numpty1
Member
Government Mismanagement, Misinformation, ignoring advice, now "**** has hit the fan" they don't know which way to turn.
Most of my thoughts have been said.
Most of my thoughts have been said.
How would you rate the UK's handling of this pandemic?
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Boris can't win.
We can also speculate on how Labour would have fared. Had they won the election in 2019, Corbyn would be PM.
He would have been equally motivated by political dogma - different to Boris but no less damaging. The overall outcome may have been little different:
There are also some very obvious deficiencies in the Boris team - I suspect he has a somewhat split party (over Brexit) and he does not want to alienate more colleagues. He may come to regret not being bolder in firing those who are obviously lacking in competence.
- Lots of rules for all possibilities = nanny state, too complex
- Simple guidance = inconsistencies, not specific, unclear
- Rely on common sense = common sense is the rarest of quaities
We can also speculate on how Labour would have fared. Had they won the election in 2019, Corbyn would be PM.
He would have been equally motivated by political dogma - different to Boris but no less damaging. The overall outcome may have been little different:
- the initial problems (March - June) were the result of completely inadequate contingency planning going back decades
- reliance upon existing public sector structures and competencies - ministers take responsibility despite a lack of experience, control or competency.
There are also some very obvious deficiencies in the Boris team - I suspect he has a somewhat split party (over Brexit) and he does not want to alienate more colleagues. He may come to regret not being bolder in firing those who are obviously lacking in competence.
Lons
Established Member
You can't instantly provide fast broadband services to rural communities, it physically takes time even if the will and wherewithal is in place and to say Labour would have achieved that is naive.
No doubt Johnson has floundered but heaven help us had your mate Corbynge been in charge.
. Yes the buck is carried by the guy at the top but your statement suggests that each and every one of us is blameless, if that really is your opinion and I don't think it can be then it's living in cloud cuckoo land as that guy in the queue is typical of many thousands of irresponsible idiots ignoring commonsense practices because of attitude, ignorance or downright stupidity. If they were sensible we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that either!
Last edited:
Labor are typically keen on public spending.
Those who don't understand economic theory believe it to be frivelous, however Keynesian economics, whilst obviously still arguable, is a long way from frivolity.
The madness is that, in recent generations, labor is the only leadership that has displayed any notable budget surplus whatsoever.
But still they are accused of having the reputation for being poor at house keeping, I guess as Keynesian economic policy does not have any short term benefits for those with significant wealth, and it's arguably those who have the loudest voice?
I would suggest that it's pretty much indisputable that the NHS undergoes better funding under socialist policies.
Would this funding been at the cost of the rest of the country? Well, that probably comes down to if you are a monetarist or not? It is, again, probably indisputable that the health cost per capita is lowest in the more socialist countries of the world and highest in the most monetarist.
Its certainly looking that the vastly increased cost of, say, America's health service has done nothing to lower their per capita death rate, whilst countries like Germany, who happen to have a much higher per capita ICU bed rate than the UK seem to have faired much better.
There are so many factors to any of this that there will never be a perfect answer, however, it certainly seems that the countries with less "free market" approaches have better coped with the pandemic.
Those who don't understand economic theory believe it to be frivelous, however Keynesian economics, whilst obviously still arguable, is a long way from frivolity.
The madness is that, in recent generations, labor is the only leadership that has displayed any notable budget surplus whatsoever.
But still they are accused of having the reputation for being poor at house keeping, I guess as Keynesian economic policy does not have any short term benefits for those with significant wealth, and it's arguably those who have the loudest voice?
I would suggest that it's pretty much indisputable that the NHS undergoes better funding under socialist policies.
Would this funding been at the cost of the rest of the country? Well, that probably comes down to if you are a monetarist or not? It is, again, probably indisputable that the health cost per capita is lowest in the more socialist countries of the world and highest in the most monetarist.
Its certainly looking that the vastly increased cost of, say, America's health service has done nothing to lower their per capita death rate, whilst countries like Germany, who happen to have a much higher per capita ICU bed rate than the UK seem to have faired much better.
There are so many factors to any of this that there will never be a perfect answer, however, it certainly seems that the countries with less "free market" approaches have better coped with the pandemic.
I think countries like China with less free market have done a lot better because when the guy at the top says do this everyone jumps and it is done, none of this freindly advice or it would be nice if you all stopped mixing. Then you have our world beating track and trace system, just a total farce when you compare it to the South Koreans but then it has made some people very rich, and they just happen to have close contacts in government.
You want to live under that kind of government?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Well no of course not. We just need govt which can recognise an emergency and take appropriate measures quickly.
In times of national crisis that type of government is needed to ensure containment of the virus and rules are followed. Better to lose some civil rights for a short while than have approaching 100,000 dead and so many lives changed forever. With that sort of power they could instantly have closed the boarders, detained and or deported anyone coming into the country and stopped the virus before it became a pandemic.
I am glad you aren't in government then, because what you have just said is how tyranny starts.
As I learnt in physics, to stop a large force apply an even larger force. Had I been the PM people may have been in for a big shock but this virus would have been restrained using common sense and not a bunch of rear end licking advisors. Used the military to close all borders and ground all flights in UK airspace, and vessels in british waters. Use detention centres for everyone that came back into the Uk for a month and test negative before release.
Cozzer
Established Member
The original question was "How would you rate the uk's handling of this pandemic?"
A better one might've been "How would you rate the uk's public handling of this pandemic?"
Looking out of my front room window, and the traffic flow, I wonder if the supposed lockdown has been abandoned?!
It looks like a normal day out there!
As for "essential shops" opening, a pal of mine runs a lawnmower repair shop - servicing, spares, consumables - and has (allegedly) been given permission to open by the local authorities.
I think Joe Public are ignoring the simple "stay at home" instructions, whether through stupidity or impatience...and don't get me started about the thicko's who are going to think that they're in the all-clear after having the first ***!
A better one might've been "How would you rate the uk's public handling of this pandemic?"
Looking out of my front room window, and the traffic flow, I wonder if the supposed lockdown has been abandoned?!
It looks like a normal day out there!
As for "essential shops" opening, a pal of mine runs a lawnmower repair shop - servicing, spares, consumables - and has (allegedly) been given permission to open by the local authorities.
I think Joe Public are ignoring the simple "stay at home" instructions, whether through stupidity or impatience...and don't get me started about the thicko's who are going to think that they're in the all-clear after having the first ***!
Considering at least 75% of transmission occurs within the house, how exactly do you think shutting more shops would help?
doctor Bob
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- 1,881
I wonder why the gov't didn't just consult this woodworking forum before making any decisions, if they had all would have been tickity boo.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
The initial strategy was to trace and isolate contacts. On 16th March this was abandoned as the virus had already spread widely in the community, and there were insufficient resources to make the strategy work. Full lockdown was 23rd March.
Thus the root of the problem was a lack of contingency planning, trained resources and testing capacity before covid was even an issue. There are lessons to le learned for the future.
More authoritarian regimes are able to limit travel, impose lockdowns, implement more effective (and intrusive) track and trace. In placing civil and personal liberties above the needs of the whole community, the UK (and most other western democracies) were incapable of getting effective early control over virus spread.
Track and trace will not work well if infections are at a high level. It is administratively demanding, and needs embedded social behaviours and effective policing. The UK has quite a lot of the former, but no capacity for effective enforcement.
Testing before entry to the UK is now simply "shutting the stable door eons after the horse has bolted". Infection rates in the UK are, and have been, generally higher than elsewhere. Arrivals to the UK are no more likely to spread the virus than someone travelling 20 miles from home.
It is a politically expedient reaction to ill informed public and media pressure.
Thus the root of the problem was a lack of contingency planning, trained resources and testing capacity before covid was even an issue. There are lessons to le learned for the future.
More authoritarian regimes are able to limit travel, impose lockdowns, implement more effective (and intrusive) track and trace. In placing civil and personal liberties above the needs of the whole community, the UK (and most other western democracies) were incapable of getting effective early control over virus spread.
Track and trace will not work well if infections are at a high level. It is administratively demanding, and needs embedded social behaviours and effective policing. The UK has quite a lot of the former, but no capacity for effective enforcement.
Testing before entry to the UK is now simply "shutting the stable door eons after the horse has bolted". Infection rates in the UK are, and have been, generally higher than elsewhere. Arrivals to the UK are no more likely to spread the virus than someone travelling 20 miles from home.
It is a politically expedient reaction to ill informed public and media pressure.
Continually underestimated the virus. Didn’t want to take tough decisions and always reacted rather than preempted. I’m sure we will find out over the coming years that his friends made a lot of money during the last 9 mo the too!
Not having a child of school age, i was unaware that schools opened for one single day?
I mean if that is true, as Pie sums up below, its about as much of an answer to this question as is needed -
(note, various swearing)
Also note the comment at the end about there being 76,000 deaths in the uk. The date of the video is the 6th. Today is the 9th. We passed 80,000 deaths today.
I mean if that is true, as Pie sums up below, its about as much of an answer to this question as is needed -
(note, various swearing)
Also note the comment at the end about there being 76,000 deaths in the uk. The date of the video is the 6th. Today is the 9th. We passed 80,000 deaths today.
Billy_wizz
Established Member
The problem with keep throwing money at the NHS is that there is no responsibility to use the money well and you end up with a system that just keeps asking for more! When Tony Blair's government pledged to double the staff lvls of the NHS they never checked if it was practical and on finding there wasn't enough front line staff hospitals padded middle management to achieve what was being demanded by government so you ended with the rediculous situation whare many hospitals ended up doubling there staff but only increased the front line staff by 10-20%
I wholly agree that state run enterprises are rarely as "efficient" as private enterprise. But the word efficient is partially misleading, as it does not fully explain the benefactor of the efficiency.
A not-for-profit enterprise might well be less efficient overall, but an enterprise that has to serve shareholders as its primary concern might well (as we clearly see with the American health system) actually display a less favourable user cost.
There is also the consideration that absolute efficiency may not even be wholly necessary, so long as the inefficiencies are re-distributing wealth down the wealth gradient, where its cyclical nature will generate more economic activity than if it remains higher up the scale. I'm not wholly arguing this point, however, it is a commonly considered hypothesis.
The death rate and infection rate aren't related to the health systems, they're related to the culture before people make their way into the health systems.
If you can find a correlation, it would likely have much more to do with uniformity of what the population has done under covid (either voluntarily or by force).
- Status
