COVID Inquiry

[Hounslowrover]

So BB you don’t think government decisions should be questioned because it’s political, so the Iraq war is not worth questioning either. I look forward to a change of government and your comments.

[Bentley Bullet]

If that is what you think it is not only scandalous, it is libelous.

[bpoolrover]

I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer

A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.

there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right

[BillyStubbsTears]

So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic. 

Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.

Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?

Give over, who are you actually trying to kid other than your handful of followers? You started this thread as a political football to kick the Tories, just as you have been doing for donkey's years.

BB
You're doing that thing that you do ever single time.

Ignoring the content and assuming that, because you don't want what they are saying to be true, they must be acting in bad faith.

Why not engage with the content? Why do you always, always have to do this?

[Bentley Bullet]

And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!

Why don't you engage in all content?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer

A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.

there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right

And that's one of the areas where you learn lessons for the next time a big disaster hits.

How can politicians know which "expert" judgement to trust.

In this case, there were "experts" saying in March and May 2020 that COVID was over and done with.

Of course it wasn't. It killed about 150,000 people in Britain after those dates, and would have killed many, many more if we hadn't had the lockdowns

One of the key lines of questions that the inquiry will be asking is:

1) Why were those "experts" who were so horribly wrong about the situation at the start of the epidemic, invited to Whitehall in September 2020 to persuade Johnson not to impose a lockdown?

2)Who arranged for them to be paraded in front of Johnson?

3) How many avoidable deaths and how many billions of pounds of lost economic output were the result of those decisions? (Because they led directly to the second wave getting totally out of control by Xmas 2020, and to the inevitable lockdown, when it did come, having to be much harder and longer.)

If we are going to learn anything, we have to know, broadly, which "experts" got things right, and which ones were egotistical gobshites who got pretty much every call wrong. And we have to know why it was that, in late 2020, our leaders chose to listen to the latter group.

It's not good enough to shrug and say "There were different opinions." There always are. The art of leadership is filtering out the wrong opinions.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!

Why don't you engage in all content?

I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.

What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.

Why do you do that so regularly?

[bpoolrover]

I still don't think there is a clear outcome to what should have been done, clearly there needed to be a lockdown, was it done quick enough probably not, was it done for 2 long probably as it's caused a lot of deaths since, the tories wanted shorter lockdown labour wanted longer

A clearer outcome will be when we find out what the expert advisors were telling the government and what any reasons for ignoring them were.

there were so many expert advisors advising different things, so you will have to cherry pick which ones you think were right

And that's one of the areas where you learn lessons for the next time a big disaster hits.

How can politicians know which "expert" judgement to trust.

In this case, there were "experts" saying in March and May 2020 that COVID was over and done with.

Of course it wasn't. It killed about 150,000 people in Britain after those dates, and would have killed many, many more if we hadn't had the lockdowns

One of the key lines of questions that the inquiry will be asking is:

1) Why were those "experts" who were so horribly wrong about the situation at the start of the epidemic, invited to Whitehall in September 2020 to persuade Johnson not to impose a lockdown?

2)Who arranged for them to be paraded in front of Johnson?

3) How many avoidable deaths and how many billions of pounds of lost economic output were the result of those decisions? (Because they led directly to the second wave getting totally out of control by Xmas 2020, and to the inevitable lockdown, when it did come, having to be much harder and longer.)

If we are going to learn anything, we have to know, broadly, which "experts" got things right, and which ones were egotistical gobshites who got pretty much every call wrong. And we have to know why it was that, in late 2020, our leaders chose to listen to the latter group.

It's not good enough to shrug and say "There were different opinions." There always are. The art of leadership is filtering out the wrong opinions.

I agree. There were experts telling labour we needed to lockdown for longer which would have caused many more avoidable deaths but you don't seem to have mentioned that

[bpoolrover]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/29/disastrous-legacy-left-lockdown-non-covid-excess-deaths-overtake/

[Bentley Bullet]

And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!

Why don't you engage in all content?

I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.

What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.

Why do you do that so regularly?

If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.

I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.

I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.

[drfchound]

If only the government could have taken notice of the expert opinions of some of our forum members who appear to know what should have been done.
With hindsight of course.

[ncRover]

No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.

[Filo]

No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.

I’m sure relatives of the deceased care

[ncRover]

No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.

I’m sure relatives of the deceased care

Of which I’m one. Bickering about what’s been and done it just isn’t productive is it? It was years ago now. Like the Iraq inquiry nothing will come of it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.

It's about learning lessons.

Only someone determined to stay ignorant would not care about that.

And it's about holding leaders to account. Having them justify their decisions. It's core to how democracies operate. How can you make decisions on the competence and trustworthiness of political decisio makers if you don't inquiry into how they formulated decisions during the most important events.

[tyke1962]

Well for what it's worth and purely on a personal level I was grateful to be taken out of the workforce for 6 months and placed on furlough and receiving 80% of my wages .

Taking me out of the workforce reduced my chances of getting the virus greatly and becoming extremely ill or pass it on to someone else who could have become even more ill or worse .

Not everyone was given that safety net .

[BillyStubbsTears]

And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!

Why don't you engage in all content?

I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.

What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.

Why do you do that so regularly?

If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.

I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.

I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.

I know this is pissing more time and effort up against the wall, but I'll say it anyway.

Back during the pandemic when you were disgustingly accusing me of the same thing, I pointed out the numerous times that I had praised Govt action.

Do you remember what your ridiculous response was?

You said I'd done that as cover so that I could refer back to it later and thereby hide my real intent which was to use the pandemic to score political points.

I've never quite understood whether you are a WUM, or just so screwed up that you genuinely believe that utter b*llocks. Either way, you're really not worth bothering with.

[ncRover]

No one cares anymore. Yesterday’s news. We’ve all moved on. No amount of complaining is going to change anything.

It's about learning lessons.

Only someone determined to stay ignorant would not care about that.

And it's about holding leaders to account. Having them justify their decisions. It's core to how democracies operate. How can you make decisions on the competence and trustworthiness of political decisio makers if you don't inquiry into how they formulated decisions during the most important events.

Fair enough. Sorry for my snappy post it was just a bad few years and I’m trying to move on from it. Prior to the loss (which I don’t blame anyone for), lockdowns hit me hard financially. It’s not for me to speak for everyone else though Filo you’re right.

If this post is about learning lessons and not pointing the finger and political point scoring then that’s fine.

The problem is it was a very complex issue that in the early days the WHO buried their heads in the sand about and believed China who were intent on covering it and the origins of the virus up. For example saying it could not be transmitted human to human.

Because it was such a complex issue not everybody will agree on what those lessons to be learnt are. There were trade-offs to be had with any response to it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

NC.

No problem. I don't think any of us particularly enjoyed it. And yes, I am 100% against any inquiry being a witch hunt that retrospectively hammers politicians for getting things wrong when under the gravest pressure.

But equally, it's not good for society to give politicians a free pass and absolve them of any responsibility for their actions.

For me, there are three major questions:

1) Why were we so late in locking down the first time? I have some sympathy for the politicians in that case, because the situation was developing very quickly. But that was a big mistake, and we need to know how and why that delay happened.

2) Far, far bigger question. With the knowledge that we had from the first lockdown, why were we so late in locking down in Winter 20/21? What advice was the Govt following? We do know that decision cost maybe 60,000 lives and led to a far, far longer lockdown than would otherwise have been required, with all the detrimental effects that had. And none of that is hindsight. It was talked about in real time in here and all over the country.

3) The major success of the epidemic was the vaccination programme. What lessons can we learn from that to expedite the process even more so in future pandemics? Are there research areas that we should prioritise? Are there stocks of raw materials that we should build up? Etc.

[Bentley Bullet]

And here's me thinking that it is you who ignores the content that doesn't suit your agenda, and only engages in the content that does!

Why don't you engage in all content?

I've only got so much time. There are some things that don't interest me. There are some topics where I have nothing to add. Lots of reasons.

What I don't, ever do is to ignore content and throw abuse at people who are trying to discuss in good faith.

Why do you do that so regularly?

If 'good faith' means everything the Tories did in the pandemic was wrong, and everything Labour did was right, then my opinion about the handling of it is irrelevant in the great scheme of things on this forum. What is relevant though is my point that you and your handful of mates treated the pandemic as a political football and used your one-sided bias for your political agenda of hate.

I don't know and I've never pretended to know the answers as to which route the government should have taken regarding Covid, and the only political remarks I made were in an attempt to level up the ridiculous one-sided attacks from you and your mates.

I just hope those involved in the inquiry are not politically biased, like you, so as to ignore the content that doesn't suit their agenda.

I know this is pissing more time and effort up against the wall, but I'll say it anyway.

Back during the pandemic when you were disgustingly accusing me of the same thing, I pointed out the numerous times that I had praised Govt action.

Do you remember what your ridiculous response was?

You said I'd done that as cover so that I could refer back to it later and thereby hide my real intent which was to use the pandemic to score political points.

I've never quite understood whether you are a WUM, or just so screwed up that you genuinely believe that utter b*llocks. Either way, you're really not worth bothering with.

And you're STILL doing it to this day.

[belton rover]

Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.

But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.

Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.

Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.

[wilts rover]

Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.

But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.

Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.

Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.

I would have thought that most people who cared about the Inquiry and the results of it so that lessons could be learnt, would care about what offical government communications were being released to it. And which were being witheld. Which is what this thread is about.

Unless the chair of the Inquiry knows exactly what the government were doing & discussing, and why, then how can a full picture be shown?

You will find a number of of posts in the covid thread saying how there should be a full inquiry into what the government did and why they did it. Funny how some of those same people appear to not now want one. Funny old world.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.
More to the point, you might expect them to be concerned about the established fact that the Cabinet Office lied to the head of the inquiry about what information they had, and only backed down when she smoked out their lie.

You might think they'd be more interested in that than chucking out ad hominems. But of course that is the triumph of hope over experience.

[belton rover]

Wilts.
More to the point, you might expect them to be concerned about the established fact that the Cabinet Office lied to the head of the inquiry about what information they had, and only backed down when she smoked out their lie.

You might think they'd be more interested in that than chucking out and hominems. But of course that is the triumph of hope over experience.

Assuming your and hominem (sic) post was, at least partially, aimed at me, I do want the enquiry to be thorough.
I will also respect its findings.
It appears to me that you are paving the way to dismiss the findings if they are not what you want to hear.

[belton rover]

Billy.
Many people think the government did the best they could do under such unprecedented circumstances.
Many people don’t.
An enquiry is necessary, of course it is, for lessons to be learned. With absolutely no doubt, some mistakes (with the benefit of hindsight, of course) were made, and hopefully the enquiry will identify these.

But. Most of your posts on this thread aren’t really about the enquiry, are they? That’s not really the point of this thread, is it? That, as usual, is so transparent.

Here’s a thought: let the enquiry take its course and accept its outcome with some integrity.

Then, you never know, people might start to accept that there is more to you than a tory bashing obsessive who doesn’t write much on here with good faith.

I would have thought that most people who cared about the Inquiry and the results of it so that lessons could be learnt, would care about what offical government communications were being released to it. And which were being witheld. Which is what this thread is about.

Unless the chair of the Inquiry knows exactly what the government were doing & discussing, and why, then how can a full picture be shown?

You will find a number of of posts in the covid thread saying how there should be a full inquiry into what the government did and why they did it. Funny how some of those same people appear to not now want one. Funny old world.

Who doesn’t want an enquiry?

[rich1471]

So BB the point is to learn nothing that can be used if there is a future pandemic. 

Points should always be learnt with the advantage of hindsight, but the use of hindsight to gain political smarty points is appalling.

Go on then. Who is doing that in this thread?

Give over, who are you actually trying to kid other than your handful of followers? You started this thread as a political football to kick the Tories, just as you have been doing for donkey's years.

Billy if you started this thread to kick the Torries I just hope you had steel toe capped boots on and kicked them hard

[ravenrover]

On holiday at the mo, has the Cabinet Office now "found" the Wa's and diaries?
There seems to be a news blackout  ontinterweb about this

[Glyn_Wigley]

On holiday at the mo, has the Cabinet Office now "found" the Wa's and diaries?
There seems to be a news blackout  ontinterweb about this

It's not a blackout, but some media are stretching the Phillip Schofield non-story to breaking point so they can fill pages with that instead of this story!

[ravenrover]

I see Johnson has not handed over his 1st phone for whats apps as required. It was used at the start of Covid, what on earth could he be hiding there!?. It's with his lawyers apparently, is he now in contempt of the court ruling? 2 years jail sentence could apply
Is the phone actually required, to access whatsapps messages?

[Bristol Red Rover]

How many politicians are capable of making real world management decisions? Part of the reason is because they are only held accountable by votes. That's not enough. If they are made to pay for screw ups, especially when there's even a sniff of fraud, they will start to be more effective and honest rather than the spectrum of self serving piffle and blather we see.

The inquiry should be firmly focused on the fraud around covid - the PPE, testing,  even the vaccs. And those found guilty should be banged up.