Covid-19 Inquiry (was meant to be about 'smart' meters)

[blup]

How can you know that? A different (unknown) government surely might have locked down later and generally been less cautious, mightn't they?

Look at the nanny state knows best approach to the foot and mouth crisis in 2001(?). Ruthless, kill all cattle, massive fraud by farmers. Hmm a bit like furlough

Maybe, but that's pure speculation.

Standard diynot speculation, if the government can be wise after the event I can be wise before it

Blup

 

[ericmark]

The real learning should be not to engage in totalitarian and invent new rights for governments to unlawfully intervene in people's lives. Anyone who voted for any of these measures should be prosecuted for Treason in my view.

The gun powder plot I assume? Only if you are catholic, I had not in my youth realised it was a religious thing, but so near to November the 5th we have to consider that.

I note where you live, and I can see the problems, however most in the mainland would not even know what a 'take' is, I as a Welshman do not think of it in those terms, but having worked in Ulster understand the conations, but also realise most in mainland UK have no idea of what I am talking about, I will assume you do?

I still think to work out mistakes to stop a repeat is good, but to lay blame in hind sight is silly.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yu might, but I don't think that I (or ;we') really do know. Some countries did much more, and some much less than us

By the media, and a fair proportion of the general population, but one would hope that all 'credible expert views' were 'respected and caredully considered by the decision-makers.

It sounds as if you are more clever than the rest of us, in that you know what advice was 'correct' and what wasn't. Most of us just see/saw differing expert opinions from which someone (government) had to decide which deserved the greatest ';weight';.

As above, I would hope that they were 'considered and debated' by the decision-makers. A #public debate' would have been impractical, since that could have gone on for 'years', whereas a decisio was needed in days.

As above, the media and a fair bit of the general population did, but one would hope that the decision-makers will not have dismissed/ridicukled any expert view/advice, but would have put it into the 'decision melting pot'

Maybe, IF anyone was 'incompetent', rather than just unable to be sure what was the best approach. However, the main individuals concerned are no longer in government, and the days of government itself are probably numbered - so who would you like to fire? About the only consistent thing is that everything done by government is done on behalf of, and with the implied 'blessing' of the monarch - should we perhaps posthumnously 'fire' the late Queen?!

You appear to have made up your mind about how government decisions were made, and what was 'correct' or 'incorrect (i.e. 'a pile of assumptions'), and are phrasing all your statements to fit with those beliefs. How is it that you know (rather than merely 'assume') more than the rest of us? As far as the rest of us is concerned, this is why we very much need an Inquiry - but about 'what', not 'who'.

Oh dear.

 

[morqthana]

Rather than writing a long reply/replies to all the various points above, I'll summarise.

I really don't see how it is possible to "scrutinise government decision-making relating to planning and seek to identify lessons that can be learnt", or to have an absolutely crucial inquiry into the management of the pandemic to learn lessons from our recent experiences, if that inquiry does not look at what individuals did. How can we learn from what the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did, and carry forward what he did well, and learn not to do again what he did badly if we don't inquire into what he did, and why? The latter being vital, because how we fix a problem of, say, unclear advice and uncertainty from the experts is very different from how we fix one of job-protection, or being more concerned about the font used for documents than their contents, or being under the influence of non-elected political machinators, or too busy engaged in in-fighting and turf wars.

And as for ideologies - it's funny, but when I look at countries with better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc, I don't see any "extreme Socialist" ones.

 

[ebee]

I could have (essentially just have!) written that myself. We do seem to be very very close to one another!

Kind Regards, John

Yes John, kindred spirits on most things IMHO I would imagine so far anyway .
Never mind though, take heart that one day we might find something to totally disagree about if we try hard enough . LOL.

 

[morqthana]

I note where you live, and I can see the problems,

So can I

 

[morqthana]

I still think to work out mistakes to stop a repeat is good, but to lay blame in hind sight is silly.

a) it's not, and b) it's unavoidable.

If mistakes were caused by individuals doing things which were wrong, not in a "with the benefit of hindsight", or "if I'd known then what I know now" type of wrong, but in an ulterior-motive wrong, or a "but you actually knew the truth and lied about it" wrong, or a self-aggrandisement wrong, or an egregiously negligent or reckless wrong, then that needs to be brought out, and individuals do need to be "blamed". It is society which needs this, because maybe the only way to stop certain mistakes being repeated is to change the system which creates toxic work environments and people given jobs on the basis of political fear rather than competence.

 

[JohnW2]

Look at the nanny state knows best approach to the foot and mouth crisis in 2001(?). Ruthless, kill all cattle, massive fraud by farmers. Hmm a bit like furlough

Yep, that was another (fairly infamous) case of the government taking 'drastic' (many would say unjustified) action on the advice of 'scaremongering' statistics from Imperial College.

... but that leaves me very confused. Particularly given that you have cited that prior result of acting in response to IC advice, what makes you think that a different government would have been 'more cautious' (e.g. earlier, longer and more restrictive lockdowns) in handling the Covid-19 pandemic?

Standard diynot speculation, if the government can be wise after the event I can be wise before it

Do you mean that you know, and even that you knew at the time, what 'correct' actions the government should (or should not) have been taking in relation to Covid?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

So can I

Careful - you are at risk of revealing your identity

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes John, kindred spirits on most things IMHO I would imagine so far anyway .

Yep, certainly a good few things, it seems.

Never mind though, take heart that one day we might find something to totally disagree about if we try hard enough . LOL.

I'll see if I can think of anything. Do you have any strong religious or political viuews, I wonder?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I still think to work out mistakes to stop a repeat is good, but to lay blame in hind sight is silly.

That seems to make at leapt three of us!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I really don't see how it is possible to "scrutinise government decision-making relating to planning and seek to identify lessons that can be learnt", or to have an absolutely crucial inquiry into the management of the pandemic to learn lessons from our recent experiences, if that inquiry does not look at what individuals did.

What matters is 'what government did'. Yes, of course, 'the government' consists of a number of individual human beings, but deciding what government actions were 'good', which were 'bad' and which could probably have been done better, and how (hence could be done better next time) in no way requires consideration of which particular human beings were involved in the government's actions.

How can we learn from what the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did, and carry forward what he did well, and learn not to do again what he did badly if we don't inquire into what he did, and why?

As above, what matters is what the government did, and why.

The latter being vital, because how we fix a problem of, say, unclear advice and uncertainty from the experts is very different from how we fix one of job-protection, or being more concerned about the font used for documents than their contents, or being under the influence of non-elected political machinators, or too busy engaged in in-fighting and turf wars.

Essentially still 'as above'.

And as for ideologies - it's funny, but when I look at countries with better run health services, better run railways, water bodies who don't pump s**t into the rivers, roads that get repaired, an education system which works and doesn't have buildings that fall on pupils' heads, a justice system which works, local government which actually works, etc, etc, etc, I don't see any "extreme Socialist" ones.

Interesting - in which case I think you probably need to clarify your political inclinations, since you appeared to be presenting an 'anti-Capitalist' argument.

 

[ebee]

I'll see if I can think of anything. Do you have any strong religious or political viuews, I wonder?

Yes - I am a devout atheist - that is I am not religious at all (in the general meaning of religion).
Hope that helps John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes - I am a devout atheist - that is I am not religious at all (in the general meaning of religion).
Hope that helps John

Well, the 'devout' certainly helps. My point in asking was that whenever a person has strong (or passionate', hence probably also 'devote') religious or political views (even if 'non-religious' or 'non-political'), that usually opens up the possibility of others having strong disagreements with them

As far as I am aware, "aetheist" literally means a belief that deities (god/gods) do not exist and to have such a 'belief' ('with certainty') seems to me to require the same sort of 'blind faith' exercised by those who do believe in some god/gods. Hence, although we are clearly again very close, I tend to describe myself as a (maybe 'devout' ) 'agnostic' - meaning that, in the absence of hard evidence, I just do not know for certain', no matter how 'improbable I feel it is that god/gods, in the usual sense, actually ';exist'..

However (as I've said here before), there are concepts (e.g. 'collective consciousness) which may today be regarded as 'supernatural' but which I don't think can be dismissed so easily, since the issue there could simply be our current ignorance - so, again, I am essentially 'agnostic' in relation to such ideas.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

As far as I am aware, "aetheist" literally means a belief that deities (god/gods) do not exist and to have such a 'belief' ('with certainty')

No it doesn't. It is simply one who is not a theist.