0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Possibly but if I was going on national TV and all of the other news media I would be asking more than once of my advisors just how attainable the figures were. I would then say in my briefing that it was felt that X amount was a realistic figure. Why gauruntee a figure that you have no control over?People will forgive to an extent if your figure is realistic and almost achieved. When it is unachievable and misses by a mile surely you expect ridicule and criticism?
Quote from: drfchound on April 30, 2020, 08:55:06 pmIdler, I agree with all of that.Do you think that Hancock gave the 100,000 figure based on the advice he was given?I've no idea. Do you think he gave that assurance to the QT audience that the Govt was liaising with supermarkets on getting food delivered to the vulnerable based on advice he was given?Or that response to a journalist when he insisted that he hadn't promised we'd be at 25,000 tests per day by mid April? Do you think he based that answer on advice he'd been given? (Plot spoiler: He had. We didn't.)Either the Dept of Health advisers give really, really bad advice which Hancock keeps taking, or Hancock is barely on nodding terms with the truth. Take your pick.
Idler, I agree with all of that.Do you think that Hancock gave the 100,000 figure based on the advice he was given?
Having the facility but asking people to travel a fair distance too take a test weakens that though.We need as many local testing stations as possible which would not only make it easier but far quicker. The figures would leap up then.I would agree with you about committing to targets that I couldn't deliver.Honesty is the best policy.
63,000 tests on 22 people?Bloody hell, who did they get to volunteer to have that much stuff put up his nose?(Enter punchline Cabinet Minister name here.)------- ----?