By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
A bit like the anti-poll tax demonstrations. in Britain in March 1990. Many people had a genuine grievance, but the demonstration turned into senseless mass vandalism.
I am watching The Week England Burned right now about the 2011 riots. Forgot how bad it was.
The Boris Johnson that wanted Covid to “rip through the population”
There were more than 43,000 recorded deaths involving Covid in care homes between March 2020 and July 2022.
"Today's report is a devastating account of one of the darkest episodes in our country's history. "It shows that the government knew the care sector was extremely vulnerable to a pandemic and yet did nothing. Failing to act until it was too late."
Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
During this time, described as a "lost month" for pandemic preparation, Johnson reportedly engaged in personal activities at Chevening, rather than official government business.
The Covid inquiry's report concluded that Johnson's delay in implementing lockdown measures resulted in an estimated 23,000 additional deaths.
Who else has failed with worse results?
Just to be clear, I'm not defending Johnson's chaotic decision-making, but we have to look at the actual science behind that 23,000 figure.
The official Office for Statistics Regulation actually reprimanded the Inquiry for presenting that number as a certainty. The underlying Imperial College model had a massive margin of error—predicting the reduction could have been anywhere from 33,000 down to just 5,900 deaths.
On top of that, the model assumes people only changed their behavior when the law forced them to.. It's a theoretical computer simulation packaged as a hard historical fact.
But I suppose it’s a classic example of modern political debate: why bother understanding a complex range of probabilities when you can just grab a single, context-free headline that confirms pre-existing biases?
Just to be clear, I'm not defending Johnson's chaotic decision-making, but we have to look at the actual science behind that 23,000 figure.
The official Office for Statistics Regulation actually reprimanded the Inquiry for presenting that number as a certainty. The underlying Imperial College model had a massive margin of error—predicting the reduction could have been anywhere from 33,000 down to just 5,900 deaths.
On top of that, the model assumes people only changed their behavior when the law forced them to.. It's a theoretical computer simulation packaged as a hard historical fact.
But I suppose it’s a classic example of modern political debate: why bother understanding a complex range of probabilities when you can just grab a single, context-free headline that confirms pre-existing biases?
“ Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
During this time, described as a "lost month" for pandemic preparation, Johnson reportedly engaged in personal activities at Chevening, rather than official government business.”
“ Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
During this time, described as a "lost month" for pandemic preparation, Johnson reportedly engaged in personal activities at Chevening, rather than official government business.”
Only 5,900 deaths, is that your response?
That says a lot.
Are you suggesting there’s something amiss with this recent addition to the board who from a standing start has been the most prolific politically motivated poster since the sadly missed Waveney Blue?
“ Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
During this time, described as a "lost month" for pandemic preparation, Johnson reportedly engaged in personal activities at Chevening, rather than official government business.”
Only 5,900 deaths, is that your response?
That says a lot.
You’ve read part of my post. That says something
But then by jumping to 5,900 it’s like the modelling complexities I pointed to bypassed you.
Are you suggesting there’s something amiss with this recent addition to the board who from a standing start has been the most prolific politically motivated poster since the sadly missed Waveney Blue?
Always nice to have new posters isn’t it.
You can always ignore me. Then you can only hear from people you agree with
But then by jumping to 5,900 it’s like the modelling complexities I pointed to bypassed you.
“ Not sure Boris was that bad.”
Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
Your debating point is essentially: his actions, that he lied about, may have lead to less deaths, than some modellers suggest, really isn’t as strong as you think it is.
"Today's report is a devastating account of one of the darkest episodes in our country's history. "It shows that the government knew the care sector was extremely vulnerable to a pandemic and yet did nothing. Failing to act until it was too late."
Not sure Boris was that bad. His incompetence only caused thousands of extra deaths. But that Burnham, watch out for him.
Official records reveal Boris Johnson took four days off in February 2020, a critical period before the UK's Covid-19 lockdown, contradicting his sworn testimony to the inquiry.
Your debating point is essentially: his actions, that he lied about, may have lead to less deaths, than some modellers suggest, really isn’t as strong as you think it is.
"Today's report is a devastating account of one of the darkest episodes in our country's history. "It shows that the government knew the care sector was extremely vulnerable to a pandemic and yet did nothing. Failing to act until it was too late."
Not sure Boris was that bad. His incompetence only caused thousands of extra deaths. But that Burnham, watch out for him.
And just for completeness, for those interested.
This is an extra from the letter sent to the Covid enquiry, which was not a reprimand
“ I want to emphasise that we are not questioning the inquiry’s conclusions, including those on the timing of advisory and mandated lockdowns, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so. Our focus is the presentation of statistical evidence, and the risk that the wording chosen for the Executive Summary is a misleading representation of the underlying analysis. We thought it would be helpful to share our findings with you because in future modules of the Inquiry report, you may wish to present modelling or other analytical evidence and it will be important that this is communicated clearly and accurately.”
And this was the part of the response
“ I accept that in trying to condense and simplify the 800-page Module 2ABC report into a short, accessible Executive Summary, framing of the statistic through use of the word “established” was too definitive and did not reflect the uncertainty inherent in all modelling. The main body of the report uses more appropriate language in saying it is “estimated” that locking down one week earlier “could have” led to a reduction of 23,000 deaths.
The Inquiry’s findings are grounded in the whole of the evidence received. Baroness Hallett concluded that the outputs of this model were useful in illustrating a broader finding about the timing of the first lockdown based on the totality of the evidence before her – both written and oral. She observed:
“Indeed, the Inquiry accepts the consensus of the evidence before it that a mandatory lockdown should have been imposed one week earlier”1 and that doing so would have saved many thousands of lives during the first wave. Omitting, in its Executive Summary, the inherent uncertainty within one model does not change that overall finding of the Module 2ABC report. ”
This is an extra from the letter sent to the Covid enquiry, which was not a reprimand
“ I want to emphasise that we are not questioning the inquiry’s conclusions, including those on the timing of advisory and mandated lockdowns, nor would it be appropriate for us to do so. Our focus is the presentation of statistical evidence, and the risk that the wording chosen for the Executive Summary is a misleading representation of the underlying analysis. We thought it would be helpful to share our findings with you because in future modules of the Inquiry report, you may wish to present modelling or other analytical evidence and it will be important that this is communicated clearly and accurately.”
And this was the part of the response
“ I accept that in trying to condense and simplify the 800-page Module 2ABC report into a short, accessible Executive Summary, framing of the statistic through use of the word “established” was too definitive and did not reflect the uncertainty inherent in all modelling. The main body of the report uses more appropriate language in saying it is “estimated” that locking down one week earlier “could have” led to a reduction of 23,000 deaths.
The Inquiry’s findings are grounded in the whole of the evidence received. Baroness Hallett concluded that the outputs of this model were useful in illustrating a broader finding about the timing of the first lockdown based on the totality of the evidence before her – both written and oral. She observed:
“Indeed, the Inquiry accepts the consensus of the evidence before it that a mandatory lockdown should have been imposed one week earlier”1 and that doing so would have saved many thousands of lives during the first wave. Omitting, in its Executive Summary, the inherent uncertainty within one model does not change that overall finding of the Module 2ABC report. ”
“Not sure Boris was that bad”
[Post edited 20 Oct 22:24]
Did you not see my response to Flash above? When talking about objectivity and his comment on Boris?
Or then my response to Blueschev a couple of posts later?
Or my point about not defending Boris’ chaotic decision making?
I still think it’s valid to point out the flaws in the modelling.
You think I’m someone else? Not authentic? Who’s that then?
You claim 'different views are welcome,' but I express mine, you accuse me of operating in bad faith just because you disagree.
I never make accusations or label others for their views.
disingenuous, not authentic, not here in good faith ... it's the same old same old.
you've challenged their views so they've got to deny your legitimacy. they know they're right, so you must be (a) wrong and (a) a bad person. they can't show (a) so now they going to bang on about (b). it's just how the site works.
[Post edited 21 Oct 7:35]
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
disingenuous, not authentic, not here in good faith ... it's the same old same old.
you've challenged their views so they've got to deny your legitimacy. they know they're right, so you must be (a) wrong and (a) a bad person. they can't show (a) so now they going to bang on about (b). it's just how the site works.
[Post edited 21 Oct 7:35]
It was a classic statement from one of the usual suspects,and a attempt to shut down a fellow poster who dares to hold a different view to the majority on here.😂
disingenuous, not authentic, not here in good faith ... it's the same old same old.
you've challenged their views so they've got to deny your legitimacy. they know they're right, so you must be (a) wrong and (a) a bad person. they can't show (a) so now they going to bang on about (b). it's just how the site works.
[Post edited 21 Oct 7:35]
They haven’t challenged my views. You’ve made that bit up.
They’ve arrived out of thin air, posted incessantly about politics and hardly ever about football.
You’d be all over it if they had different politics, as would all of the people voting be down further up the thread.
Did you not see my response to Flash above? When talking about objectivity and his comment on Boris?
Or then my response to Blueschev a couple of posts later?
Or my point about not defending Boris’ chaotic decision making?
I still think it’s valid to point out the flaws in the modelling.
“ Having an objective debate about how good/bad each PM has been will always be difficult.
Not sure Boris was that bad.”
When presented with two reports, and that Boris Johnson lied at an inquiry, that found his government lead to thousands of excess deaths, rather than answer a simple question you have tried to squirm and deflect and incorrectly question the science.
It was a classic statement from one of the usual suspects,and a attempt to shut down a fellow poster who dares to hold a different view to the majority on here.😂
Funny how you can never spot returning posters that you agree with but are very quick to jump on and voice suspicions about posters you don't agree with.
Funny how you can never spot returning posters that you agree with but are very quick to jump on and voice suspicions about posters you don't agree with.
“ Having an objective debate about how good/bad each PM has been will always be difficult.
Not sure Boris was that bad.”
When presented with two reports, and that Boris Johnson lied at an inquiry, that found his government lead to thousands of excess deaths, rather than answer a simple question you have tried to squirm and deflect and incorrectly question the science.
You are not objective.
I am not objective, almost by definition. This is a political discussion. I recognise my subjectivity.
On the model, the very essence of science is to question the data, the variables modelled, and the fit. By not questioning it, you are not being scientific. The UK's independent Office for Statistics Regulation formally reprimanded the Inquiry for presenting that 23,000 figure as a certainty, precisely because it hid the model's massive 95% margin of error (which actually projected anywhere from 5,900 to 33,100 deaths).
I assume you have strong modelling credentials, so hopefully you recognise that looking at those margins and data interactions is basic scientific literacy.
It was a classic statement from one of the usual suspects,and a attempt to shut down a fellow poster who dares to hold a different view to the majority on here.😂
I don't think I do hold a different view to many on here anymore than anyone else does.
On the subject of me being a returning poster, there seems to be far less call for evidence and objectivity.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
