Liquidate entire portfolio until virus is over?

tropic_of_Username019

kinger101 said:

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.

As I said, even if it wasn't going to overwhelm the NHS, it would still have been hundreds of thousands dead.

We knew it wasn't inevitable, because China successfully suppressed their outbreak. The idea, which was indeed encouraged by the Government, that it was inevitable, was completely mendacious.

Callous? I'm not interested in what's going on in Johnson's head. But he's unfit to be Prime Minister.

kinger101

Thrugelmir said:

Rkinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Imperial are part of SAGE which is under the direction of the Chiel Scientific Officer. There's no them or us. Everyone is contributing and sharing equally. The messages being relayed every day are very controlled and planned. Leaks of information add nothing to the debate except to cause consternation in the wider general public. Policy is not being made on the hoof, but in response to the transmission and spread of the virus itself. 
Today's six months warning is another milestone message. Along a defined path. Now that the lock down measure has been broadly accepted. 

I never said there was a them and us.  But the UK Government's initial briefings on "herd immunity", and the subsequent volte face after the intervention of the academic community (led by Imperial), and criticism by the WHO, are a matter of public record.   

eddy

kinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Boris Johnson was following the herd immunity strategy advocated by Cummings, who "argued against strict measures that would have protected vulnerable people from the coronavirus outbreak", putting the economy over the elderly.

See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-coronavirus-elderly-economy-a9417246.html

Trump's republican supporters have the same strategy.

See "Texas Lieutenant Gov. Says Seniors Willing to Risk Coronavirus Infection to Protect Economy"

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/24/repulsive-outrage-texas-lieutenant-gov-says-seniors-willing-risk-coronavirus

kinger101

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Clearly, the reproductive number can be kept below 1, because China, South Korea, etc, have achieved that.

While that's encouraging, we don't know how long such containment measures can be sustained. 

Even if China and SK eradicated the virus tomorrow, while it persists elsewhere, the seed for the next wave is out there.  

Thrugelmir

tropic_of_Username019 said:

kinger101 said:

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.

We knew it wasn't inevitable, because China successfully suppressed their outbreak. The idea, which was indeed encouraged by the Government, that it was inevitable, was completely mendacious.

Callous? I'm not interested in what's going on in Johnson's head. But he's unfit to be Prime Minister.

Facebook has a lot to answer for. The real news lies elsewhere. 

Thrugelmir

kinger101 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Rkinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Imperial are part of SAGE which is under the direction of the Chiel Scientific Officer. There's no them or us. Everyone is contributing and sharing equally. The messages being relayed every day are very controlled and planned. Leaks of information add nothing to the debate except to cause consternation in the wider general public. Policy is not being made on the hoof, but in response to the transmission and spread of the virus itself. 
Today's six months warning is another milestone message. Along a defined path. Now that the lock down measure has been broadly accepted. 

I never said there was a them and us.  But the UK Government's initial briefings on "herd immunity", and the subsequent volte face after the intervention of the academic community (led by Imperial), and criticism by the WHO, are a matter of public record.   

Then blame SAGE.  Not the "Government". Corbyn would have received exactly the same guidance.  

eddy

Thrugelmir said:

kinger101 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Rkinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Imperial are part of SAGE which is under the direction of the Chiel Scientific Officer. There's no them or us. Everyone is contributing and sharing equally. The messages being relayed every day are very controlled and planned. Leaks of information add nothing to the debate except to cause consternation in the wider general public. Policy is not being made on the hoof, but in response to the transmission and spread of the virus itself. 
Today's six months warning is another milestone message. Along a defined path. Now that the lock down measure has been broadly accepted. 

I never said there was a them and us.  But the UK Government's initial briefings on "herd immunity", and the subsequent volte face after the intervention of the academic community (led by Imperial), and criticism by the WHO, are a matter of public record.   

Then blame SAGE.  Not the "Government". Corbyn would have received exactly the same guidance.  

The Tory Government made the decision AGAINST the advice of most members of SAGE and the scientific community, therefore blame Boris Johnson and special adviser Dominic Cummings, who "was callous about Coronavirus deaths".

"A minister allegedly told  Buzzfeed News that Cummings and Vallance were “close allies” and claimed the government had “bet” the future of the UK on advice from a very small group of scientists that for a long time differed from the wider international consensus, and other members of SAGE."

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2020/03/22/claim-that-pms-special-adviser-dominic-cummings-was-callous-about-coronavirus-deaths/

bowlhead99

tropic_of_Username019 said:

That they had a policy of letting hundreds of thousands of pensioners die, to prevent disruption to the economy (Cummings spelled out their reasons), shows them completely unfit to be in Government.

There are obviously some trade-offs to be made when in government between different approaches. Nobody expects that a government will always do the thing that turns out to be best or get it right first time. If they had previously had one stance and have now adopted a different stance which you think is more desirable (fewer deaths, more economic pain) then there is no point complaining that they should have got it right first time. They did what they did, it happened, let's get on with whatever now needs to be done.

If there is a conflict between the desire to keep everyone alive at all costs (trashing the economy if necessary to ensure that an absolutely minimal number of people die of a virus, though a great many people will be hurt by a trashed economy) versus keeping the economy prosperous (accepting a large number of less-productive people might be removed from it by untimely death, along with a smaller number of more-productive people, and they and their friends and family will be unhappy about it), then some middle ground or compromise should be found. That's the challenge that all governments have. In most cases the 'absolutely minimal number of people dying' won't really be achieved, and neither will the economies remain as prosperous as could have been achieved by accepting a higher death toll.

Some will say that preserving life at all costs is just what we should do because that's what makes us human. However at some level we know that society would probably prefer not to spend a billion on an operation to save one individual who would eventually die of something else anyway, so we accept preservation of life won't literally and practically be done 'at all costs'.  From thereon it's just a matter of haggling over price.

Thrugelmir

eddy said:

Thrugelmir said:

kinger101 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Rkinger101 said:

eddy said:

kaMelo said:

tropic_of_Username019 said:

Until about 2 weeks ago, the UK Government's strategy was to let most poeple in the UK catch it. That has not just delayed the implementation of a more sensible strategy in the UK (though it has, costing many lives). It is also a failure in the most basic duties of a Government.

That's just not true, no Government in the world has ever said that it's strategy was to let most people catch the virus, the so called 'Herd Immunity'.

Boris Johnson referred on national TV to the herd immunity strategy he implemented for the people of this country as to let us all "take it on the chin" and just "allow the disease to move through the population."

This confirms what Cummings was said to have outlined for the government's strategy in a private event, summarised by some senior Tories present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

See https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/10/boris-johnson-this-morning-take-coronavirus-on-the-chin/

That was my understanding too, but not that there was a callous nature to it on the Prime Minister's part.  They probably saw herd immunity acquired through infection as an inevitability. They simply hadn't accounted for it overwhelming the NHS unless measures were taken to reduce the infection rate until Imperial pointed this out to them.  

Imperial are part of SAGE which is under the direction of the Chiel Scientific Officer. There's no them or us. Everyone is contributing and sharing equally. The messages being relayed every day are very controlled and planned. Leaks of information add nothing to the debate except to cause consternation in the wider general public. Policy is not being made on the hoof, but in response to the transmission and spread of the virus itself. 
Today's six months warning is another milestone message. Along a defined path. Now that the lock down measure has been broadly accepted. 

I never said there was a them and us.  But the UK Government's initial briefings on "herd immunity", and the subsequent volte face after the intervention of the academic community (led by Imperial), and criticism by the WHO, are a matter of public record.   

Then blame SAGE.  Not the "Government". Corbyn would have received exactly the same guidance.  

The Tory Government made the decision AGAINST the advice of most members of SAGE and the scientific community, therefore blame Boris Johnson and special adviser Dominic Cummings, who "was callous about Coronavirus deaths".

"A minister allegedly told  Buzzfeed News that Cummings and Vallance were “close allies” and claimed the government had “bet” the future of the UK on advice from a very small group of scientists that for a long time differed from the wider international consensus, and other members of SAGE."

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2020/03/22/claim-that-pms-special-adviser-dominic-cummings-was-callous-about-coronavirus-deaths/

At a time when the vast majority are pulling together. There'll always be a very small minority who put politics above anything else.  Nothing like a rumour to magnify itself into fact. The time for analysis is afterwards.

kinger101

Thrugelmir said:
The time for analysis is afterwards.

Actually, the present is a very good time for analysis.  To use a medical analogy, post mortems have a very poor prognosis.
The government will make good decisions and bad decisions, and while it's not always possible to know their long-term consequences, they must be transparent in their reasoning and open to critique.  The government's responses to COVID have already changed in a response to criticism - hopefully leading to better outcomes.