support PR. I am sure we disagree on what minority parties we would like to see benefit from this but such is the joy of democracy !
DOH i did i have edited the original.
Totally agree with you about lockdown. Many scientists in the public health arena had different views on the lockdown and were castigated for it. The great barrington declaration was nearer to Sweden's approach than what happened in most of the western world. Both my inlaws died after admittance to hospital with covid however whilst covid put them there it was their pre-exiting medical conditions that did for them. COPD & Parkinsons respectively.
They had a home care package with visits 4 times a day. The carers had a lot of others to see to during their shift and by the nature of the job there's a lot of close contact. My wife on the other hand kept her distance when visiting and on the occasion when she was present the carers pulled out their masks and put on gloves, hmmmmm.... I didn't even visit. I could not have lived with myself having finished off my cherished in-laws. I knew all along the vector of infection would be via the carers. We couldn't do anything about it. That sucked.
So Sweden right idea, but how on earth do you successfully implement it?
thank you for your candour - and I am so sorry about your in laws. I hope you don't mind me saying how admirable it is that you can see past your own terrible loss and still take an objective view on what is good for the UK. If this conversation was in a real pub, i would buy you your beers tonight.
i think the key thing re "successfully implement" is this - and it is another point the millionaire lawyers of the joke inquiry we have are completely missing - there is no zero death option. People die in pandemics and that is a tragedy - but it doesn't mean that every death is somebody's fault. My answer to your question - which I think Sweden did way better than us - is that the key focus should be on shielding the vulnerable (which is the broad principle behind Great Barrington). Your own case highlights that this cannot be done perfectly, but rather than focus on this the UK instead focussed on chaining up children's playgrounds, denying them an education, imposing the 10pm curfew, and coming up with bizarre diktats like the "scotch egg rule". And all while failing to focus in any meaningful way on the vulnerable elderly, in particular those in care settings. If all that energy had gone to protect the vulnerable, we would be way better off.
And the UK state is now compounding this by refusing to even examine if lockdown was the right option. The inquiry seems much more focussed on who used which sexual swearword about whom.
Once again, I am very sorry for your loss.
No worries, my in laws were awesome and that's how I remember them. As for uk politics, cover your back and don't confess. This is driven to a certain extent by the media. Other countries have a less toxic political/press setup.
You are totally right regarding the uk's response, it was press appeasement in the absence of data not yet available. 'seen to be doing something rather than nothing' a.k.a avoiding the 'UK GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ACT' type of headline. I think a lot of sensible decisions were lost in the political noise and over reliance in unproven modelling.
There was a media storm about prof Ferguson being part of the recommending of isolating measures when he was NOT isolating and rather meeting up with someone else against his own advice. This detracted from his history of making a lot of incorrect modeling predictions. Which should have been the focus rather than who is he seeing?
some say we get the politicians we deserve, maybe we also get the press we deserve
No worries, my in laws were awesome and that's how I remember them. As for uk politics, cover your back and don't confess. This is driven to a certain extent by the media. Other countries have a less toxic political/press setup.
You are totally right regarding the uk's response, it was press appeasement in the absence of data not yet available. 'seen to be doing something rather than nothing' a.k.a avoiding the 'UK GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ACT' type of headline. I think a lot of sensible decisions were lost in the political noise and over reliance in unproven modelling.
There was a media storm about prof Ferguson being part of the recommending of isolating measures when he was NOT isolating and rather meeting up with someone else against his own advice. This detracted from his history of making a lot of incorrect modeling predictions. Which should have been the focus rather than who is he seeing?
some say we get the politicians we deserve, maybe we also get the press we deserve
You make a good point on Ferguson (putting to one side his abysmal modelling record on bird flu, swing flu, BSE and in particular foot and mouth where he was a major influence in the needless culling of very many cattle) and the hypocracy of him and others failing to observe their own beloved lockdown. There can only be two explanations for this and I would love to ask him (and the govt - which is not just politicians) which it is.
1. They were running ad campaigns accusing those people who dared to socialise of being "granny killers" and the like. Did they therefore decide to socialise, knowing that the poor old Grannies would die as a result ?
2. Or did they know that the restrictions they were imposing on the rest of us were both unreasonable and unrealistic ?
Edit - and the media were equally hypocritical. Remember Kay Burley and Beth Rigby begging the government for lockdown ? They went on to ignore the restrictions themselves and were suspended from sky news as a result. And people like Robert Peston not social distancing or mask wearing at the press conferences, only to start doing so the minute the cameras were rolling. The media role in this was a scandal, and its another thing the inquiry is failing to look into. Far more important to spend time on who Dominic Cummings called a c***.
The wheels are coming off, they were even discussing a change to the leader before the next GE on 5 live today.
Tory MPs are coming under pressure from ministers to back the PM's Rwanda plan.
By Kate Whannel & Iain Watson
BBC News
Rishi Sunak hopes sending migrants to the African nation for processing and potential resettlement will deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
He has introduced emergency legislation aimed at overcoming legal issues which have so far delayed the scheme.
However, MPs from across his party have concerns about the approach and will be examining the bill over the weekend.
Last month, Supreme Court judges blocked the government's original plan, declaring that Rwanda was not a safe country and that the asylum system was flawed.
The government has now introduced the Safety of Rwanda Bill which requires judges to treat Rwanda as safe. It also gives ministers powers to disregard parts of the Human Rights Act, and prevents judges from taking into account other international laws.
This stage of the process is usually reserved for debating the general points of the proposed law.
MPs with concerns are likely to wait until later stages before trying to make changes to the draft legislation.
But Mr Sunak is keen to avoid a defeat at the hands of Tory rebels and the Labour Party on a key part of his flagship "stop the boats" policy.
Concerned Tory MPs are being offered meetings with government ministers.
Those who have human rights concerns are being told not all of the Human Rights Act is being disapplied by the proposed law and that asylum seekers facing serious irreversible harm could still challenge a decision to be deported, based on their individual cases.
However, MPs on the right of the party are being reassured that such legal challenges would be unlikely to succeed.
Both former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick have said Mr Sunak's plan won't work.
Mr Jenrick resigned his ministerial job shortly after the Safety of Rwanda Bill was published arguing that it didn't go far enough.
The European Research Group, an influential body of pro-Brexit MPs, have said they are studying the bill "forensically" but some are concerned the bill still allows for individuals to appeal a decision to deport them to Rwanda.
On the other side of the party, the One Nation group of MPs are taking legal advice from former Solicitor General Lord Garnier.
He told BBC Radio 4's PM programme the legislation was "political nonsense and legal nonsense".
"It's trying to define things when there is no evidence for that being the case. It's rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats."
Lord Garnier sits in the House of Lords, where the bill is also likely to run into difficulties.
Speaking on Wednesday, Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta said: "It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law."
He added that "without lawful behaviour by the UK" Rwanda would not be able to continue with the agreement.
Tory MPs are coming under pressure from ministers to back the PM's Rwanda plan.
By Kate Whannel & Iain Watson
BBC News
Rishi Sunak hopes sending migrants to the African nation for processing and potential resettlement will deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
He has introduced emergency legislation aimed at overcoming legal issues which have so far delayed the scheme.
However, MPs from across his party have concerns about the approach and will be examining the bill over the weekend.
Last month, Supreme Court judges blocked the government's original plan, declaring that Rwanda was not a safe country and that the asylum system was flawed.
The government has now introduced the Safety of Rwanda Bill which requires judges to treat Rwanda as safe. It also gives ministers powers to disregard parts of the Human Rights Act, and prevents judges from taking into account other international laws.
- Sunak’s Rwanda law at mercy of Tory factions
- UK paid Rwanda an extra £100m for asylum deal
- Can the new Rwanda bill work and what could stop it?
This stage of the process is usually reserved for debating the general points of the proposed law.
MPs with concerns are likely to wait until later stages before trying to make changes to the draft legislation.
But Mr Sunak is keen to avoid a defeat at the hands of Tory rebels and the Labour Party on a key part of his flagship "stop the boats" policy.
Concerned Tory MPs are being offered meetings with government ministers.
Those who have human rights concerns are being told not all of the Human Rights Act is being disapplied by the proposed law and that asylum seekers facing serious irreversible harm could still challenge a decision to be deported, based on their individual cases.
However, MPs on the right of the party are being reassured that such legal challenges would be unlikely to succeed.
Both former Home Secretary Suella Braverman and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick have said Mr Sunak's plan won't work.
Mr Jenrick resigned his ministerial job shortly after the Safety of Rwanda Bill was published arguing that it didn't go far enough.
The European Research Group, an influential body of pro-Brexit MPs, have said they are studying the bill "forensically" but some are concerned the bill still allows for individuals to appeal a decision to deport them to Rwanda.
On the other side of the party, the One Nation group of MPs are taking legal advice from former Solicitor General Lord Garnier.
He told BBC Radio 4's PM programme the legislation was "political nonsense and legal nonsense".
"It's trying to define things when there is no evidence for that being the case. It's rather like a bill that has decided that all dogs are cats."
Lord Garnier sits in the House of Lords, where the bill is also likely to run into difficulties.
Speaking on Wednesday, Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta said: "It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law."
He added that "without lawful behaviour by the UK" Rwanda would not be able to continue with the agreement.
Last edited:
why is this relevant to this thread ?
Similar threads
