My thoughts are with Boris

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 veteye 06 Apr 2020

I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative voter, but I do not want Boris Johnson so severely ill.

We need a continuing cohesive government.

Get better Boris

Thoughts go to Carrie, his girlfriend too

10
 Stichtplate 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative voter, but I do not want Boris Johnson so severely ill.

> We need a continuing cohesive government.

> Get better Boris

> Thoughts go to Carrie, his girlfriend too

Does Carrie know about the girlfriend?

11
OP veteye 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

ok so I got things wrong

At least I can have serious sentiment

4
 Yanis Nayu 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Yes, exactly this. I’d go so far as to say I feel a bit emotional about it. 

1
 olddirtydoggy 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Glad the other thread got wiped, I wandered in there and some of the comments were sick. This is terrible news just breaking, I have no political interest whatsoever.

Hopefully if he pulls through he will have a deep personal understanding of the NHS's value. Perhaps a positive to come out of the other side.

Post edited at 21:18
1
Removed User 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Meanwhile we all get Dominic Raab on charge. I feel a bit sick and I don't think it's Covid. . .

Post edited at 21:18
23
 Billhook 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

I wouldn't say he's 'severely ill'.  Not well but not exactly near death's door.

31
 olddirtydoggy 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Billhook:

You seen the latest headlines? Id have a look.

Removed User 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Billhook:

The clue is in the name-intensive care.

In reply to Billhook:

Unfortunately, intensive care with Covid19 is severely serious. Given that the survival rate is 50/50 I'd say it is exactly like being 'near death's door'. He can either come back or go through it. 

 Bacon Butty 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Billhook:

You should watch the piece on today's six o clock news in a London ICU.

Post edited at 21:28
 mik82 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Billhook:

He's severely unwell. No-one gets admitted on a Sunday for "routine tests" and no-one is moved to ITU "as a precaution". Stats are now a 50% chance of survival.

Removed User 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative voter, but I do not want Boris Johnson so severely ill.

> We need a continuing cohesive government.

> Get better Boris

> Thoughts go to Carrie, his girlfriend too

As a returned NHS worker I wish him and his family well. I know the NHS will do their up most for him.

Moley 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

I was quite shocked by the news, no time for any form of political posturing and I hope he pulls through exactly the same as for everyone else struck down.

1
 Pedro50 06 Apr 2020
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> Glad the other thread got wiped, I wandered in there and some of the comments were sick. This is terrible news just breaking, I have no political interest whatsoever.

Other thread still up. 

 mondite 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

As with anyone else wouldnt wish it on them. Feel particularly sorry for Carrie given the pregnancy. Going to be an unpleasant level of stress.

 bonebag 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Like last night's post on this matter - you are just sick to make a joke of it. Feel free to rip me to shreds. Anyone else rip me to shreds too if you like. If you do you are equally as sick. 

40
 Neil Williams 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Indeed.  I hope he recovers but do recognise at this stage that the risk is very high indeed.

Gone for good 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

My thoughts are also with Boris and my best wishes go out to both him and his partner. The  fact he is in intensive care is a very disturbing development and I can only hope he makes a full recovery. 

1
 marsbar 06 Apr 2020
In reply to bonebag:

Call me sick if you like for standing up for a paramedic who is working through this pandemic without proper PPE for having a bit of a joke.  

Humour is vitally important.  Particularly in jobs where people deal with death on a daily basis.  Wind your neck and give the holier than thou a rest. 

9
Gone for good 06 Apr 2020
In reply to bonebag:

> Like last night's post on this matter - you are just sick to make a joke of it. Feel free to rip me to shreds. Anyone else rip me to shreds too if you like. If you do you are equally as sick. 

That's a bit harsh on Stichplate who is in the thick of things so to speak and should be allowed some slack to express some black humour. Sick he is not.

2
In reply to bonebag:

> Like last night's post on this matter - you are just sick to make a joke of it. Feel free to rip me to shreds. Anyone else rip me to shreds too if you like. If you do you are equally as sick. 

Not a fan of Boris Johnson. Don't wish this on him. This is the same Boris Johnson who made a joke about ventilators and 'operation last gasp' though. 

My wife's colleague (consultant) is now in ICU and on a vent. Seems he's seen too many patients. No PPE see. So apologies if some of us aren't wailing and gnashing our teeth. 

6
 Rob Exile Ward 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

No, I think we all get that. But let's wish the b*stard well and hope he pulls through so that we can give him a good kicking once he gets better and show him  the error of his ways.

8
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I despair at the human race, if the current situation is to teach us anything it is to cut one another a little slack. Anyone getting ill or dying, who ever it is, lessens the rest of us.  

1
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> I despair at the human race, if the current situation is to teach us anything it is to cut one another a little slack. Anyone getting ill or dying, who ever it is, lessens the rest of us.  

If he pulls through and it teaches him anything that will be a win. 

12
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> No, I think we all get that. But let's wish the b*stard well and hope he pulls through so that we can give him a good kicking once he gets better and show him  the error of his ways.

I'll take a Damascene conversion. Like I said, would not wish this on him. 

In reply to veteye:

Carrie also has it apparently. Scary times...

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I agree, I hope he does learn something; but I wouldn’t wish Covid on anyone. 

1
In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> I agree, I hope he does learn something; but I wouldn’t wish Covid on anyone. 

That was the second thing I said in my post. 

1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I know, it wasn’t aimed at you just a general sentiment. 

In reply to HighChilternRidge:

> I know, it wasn’t aimed at you just a general sentiment. 

Understood, thanks. 

 Yanis Nayu 06 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Call me sick if you like for standing up for a paramedic who is working through this pandemic without proper PPE for having a bit of a joke.  

> Humour is vitally important.  Particularly in jobs where people deal with death on a daily basis.  Wind your neck and give the holier than thou a rest. 

Yep. 

1
Clauso 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> That's a bit harsh on Stichplate who is in the thick of things so to speak and should be allowed some slack to express some black humour. Sick he is not.

I must have missed the meeting where you got appointed UKC Humour Tsar... When did that happen, Chuckles? 

6
Gone for good 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Clauso:

> I must have missed the meeting where you got appointed UKC Humour Tsar... When did that happen, Chuckles? 

Ah, it's you again. Your problem is you get confused between humour and nasty twisted thinking.

3
 birdie num num 06 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Here’s a turn up for the books.

Quite a few folk here polishing up their dancing shoes.

20
 wintertree 06 Apr 2020
In reply to bonebag:

> Anyone else rip me to shreds too if you like. If you do you are equally as sick. 

You do realise that a statement like that is about as valid as “backsies” or “shotgun not”, don’t you?  If you argue back you’re the looser dib dib dib.

There is humor to be found in everything.  To deny that is to deny a core part of the human psyche.  

To me it’s equal parts awful and terrifying that Boris is in ICU - it shows that the best medical care available in the UK isn’t good enough if you’re one of the somehow unlucky ones, it’s an awful thing for any human to go through, it leaves the C-team in charge, I wouldn’t wish loosing a parent on any child - born or unborn, I hope to see him at the eventual public enquiry, and to his strong credit since he grasped the scale of the problem he has worn himself thin - too thin - to fix the initial slow response.

But...  I found Stitchplate’s comment really quite funny.  Who is sicker?  Me, or the people who repress and sit on that part of their humanity that finds relief in dark humour, or those who both sit on it and jump on others for it?

1
Removed User 06 Apr 2020
In reply to mik82:

This is from China but it's worse than that.

As of Feb 27, 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected 47 countries and territories around the world.

Xiaobo Yang and colleagues described 52 of 710 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in Wuhan, China. 29 (56%) of 52 patients were given non-invasive ventilation at ICU admission, of whom 22 (76%) required further orotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation. The ICU mortality rate among those who required non-invasive ventilation was 23 (79%) of 29 and among those who required invasive mechanical ventilation was 19 (86%) of 22.]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30110-7/...

 Coel Hellier 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Removed UserRawPowa!:

> The ICU mortality rate among those who required non-invasive ventilation was 23 (79%) of 29 and among those who required invasive mechanical ventilation was 19 (86%) of 22.]

Yes, the odds seem to be:

If, by this time tomorrow, he is on a ventilator, then his chances drop to 30%.   If, by then, he is not on ventilator, then his chances are 70%. 

Clauso 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> Ah, it's you again. Your problem is you get confused between humour and nasty twisted thinking.

I see... Well, in that case, I ought to count myself lucky that you're around to highlight my faults?

It's good of you to make the time for it, along with also doing so for seemingly most other UKC forum users... You're a diamond. 

4
Removed User 06 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

No 79% who don't get intubated die. It is China though so I imagine his chances are better in the NHS. You don't want to go to ICU with this.

In reply to veteye:

Oh, get a grip. There's thousands of people in hospital, many of them in corridors, many of them because of Johnson's incompetence. Why not think of them? What's special about Johnson other than the fact he gets his own room?

jcm

25
 EdS 07 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Nemesis is a bitch ain't she. 

Post edited at 00:23
11
Roadrunner6 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Removed UserRawPowa!:

> No 79% who don't get intubated die. It is China though so I imagine his chances are better in the NHS. You don't want to go to ICU with this.

I was hoping smoking was causing the Chinese death rate to be artificially high and wed see lower fatality rates. But that hasn’t really been the case but testing is so poor it’s impossible to get a good idea 

theres certainly links to vaping too but so far all anecdotal. 

 Aly 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

I commented on the recent UK ICU data on the ‘BMI and Covid’ thread on here.  The new data from ICNARC is available but as the length of ICU stay is often considerable early data may bias towards poorer outcomes.  Either way the prognosis is not great for those admitted to ICU. 
 

https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/76a7364b-4b76-ea11...

Post edited at 01:49
 profitofdoom 07 Apr 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Oh, get a grip..... What's special about Johnson other than the fact he gets his own room?

Do you really seriously think there's nothing special about Johnson? You do know he's Prime Minister, right?

Get well very soon, Boris, Very, very sorry to read about your illness and condition

9
In reply to profitofdoom:

He's a human being. He has no more claim on my thoughts and prayers than any other human being in the same position.

jcm

Post edited at 02:28
18
 mullermn 07 Apr 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes, but if Mavis down the road turns up her toes it’s unlikely to have quite the same psychological or functional impact on the country, is it?

Boris is an awful person but currently occupies a very important role in a time of national emergency. It would be far better for everyone if he recovered (suitably inspired to protect the NHS afterwards).

7
 summo 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I was hoping smoking was causing the Chinese death rate to be artificially high and wed see lower fatality rates. 

You presume we got the real figures for China. The same for Iran. 

OP veteye 07 Apr 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Don't be so stuck in a corner and foolish.

Read my message again. I'm not a fan of Boris Johnson. Yet..

We need a coherent governing unit in Westminster. If the government starts to be slightly rudderless it will have effects on all of us including you. That will possibly increase your "thousands of people in hospital". Possibly it could mean that you end up in hospital, instead of avoiding going there. It could mean the difference between the NHS just about holding it's own, and being overwhelmed, due to no one definite leader giving clear decisions and direction. (Yes I know Dominic Raab is designated first minister and stand-in leader, but he has less mandate, and less following, as shown in the Tory party poll)

Why do you assume that I am not thinking of all of those poor people who do end up in hospital? Indeed I do feel very sorry for anyone who is in hospital with the Covid-19 virus, and their families, and their fear of being levelled by the infection to go to ICU:-Then their fear of death, and the prospect of a breadwinner, or economic contributor to the home no longer providing for that home.

Rob

4
 Rob Exile Ward 07 Apr 2020
In reply to birdie num num:

'Quite a few folk here polishing up their dancing shoes.'

Don't suppose you'd care to clarify, would you Num Num? I'm not sure what your point is.

1
 gribble 07 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

I wonder if what you're saying there is that it's the post of PM that deserves the concern rather than the incumbent - he is perhaps viewed as the best thing since Churchill (or Thatcher) by some, and by others as a morally corrupt self-obsessed child abandoner.  My take from your post is that it's not so much the person that is considered (the personality being irrelevant), but the role of the rudder that guides the country's policies.  If so, I suspect that's where the difficulty lies - people can often struggle to separate the two.

 Andy Johnson 07 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> We need a coherent governing unit in Westminster.

If the prime minister is too ill to do his job, or even if the worst happens, we'll still have a government. A leader will emerge. Ministers will still be doing their jobs, as will the civil service and all the various public services. That will carry on, whatever happens to him. Its a mistake to think he's carrying the country himself: he's not. What will get us through this is personal and institutional resilience, not some "great leader" theory of government.

(None of the above is a criticism of Boris Johnson as a person. Its just the fact that government isn't one person. I personally find him and his politics extremely distasteful, but I don't wish ill for him or take any satisfaction from his situation. I hope he recovers.)

Post edited at 10:37
Clauso 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Don't suppose you'd care to clarify, would you Num Num? I'm not sure what your point is.

Doesn't Num Num descend from a long line of Scouse Num Nums? I'm fairly sure that he's of such a pedigree... If so, then my guess is that his point may be that Boris isn't exactly idolised around those parts:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/boris-johnson-brazenly-...

2
 stp 07 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Interesting and undoubtedly hard to predict what would happen if Boris dies. But I could see at least an opposite effect too. I think his death would have a sobering effect on not just this country but the whole world. If a world leader can get it and die then it shows how vulnerable we all are. Maybe the world would take it more seriously, tighten up restrictions and the overall effect could be lives saved.

 Rob Exile Ward 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Clauso:

I see - thanks for the clarification. Bit depressing, given the circumstances.

 Andy Long 07 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Ideally I'd like him to recover and be a changed man. Apparently he's always been a bit cavalier about illness and somewhat contemptuous of people who suffer from poor health. This experience may give him a different perspective, or it could go the other way, along the line of "I've beaten it, so can you". If the latter, he could go back to the obscene ideology of the Tory right and its grand project of turning the NHS into softplay for spivs.

6
 birdie num num 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was reminded really of a past thread where folk wanted to dance on Thatchers grave

2
In reply to veteye:

> We need a coherent governing unit in Westinster. If the government starts to be slightly rudderless it will have effects on all of us including you. That will possibly increase your "thousands of people in hospital". 

I see. And that's why your 'thoughts' are 'with Carrie', is it?

> Why do you assume that I am not thinking of all of those poor people who do end up in hospital?

I guess it was the way you didn't post threads on the internet expressing your concern for them and their girlfriends that gave me the first clue.

jcm

8
Roadrunner6 07 Apr 2020
In reply to Aly:

He'll soon (already?) be 24 hrs with no mechanical ventilation (assuming Gov. reports are true) so the good news is his chances are probably better than 50-50 according to the later data in that.

Post edited at 19:53
OP veteye 08 Apr 2020
In reply to gribble:

Yes, I'm saying that we need the captain of the ship to be the one keeping clear of the rocks, by directing the crew, and in this case the captain is BJ.

OP veteye 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Andy Johnson:

I agree to a lot of this, but part of the trouble is this country's lack of a written constitution, and there is definitely uncertainty as to whether D Raab will lead, or whether government by consensus could be the threat.

1
 marsbar 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Quite frankly he was the one driving the ship into rocks at speed.  Had he been steering correctly he wouldn't have been wandering around shaking hands with people in hospitals and might not be where he is now if he followed basic common sense.  There is nothing special about him being in charge.  

As long as someone is in charge it is largely irrelevant who.  No one is irreplaceable at work.  More than one person is capable of steering.  

Obviously I am referring to his work situation and not his family situation.  

13
OP veteye 08 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

If the captain of the ship is indisposed/falls overboard, the crew may well argue with each other, and quibble with previous instructions, especially without a clear protocol for overall charge. (No written constitution.) Thus more chance of hitting the rocks.

I disagree with the idea of him driving the ship into the rocks at speed. Compare us to other European countries and we are doing no worse. Even Germany is looking at more trouble, as is Japan, where only now is lockdown happening in the major cities.

As long as someone is in charge it is largely irrelevant who, is in an incorrect assertion. As a general comment I would agree, but Boris had full charge due to the votes for his leadership, and due to the election results. Others will not have such a commanding position, so more futtering around will be likely to occur, with less clear command, and lots of internal arguments. Hence the ship will be virtually rudderless.

For instance:-

We now don't know when an assessment of the situation of lockdown will occur, as the one planned for Monday has been cancelled by Dominic Raab/Cabinet, with no clear time set for that assessment in the future, and no set number of weeks for the situation to continue. This makes it difficult as a business owner to try to plan business matters. It would have been better if they had said that the lockdown will continue for x weeks, and then a further assessment will be made.

10
 AdrianC 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Was just about to post something similar.  That next Monday's review of the lockdown has been postponed is shambolic beyond belief.  How is it even possible that the whole country now has to wait for Boris to get better for such an important decision?

This repeated failure to look around the corner and plan for a range of possible events is the kind of failing that you'd be disappointed to see from a junior manager.  How on Earth did these people get to be running a country?

Sorry.  Morning rant over.  Hope he gets better.  Soon.

8
 Ciro 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> If the captain of the ship is indisposed/falls overboard, the crew may well argue with each other, and quibble with previous instructions, especially without a clear protocol for overall charge. (No written constitution.) Thus more chance of hitting the rocks.

> I disagree with the idea of him driving the ship into the rocks at speed. Compare us to other European countries and we are doing no worse. Even Germany is looking at more trouble, as is Japan, where only now is lockdown happening in the major cities.

The next couple of weeks will tell. The guys who are advising us disagree, but the guys who are advising the US government think his herd immunity plan is about to hit us very, very hard.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/uk-will-be-europes-worst-hit-...

> As long as someone is in charge it is largely irrelevant who, is in an incorrect assertion. As a general comment I would agree, but Boris had full charge due to the votes for his leadership, and due to the election results. Others will not have such a commanding position, so more futtering around will be likely to occur, with less clear command, and lots of internal arguments. Hence the ship will be virtually rudderless.

> For instance:-

> We now don't know when an assessment of the situation of lockdown will occur, as the one planned for Monday has been cancelled by Dominic Raab/Cabinet, with no clear time set for that assessment in the future, and no set number of weeks for the situation to continue. This makes it difficult as a business owner to try to plan business matters. It would have been better if they had said that the lockdown will continue for x weeks, and then a further assessment will be made.

The problem for the government is we don't know who is correct. Hard to decide on lockdown when our guys are predicting another 10,000 or so deaths from our current lockdown trajectory, whilst others are predicting 50,000 or more. You're probably right that Boris would have wanted to act, but would that be a good thing? To give business owners clarity he might have bullishly decided to make a plan based on the optimistic set of data, and set us on direct course for the rocks again.

 marsbar 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Maybe I’ve watched too much “yes prime minister”. I was under the impression that things generally carry on regardless of the figurehead.  

Personally I’d prefer someone a little more serious as the figurehead right now.  This is a man who joked about “operation last gasp”

4
 marsbar 08 Apr 2020
In reply to AdrianC:

It’s fairly clear that such an early review of lockdown was just another political lie.  We haven’t reached the point yet where it’s time to change anything.  If there was any real chance of it being lifted now exams wouldn’t have been cancelled and furlough wouldn’t be set up until the end of May.  We can’t let up yet.  The annoying thing is that if it does work well then people will use that as “evidence” that it was unnecessary.   

3
 Richard Horn 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> The next couple of weeks will tell. The guys who are advising us disagree, but the guys who are advising the US government think his herd immunity plan is about to hit us very, very hard.

If you look at the comparison curves (e.g. on FT), then it shows we locked down earlier than Italy, and only slightly later than France/Spain on a dates vs death tables. UK actually encouraged social distancing on Mon 16th which was before France took any measures (although these were clearly less useful than a total lockdown) - France's ski resorts only closed on the previous day...

Within the article there is clear disagreement on the analysis between experts so I think it is pretty irresponsible for the Guardian to headline that UK *will* be the worst hit country (maybe it will, maybe it wont) - what purpose is it supposed to serve trying to make people even more depressed about the situation than necessary?

Post edited at 10:24
2
 Ciro 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

> If you look at the comparison curves (e.g. on FT), then it shows we locked down earlier than Italy, and only slightly later than France/Spain on a dates vs death tables. UK actually encouraged social distancing on Mon 16th which was before France took any measures (although these were clearly less useful than a total lockdown) - France's ski resorts only closed on the previous day...

> Within the article there is clear disagreement on the analysis between experts so I think it is pretty irresponsible for the Guardian to headline that UK *will* be the worst hit country (maybe it will, maybe it wont) - what purpose is it supposed to serve trying to make people even more depressed about the situation than necessary?

"UK will have Europe's worst death toll, says study"

I would suggest that the majority of guardian readers have both the attention span to reach the end of the headline, and sufficient grasp of English to understand what it means.

We all know that the data is incomplete and hard to make any sort of concrete predictions from. I don't see any reason to hide from the possibilities though - if we don't take things seriously enough, and they turn out to be correct, there will be a whole lot more to be depressed about.

2
 summo 08 Apr 2020
In reply to AdrianC:

> Was just about to post something similar.  That next Monday's review of the lockdown has been postponed is shambolic beyond belief.  

Maybe it's postponed because the figures suggest that the lock down shouldn't be changed, so it's data driven and nothing related to Boris? Unless you know otherwise? 

andrew breckill 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Ciro:

The purpose of any headline is to sell papers or to drive up views. Although scaremongering like that might be whats needed to get through to the people who seem to think that wandering around the seaside or parks is an acceptable way to contain the virus. I live in a street that is an arterial link from one side of town to the other, the reduction in road traffic is not happening, a constant stream of cars, occupied by either on or two occupants is looks like business as normal.

Post edited at 11:24
3
 Ciro 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Richard Horn:

P.s. they did also run a piece specifically on how difficult it is for the Sirius of the study to make any predictions:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/how-can-coronavirus-models-ge...

 Ciro 08 Apr 2020
In reply to andrew breckill:

> The purpose of any headline is to sell papers or to drive up views. Although scaremongering like that might be whats needed to get through to the people who seem to think that wandering around the seaside or parks is an acceptable way to contain the virus. I live in a street that is an arterial link from one side of town to the other, the reduction in road traffic is not happening, a constant stream of cars, occupied by either on or two occupants is looks like business as normal.

☹️

Around here (Newcastle) the lockdown seems to be fairly well observed. My exercise walk tales me across the motorway that runs through the city and its pretty deserted.

 Rob Exile Ward 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

I do think we should be getting more reliable and formal bulletins. This is serious sh*t; it's not good enough that we have to glean the state of the PM from ad hoc interviews with junior ministers on breakfast TV.

3
 AdrianC 08 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

It's in the third paragraph of this article.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52208156

I agree it's very likely that there will be no reason to change things next week but they told the country that it's a three week lock down.  They're now saying that they're not going to review that after three weeks because the PM is ill.  That says that they're not planning for contingencies - even a reasonably foreseeable one like his condition worsening.  This is not good leadership.

1
 mondite 08 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> Maybe it's postponed because the figures suggest that the lock down shouldn't be changed, so it's data driven and nothing related to Boris?

Aside from that isnt postponing the review thats carrying it out.

Since you would look at the figures. See no real change and therefore say okay keep it the same and next review in x weeks.

Whereas what seems to being suggested is the review cant be done because Johnson isnt available.

 john arran 08 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Aside from that isn't postponing the review thats carrying it out.

> Since you would look at the figures. See no real change and therefore say okay keep it the same and next review in x weeks.

> Whereas what seems to being suggested is the review can't be done because Johnson isn't available.

... which in turn suggests that Johnson would be expected to have a reasonable likelihood of taking action that wasn't indicated by the data itself.

Edit: sp.

Post edited at 11:53
Roadrunner6 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I do think we should be getting more reliable and formal bulletins. This is serious sh*t; it's not good enough that we have to glean the state of the PM from ad hoc interviews with junior ministers on breakfast TV.

From a Government with a poor record of openness and transparency.

6
In reply to Ciro:

> We all know that the data is incomplete and hard to make any sort of concrete predictions from. I don't see any reason to hide from the possibilities though - if we don't take things seriously enough, and they turn out to be correct, there will be a whole lot more to be depressed about.

If they were testing enough, and particularly testing random samples in different parts of the country they'd know the current infection rate and be able to calibrate their models and make better predictions of the effect of various policies.  It's a shambles.

6
In reply to veteye:

> Yes, I'm saying that we need the captain of the ship to be the one keeping clear of the rocks, by directing the crew, and in this case the captain is BJ.

Unfortunately, Captain BJ has a bit of a history of saying "what rocks? oh, those are nothing to worry about; I'm sure the hull will take it..."

I'm hoping he emerges as someone with a lot more humility.

4
In reply to AdrianC:

> How is it even possible that the whole country now has to wait for Boris to get better for such an important decision?

Correlation isn't causation. I don't think the two events are related; the postponement is more to do with the ongoing infection situation, not Boris being ill.

2
 Harry Jarvis 08 Apr 2020
In reply to AdrianC:

> It's in the third paragraph of this article.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52208156

> I agree it's very likely that there will be no reason to change things next week but they told the country that it's a three week lock down.  They're now saying that they're not going to review that after three weeks because the PM is ill. 

No, they're not saying that. They're saying: 'No 10 said a review of lockdown rules would go ahead as planned next week,'

There's nothing in that link saying they're not going to review because the PM is ill. 

 AdrianC 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Yes - they're saying that now and it's good that it'll go ahead.

That page has been updated since this morning.

2
Roadrunner6 08 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If they were testing enough, and particularly testing random samples in different parts of the country they'd know the current infection rate and be able to calibrate their models and make better predictions of the effect of various policies.  It's a shambles.

This is why the main US model just goes off deaths (which are even said to be under reported), but its about as concrete as they can get. But then you are dealing with a 2-3 week lag from infection, sometimes a month plus.

The old saying holds true, "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> I'm not a dyed in the wool conservative voter, but I do not want Boris Johnson so severely ill.

> We need a continuing cohesive government.

> Get better Boris

> Thoughts go to Carrie, his girlfriend too


All of that, is fair enough, (except the girlfriend bit obviously)

But Boris has to take some responsibility for his predicament, not only for his own, but quite possibly the infection of the rest of the affected cabinet members and his family.

Boris tried to do a Lady Di at  best, he tried to prove he wasn't scared of catching the virus, yet blindly missing the differences between AIDS and Cov-19.

He was warned not to touch people on his hospital visit and chose to ignore the advice shaking people's hand time and time again, so now we have a large number of people battling against the virus. Never mind the signals his actions sent out; that if you're fit and strong you have nothing to worry about, that the virus only affects the old, that the advice we were being given only applied to some people.

So while I don't want Boris to die, or be badly affected by the virus, that doesn't mean he should be free from criticism.

The bloke is an idiot, he was warned and he carried on with what he thought would be OK.

If it was anyone on UKC they'd be ridiculed, I only hope he learns from the experience, and see what a strain he's put on an already strained system. Better still he realises what an asset the NHS is and funds it properly.

Apologies to anyone who's already covered these points, I didn't have time to read the whole thread.

3
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to birdie num num:

> I was reminded really of a past thread where folk wanted to dance on Thatchers grave


I'm an absolutely shit dancer, but I'm willing to learn.

6
In reply to krikoman:

> But Boris has to take some responsibility for his predicament, not only for his own, but quite possibly the infection of the rest of the affected cabinet members and his family.

But you don't know how he caught it. He's in a position where he has had to continue working around other people and will have regularly been in contact with infected surfaces. You can't remove the risk of catching it in those circumstances -- you can try not touching your face and rubbing your eyes, for example, but nobody will succeed 100% in that. You can reduce the risk, but the risk is still significant. Same for anyone who has to continue working around other people even with the 2m distancing etc.

The reality is that you just want to get the boot in because he's a Tory, and he's Boris, and you hate him, just like a number of others here clearly do. If Boris was up and well next week, had facilitated a vaccine being developed for this by summer, cured cancer by Christmas and managed to get a free trade agreement with the EU by New Year you'd still hate him. Because he's a Tory and he's Boris.

18
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> But you don't know how he caught it.

I can see, and so can anyone else, that he didn't follow guidelines.

So you're right I don't know how he caught it, but he did absolute f*ck all to prevent himself catching it. Since we're all supposed to be looking out for each other and staying home to protect everyone, not just ourselves.

He might have tried a little harder, let's not forget "herd immunity" was his first go.

Post edited at 21:07
6
OP veteye 08 Apr 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I gave you a like, but whilst I know that he has made mistakes, nevertheless I think that he has done some reasonable things with his position.

No doubt I will be shot down in saying this, but as said earlier on, even the epidemiologists cannot agree, so there is no certain correct way of dealing with this problem.

3
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> The reality is that you just want to get the boot in because he's a Tory, and he's Boris, and you hate him, just like a number of others here clearly do. If Boris was up and well next week, had facilitated a vaccine being developed for this by summer, cured cancer by Christmas and managed to get a free trade agreement with the EU by New Year you'd still hate him. Because he's a Tory and he's Boris.

The reality, isn't I want to put the boot in because he's a Tory, I hate him, because he's a liar. It's got nowt to do with him being a Tory, if you logic was correct then I wouldn't have any Tory mates.

We might have been on our way to a vaccine, or at least a reliable test, if Boris hadn't lied about not having enough chemicals or testing machines, both of these thing have been proven to be true.

9
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

> No doubt I will be shot down in saying this, but as said earlier on, even the epidemiologists cannot agree, so there is no certain correct way of dealing with this problem.

The correct way is NOT to lie about things, otherwise you destroy the trust you should be instilling in the general population, so that when you tell people, "you need to stay indoors" they believe you and stay in. He's been caught out lying about not having the chemicals to test and not having the machines to test, so how do I know what's true and what isn't.

He treated the whole thing as a joke and an inconvenience at first, when we should have been preparing.

7
Gone for good 08 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm an absolutely shit dancer, but I'm willing to learn.

Haters gonna hate.

2
 Rob Exile Ward 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

I don't hate the bloke but there's a lot of baggage there - hubris and nemesis spring to mind. If he was fit and healthy there's no question that he would be - subtly- sustaining a victim blaming agenda.

5
Gone for good 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't hate the bloke but there's a lot of baggage there - hubris and nemesis spring to mind. If he was fit and healthy there's no question that he would be - subtly- sustaining a victim blaming agenda.

Well that's a massive assumption. Would you care to explain how he would go about this victim blaming other than subtly, and what he would hope to achieve by it?

As for hubris and nemesis, that's just another way of saying he gets what he deserves. A rather hate filled sentiment i would have said.

8
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I have to agree with you Rob. I don't think I've ever seen such an example of overweening hubris in my life, and its almost inevitable comeuppance. Objectively, it's very sad, but talk about a guy bringing something on himself!...

8
 DaveHK 08 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

They're making a big thing about him sitting up as an improvement but surely  lying would be an indication of him getting back to normal?

7
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

> As for hubris and nemesis, that's just another way of saying he gets what he deserves. A rather hate filled sentiment i would have said.

It's a bit like some toe rag stealing your car, crashing it then injuring themselves, you don't want them to die, but they've nicked your car FFS!

Not real hatred, intense dislike might cover it.

Anyhow, I despise anyone who lies to me and expects me to believe them.

It's even worse when they know, I know, they're lying and yet they still carry on, wasting everyone's time. *

I don't know if Boris realises I know when he's lying to me, so this might not apply to him.

Post edited at 23:42
9
OP veteye 09 Apr 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

Ha ha...

Pragmatically, it may mean that he can get back to normal more swiftly than might have been the case, and hopefully learning not to lie. Yet ultimately, I would like him to get back to holding the reins, and directing the increase in output of test kits for antigen, the production of a meaningful antibody test, and the practicalities of leading the country in a logical and measured way through the most difficult circumstances for the world for generations.

The latter will mean an ongoing listening ear for both epidemiologists and immunologists, as well as economists, and hopefully representatives from professional (my own being veterinary professional bodies, including the British Veterinary Association, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) and working groups, since for some of us, the economic measures placed since the crisis do not help that much (I cannot furlough all my employees due to the need to provide an emergency/urgent case service, yet cash flow has been drastically slashed, and loans and grants will be slow to appear, if they appear at all). 

Oops. A long reply, when originally, I was just acknowledging your subtle (or not) joke; and my reply has become more serious.

 Oliver Smaje 09 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Just heard on the news 'the prime minister is improving'. 

Fantastic! I didn't think much of him before.

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

The guy has been at death's door for several days, and he's not out of the woods yet. If he had a 'normal' job he would be given weeks - months - to recover. He certainly won't be fit to be PM - he should stand down, if only temporarily.

5
 tim carruthers 09 Apr 2020

In reply:

This heartbreaking piece from three days ago sums up my feelings on the subject better than I could ever do:

Harry Paterson

6 April at 21:13

Boris Johnson.

A man who has lived his entire life recklessly, selfishly, irresponsibly; without any regard for the consequences. Because he's never needed to. His enormous privilege has protected him from any repercussions.

He is a proven pathological liar, swaggering through the years with no empathy or concern for anyone but himself. Indeed, recently bragging about shaking hands with Corona virus patients. As if it was just another laugh; a jape; just another moment in a life less honourable.

There is a grim irony to him finally, in this manner, being confronted by the consequences of his behaviour. Even he can't lie & bluster his way out of this mess.

One can only hope that the Prime Minister, as he languishes in intensive care, courtesy of the NHS that he and his party have done so much to destroy, deeply regrets the cheering & jeering doled out to nurses by he and his colleagues; when they voted down a payrise for those heroes. If he's lucky he'll now be finding out exactly how valuable these people are.

My brother, sadly, wasn't lucky.
Jas, 54, died of Covid-19 in Nottingham's Queens Medical Centre a week last Saturday night. Unlike the Prime Minister there was no ventilator for Jas.
'Operation: Last Gasp', right, Prime Minister?

I then stood on an empty street, shouting to be heard over the wind, no privacy, no dignity, to tell an old man on a doorstep his child had died. The most indescribably awful duty I've ever had to carry out.

There will, of course, be those idiots, those hypocrites, those bootlickers, who will condemn me for 'politicising' both my own loss & Boris Johnson's condition. They can't grasp that politicians making political decisions and political choices impact people's lives. And sometimes end them. As Jas found out.

Do I wish Johnson dead? No. Do I wish dead the selfish, the greedy and the stupid who voted for him and still, even now, support him? Those who were perfectly happy to ignore the systematic destruction of the NHS while they were all right Jack? Again, no.

My sympathy, however, remains with the terrified & heartbroken victims of this crisis. The appalling & callous mishandling of which is unavoidably the responsibility of Boris Johnson.

It would be nice to think that lessons will be learned; that, individually and collectively, we will discover our self-respect and understand that governments only ever treat us the way we allow; that, when this is over, an enormous reorganisation of the nation’s priorities will be undertaken, by both the politicians and the electorate; that, at last, people will concern themselves with the value of others and much less with the cost of things.

If Boris Johnson, in any way, might be that catalyst then he will have done at least one noble thing in his life.

My breath, however, remains unheld.

5
Gone for good 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> The guy has been at death's door for several days, and he's not out of the woods yet. If he had a 'normal' job he would be given weeks - months - to recover. He certainly won't be fit to be PM - he should stand down, if only temporarily.

How do you work that out? If he was on deaths door he would have been on a ventilator getting mechanical assistance for his breathing which is effectively life support. That has categorically not been the case. You seem to want to overegg the pudding. Why?

2
In reply to veteye:whatever the situation can we all please stop calling him Boris? He’s not your mate and he doesn’t give two shits about you or your family. No one ever referred to previous Tory PMs as Dave or Theresa. 

2
 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

Sorry, you're being dim. People don't go into an IC unit for fun, or to get over sniffles; they are seriously ill at that point. The figures speak for themselves:

https://www.statista.com/chart/21360/uk-intensive-care-covid-19-survival-ra...

Johnson is seriously ill, he may well survive but he won't be fit for a long time - he needs time to recover. Any of us would. In the meantime, there is a country in crisis to lead.

3
 Graeme G 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

>  If he was on deaths door he would have been on a ventilator getting mechanical assistance for his breathing which is effectively life support. That has categorically not been the case.

Do we actually know that though? If he’s in IC that suggests things are as bad as they get. If he’s sitting up then he’s more likely to be HD. Are there enough IC beds that we can afford one to be used for the PM when it sounds he like he doesn’t need it? I’m not saying whether he should or shouldn’t be IC, just that I’m questioning the information coming from the media. We’re living in very unique times and I’m quite confident misinformation will be used at some points.

Gone for good 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Sorry, you're being dim. People don't go into an IC unit for fun, or to get over sniffles; they are seriously ill at that point. The figures speak for themselves:

> Johnson is seriously ill, he may well survive but he won't be fit for a long time - he needs time to recover. Any of us would. In the meantime, there is a country in crisis to lead.


If I'm being dim you're being melodramatic. He is not yet at deaths door despite your claim to the contrary. I know you would love him to be ill enough to step down and who knows what the future holds for him but theres a way to go before things get that critical.

4
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Frank the Husky:

But Johnson would be a proper noun, whereas 'boris' is de rog a tory verbal noun.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to tim carruthers:

Where is your source for that letter?  I did various searches and could find no match which is highly suspicious.

1
 Bacon Butty 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

You haven't tried very hard!

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Sorry, tried a few more combinations of quotes after your post and got it.

https://harrypaterson.com/2020/04/07/boris-johnson-a-life-less-honourable/

Post edited at 11:52
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

I thought his name rang a bell... he's a local hard left activist.

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/360/expelled-for-speaking-out/

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to tim carruthers:

> This heartbreaking piece from three days ago sums up my feelings on the subject better than I could ever do:

Call me callous, but I don't find political attacks by activists "heartbreaking".   For example:

"Those who were perfectly happy to ignore the systematic destruction of the NHS while ..."

One can fairly claim that the NHS has been underfunded.  After all, since the financial crisis and "austerity" it has had its funding increased by 1.4% above inflation each year, and that is well below the long-term average increase.  It would be entirely fair to say that that has not been a sufficient increase.

But it really does not amount to "systematic destruction of the NHS". 

2
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Militant Tendancy haters seem to get everywhere:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-m...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'Quite a few folk here polishing up their dancing shoes.'

> Don't suppose you'd care to clarify, would you Num Num? I'm not sure what your point is.

Do we think someone else is using that account to post?

When I first encountered numnum on UKC the comments were mostly amusing but coherently so. Then they stopped for a while and when they came back it was just rather weird,rude or gnomic. That's how I remember it anyway.

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

No, I'm pretty sure it's the same NumNum. Just getting on a bit, like we all are...

 Pete Pozman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

> If Boris was up and well next week, had facilitated a vaccine being developed for this by summer, cured cancer by Christmas and managed to get a free trade agreement with the EU by New Year you'd still hate him. Because he's a Tory and he's Boris.

But he hasn't done any of that, nor is there the remotest chance of it. My hope, when he was elected, was that he would finally grow up and rise to the role of PM. I wondered at his avoiding the limelight after his victory. Where was he? Presumably hunkered down getting to grips with the enormity of the job he'd taken on. But he was on a protracted holiday in the Caribbean, wasn't he...

I wish him good health. Then a swift return to his true metier as a fairly amusing contrarian writing for the Telegraph, which I don't read. 

Post edited at 15:22
2
 krikoman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

>  the economic measures placed since the crisis do not help that much (I cannot furlough all my employees due to the need to provide an emergency/urgent case service, yet cash flow has been drastically slashed, and loans and grants will be slow to appear, if they appear at all). 

You do realise it's the government that's in charge of these loans, not Boris personally. This is simply another example of him lying, or at the very least saying stuff he can't deliver, at least in a timely fashion.

UC is a massive example of this, we all know the issues people have had with this, and they're still happening.

2
 krikoman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Call me callous, but I don't find political attacks by activists "heartbreaking".   For example:

And if your brother had died,  and could get access to a ventilator?

The fact he's an activist, means what? Is he automatically a liar? He doesn't deserve to have his heartbroken? He hasn't got a heart to break?

As for systematic destruction of the NHS, that's been going on for years under the Tories and Labour, selling of the profitable parts to private companies, it's not just the underfunding.

4
 marsbar 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I wasnt aware of that.  

However it appears that his brother has in fact died unless anyone has evidence to the contrary.  

I've been in an A and E so full that people were waiting in cubicles corridors and every other gap that anyone could find, while 3 people who clearly should have been in a mental health facility were running about scaring everyone.   

I've seen various private companies take over bits of the NHS and have shiny new premises.  

Are you telling me it's wrong.  

 Tom Valentine 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Frank the Husky:

Was Maggie before your time, Frank?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

One good thing that might come out of this dreadful episode is funding for the NHS. I don't think the taxpayer will allow it to be underfunded in the foreseeable future, whatever a right-wing government may want to do. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on my part.

1
 krikoman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

In 2016 a pandemic "drill" was carried out in the NHS, the results where devastating, showing how ill prepared we were.

We learnt very little from that warning, and prepared even less.

Exercise Cygnus.

Post edited at 16:15
3
 jimtitt 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Sorry, you're being dim. People don't go into an IC unit for fun, or to get over sniffles; they are seriously ill at that point. The figures speak for themselves:

> Johnson is seriously ill, he may well survive but he won't be fit for a long time - he needs time to recover. Any of us would. In the meantime, there is a country in crisis to lead.


Interesting, one of the largest specialist clinics here in Germany has just given their figures. From 40 patients with corona virus in intensive care 2 died, 38 recovered.

A local authority near me that was a hot-spot tested everyone, 15% had been infected, 14% carry the antibodies and 0.37% died.

Clearly how soon the lockdown's occured, how good testing and isolation is and the level of treatment available makes all the difference. Incidentally we have stiĺl 10,000 empty IC beds without going to the reserves so they are thinking of going slowly back to routine OP  's which would need one.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> As for systematic destruction of the NHS, that's been going on for years under the Tories and Labour, selling of the profitable parts to private companies, it's not just the underfunding.

Contracting out ("we'll pay you X to provide service Y") is not in any sense "selling off the profitable parts" and is not remotely akin to "systematic destruction of the NHS".

4
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> A local authority near me that was a hot-spot tested everyone, 15% had been infected, 14% carry the antibodies and 0.37% died.

Is that 0.37% of those infected? Or 0.37% of the population (which, if 15% had had it, would be 2.6% of those that had had it)? 

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

To which I will say one word: Capita. Anything they touch is as close to systematic destruction as you could wish.

1
 jimtitt 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The report on the study says the chance of dying from coronavirus was 0.37%, was on the news again just now and from the way it was compared with the John Hopkins estimate I'd assumed it was the chance for the whole population studied.

Post edited at 18:21
 wintertree 09 Apr 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

> The report on the study says the chance of dying from coronavirus was 0.37%, was on the news again just now and from the way it was compared with the John Hopkins estimate I'd assumed it was the chance for the whole population studied.

I reckon that would correspond to the UK detecting about 1 in 15 cases; that's within the bounds of of the various reasonably credible estimates floating about for the UK, and would mean that we have on the order of 1,000,000 cases.  Nowhere near enough for herd immunity but enough undetected, live cases (a few hundred thousand) that releasing lockdown would be catastrophic.  What a mess.

 Ridge 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Contracting out ("we'll pay you X to provide service Y") is not in any sense "selling off the profitable parts" and is not remotely akin to "systematic destruction of the NHS".

More like:

"We'll pay you X to do Y, (which more than it costs us to Y in-house), then when you cock it up the tax payer will have to pay another company 2X to to do Y, whist also paying you off for cocking it up"

3
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> More like:

> "We'll pay you X to do Y, (which more than it costs us to Y in-house), then when you cock it up the tax payer will have to pay another company 2X to to do Y, whist also paying you off for cocking it up"

If so, that's incompetent tendering, rather than there being anything wrong with the principle. 

8
 marsbar 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's being done for profit and shareholders.  The NHS does it for cost.  

3
 wintertree 09 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> It's being done for profit and shareholders.  The NHS does it for cost.  

Quite.  Out sourcing makes sense for small organisations where there isn’t a business case to keep a specialist division employed and equipped full time.  Not so much when you’re the world’s fifth largest employer...

3
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> It's being done for profit and shareholders.  The NHS does it for cost.  

Being done "for profit and shareholders" is not in itself a bad thing.  For example, having cars designed and built by private companies pursing profit generally produces better and cheaper cars than having a state-run enterprise do it.  Indeed, a economy based on companies with shareholders pursuing profit de facto works better than other systems that have been tried.

8
In reply to John Stainforth:

One even gets a thumbs down here for hoping the NHS gets more funding in the future!

 MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It’s not an abstract question though is it? There are various models of healthcare provision globally. One of the most profit driven, the US, is also the most expensive and not especially good night terms of population outcomes. The better ones are, if not state owned, very much state controlled with profit motive small. The NHS in terms of output/£ is among he most efficient, even if outcomes are merely good due to low spend overall as %age of GDP

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to wintertree:

>  Out sourcing makes sense for small organisations where there isn’t a business case to keep a specialist division employed and equipped full time.  Not so much when you’re the world’s fifth largest employer...

All organisations outsource.  Should the NHS grow its own food, generate its own electricity, make its own computers, have its own North-Sea oil rig, make its own ambulances, have a rubber plantation to make the tyres for its ambulances ... or are there things it can sensibly buy from companies such as Volvo, Goodyear, Dell, et cetera -- all of which are trying to make a profit?

These things are always a matter of balance and degree.

10
 Ciro 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Contracting out ("we'll pay you X to provide service Y") is not in any sense "selling off the profitable parts" and is not remotely akin to "systematic destruction of the NHS".

Selling off the assets and using them to fund the day to day running of the NHS, however, very much is systematic destruction of the NHS.

Despite the promises of the government that the Naylor Report recommendations were about freeing up capital for re-investment. It turns out (much to everyone's surprise I'm sure) that a cash strapped NHS has been forced to use the money from sales of property and land to fund treatment.

"Less than a quarter of the money raised from NHS property sales last year went back into the capital budget for reinvestment in the estate, according to provider accounts.

Consolidated accounts show £343m (78 per cent) of the income raised through asset disposals in 2018-19 was instead diverted into day-to-day revenue spending.

This was despite a government commitment for disposal proceeds to be reinvested into new estates’ projects.

This accounting treatment of the receipts exacerbates the current squeeze on NHS capital funding, by compromising the government’s plan to raise an additional £700m per year from land sales towards new projects.

The proportion of disposal income diverted to revenue budgets has steadily increased in recent years, as trusts have sought to boost their performance against their financial control total targets. NHS Improvement in January banned trusts from doing this.

As previously revealed by HSJ, an increasingly used accounting “wheeze” around land valuations – encouraged by NHS Improvement and within DHSC rules – appears to have enabled trusts to use higher proportions of land sale proceeds to boost their revenue performance.

The proportions nationally have increased from 20 per cent in 2015-16, to 36 per cent in 2016-17, 50 per cent in 2017-18, to 78 per cent in 2018-19."

https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/three-quarters-of-money-from-n...

 marsbar 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The balance has shifted far too far.  

Too many bean counters with short term thinking.  

Some things should not be privatised.  

Some things should not be outsourced.  

2
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> BIndeed, a economy based on companies with shareholders pursuing profit de facto works better than other systems that have been tried.

That has yet to been seen. Currently the Chinese system which to put it mildly takes a somewhat complex approach to the idea of shareholders is rapidly catching up and taking over the other models.

Indeed when you look at any economy at its peak there tends to be rather heavy state interference and control.

 wintertree 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

All organisations *source* - most of what you list is sourcing.

Outsourcing is replacing in house capability with external.  Most companies never generated their own power to use one of your irrelevant examples.  I don’t believe I ever suggested the NHS should plant it’s own rubber trees or build a power plant with in house staff.  I’m not a dimwit after all.

I had in my last post hoped it was obvious I was taking about the outsourcing of capability related to the NHS’ purpose and expertise.

> These things are always a matter of balance and degree

Quite.

Post edited at 19:31
2
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> If so, that's incompetent tendering, rather than there being anything wrong with the principle. 

It really isnt. Its ideology pushing the belief that private is better and hamstringing the ability to write good contracts since the companies know the public sector staff cant just walk away.

I dont know how many RFPs and other requirements you have worked on but they are bloody tricky to get right and whoever has the upper hand going in generally gets it written to serve them.

2
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Ciro:

> Selling off the assets and using them to fund the day to day running of the NHS, however, very much is systematic destruction of the NHS.

Is it?, well:

> Consolidated accounts show £343m (78 per cent) of the income raised through asset disposals in 2018-19 was instead diverted into day-to-day revenue spending.

That is 0.26% of the NHS budget that year.   I don't accept that something affecting only 0.26% of the budget amounts to "systematic destruction". 

2
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Currently the Chinese system which to put it mildly takes a somewhat complex approach to the idea of shareholders is rapidly catching up and taking over the other models.

Only because of its sheer size, and only because it is -- currently -- a low-wage economy.   If you mean an economy that most benefits the people in general, then no it isn't a better system.

1
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Its ideology pushing the belief that private is better and hamstringing the ability to write good contracts since the companies know the public sector staff cant just walk away.

I am certainly against ideology in such things.  But I'm not against properly done tendering and outsourcing.

 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Only because of its sheer size, and only because it is -- currently -- a low-wage economy.  

Okay. Any more exclusion clauses I need to watch out for?

> If you mean an economy that most benefits the people in general, then no it isn't a better system.

Okay so what do you mean by benefiting the people in general. Which people? The ones in the country where the business is based. How does that work if the shareholders interest is best served by sacking all the workers there and moving the factory to that low-wage economy?

1
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> Outsourcing is replacing in house capability with external.  Most companies never generated their own power to use one of your irrelevant examples.

But that then places emphasis on the historical starting point, which is not necessarily best. 

> I had in my last post hoped it was obvious I was taking about the outsourcing of capability related to the NHS’ purpose and expertise.

But all these things are "related to" the NHS's purpose.  For example, it generally does not produce its own drugs, but rather buys them in from pharmaceutical companies.  Yet, the drugs are surely central to the NHS’s purpose.

If you don't like my example of a rubber plantation to make tyres for ambulances, how about a poppy field in Afghanistan to produce morphine?

2
 krikoman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Is it?, well:

> That is 0.26% of the NHS budget that year.   I don't accept that something affecting only 0.26% of the budget amounts to "systematic destruction". 


Because is compound spending,  they're spending more and more each year of providing services through private companies, once it's gone it's gone. The money flowing out of the NHS rather than staying within the system.

4
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Okay so what do you mean by benefiting the people in general. Which people? The ones in the country where the business is based.

Yes.

> How does that work if the shareholders interest is best served by sacking all the workers there and moving the factory to that low-wage economy?

Generally, UK workers have higher wages, better working conditions, more holiday, et cetera, than those in China.  I'm not convinced that our economy, based on private companies seeking profit, is worse than China's system.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> Because is compound spending,  they're spending more and more each year of providing services through private companies, once it's gone it's gone. The money flowing out of the NHS rather than staying within the system.

What on earth are you talking about?  The money, to the tune of 130 billion a year (set to rise to 150 billion a year given planned increases), flows from the taxpayer to the NHS and thence to its staff & contractors.     

3
 krikoman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I am certainly against ideology in such things.  But I'm not against properly done tendering and outsourcing.


It needs to be much better quality, to be worth it, cost needs to be much much less otherwise it's simple not worth it.

If you're buying services in house, then that money stays within the NHS system, once you're paying someone else, that money has gone for ever. This very rarely seems to be taken into account.

3
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> It needs to be much better quality, to be worth it, cost needs to be much much less otherwise it's simple not worth it.

I tend to agree that outsourcing should only be done if there's a distinct advantage to it, either in quality or price.  I don't think there should be ideology, either for or against, it should be a pragmatic decision. 

> If you're buying services in house, then that money stays within the NHS system, once you're paying someone else, that money has gone for ever. This very rarely seems to be taken into account.

That still makes no sense to me.  If the NHS pays for something in-house then the money is still spent (on staff, on equipment, on consumable, on whatever). At the end of the year the money is still gone, whether it is spent on its own staff/equipment or given to a contractor.

1
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Yes.

So what about a company based in the UK which has mostly outsourced to India/China etc and so has say just a dozen people left out of 2000?

> Generally, UK workers have higher wages, better working conditions, more holiday, et cetera, than those in China. 

Yes our workers do but in case you havent noticed those companies chasing profit have increasingly made UK workers redundant to hire the cheaper ones overseas. 

This is in part driven by the fact those better working conditions do impair profits. For example the cost of cleaning air cuts profits.

1
 marsbar 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The trouble with quality is measuring it. 

Any measurement is subject to error and to unintended consequences.   

The cleaning outsourcing was presumably supposed to be of equal quality for example.  

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/puar.13031%0D

Post edited at 20:24
2
 Ciro 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> That still makes no sense to me.  If the NHS pays for something in-house then the money is still spent (on staff, on equipment, on consumable, on whatever). At the end of the year the money is still gone, whether it is spent on its own staff/equipment or given to a contractor.

The money is spent, but by and large stays circulating in our economy - not ending up offshore - as a portion of corporate profits will.

1
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Yes our workers do but in case you havent noticed those companies chasing profit have increasingly made UK workers redundant to hire the cheaper ones overseas. 

Yes, I'm aware of it.  It doesn't change the fact that, in general, people in the UK tend to be better off than those in China, so I don't accept the claim that the Chinese system is better. 

 squarepeg 09 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Boris is out of ICU.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

Of course not. His brother died!

On the plus side him and his mates really pushed back against the NE Notts racist gangs.

1
 marsbar 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I meant the bit where he says the NHS is being dismantled, is he wrong about that? I don't think he is.

I've done those surveys and whilst I'm obviously left wing on some things, I'm right wing on others and I'm not an activist or an extremist.  

 Dr.S at work 09 Apr 2020
In reply to jimtitt:

interesting to know what their ICU admission criteria are

 Darron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

> One good thing that might come out of this dreadful episode is funding for the NHS. I don't think the taxpayer will allow it to be underfunded in the foreseeable future, whatever a right-wing government may want to do. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on my part.

One thing that has occurred to me is the effect on children of all the overt support for the NHS. All the Thurs clapping, millions of window rainbows etc is impressing on a young generation the importance of universal he@lthcare. Good thing I reckon.

 krikoman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What on earth are you talking about?  The money, to the tune of 130 billion a year (set to rise to 150 billion a year given planned increases), flows from the taxpayer to the NHS and thence to its staff & contractors.     


OK I'll try and explain things, suppose we send a patient  to a private clinic while there the patient needs an xray. The NHS will be charged for the treatment and an xray. If this was done within the NHS, we're already paying for a radiologist, so we don't have to pay for the xray, or if they do charge the money they get from the refer is included as income to the NHS, it's not going to the private companies coffers.

Think of it this way, you have your own company and you employ your wife and your son, the money you pay them stays within your family, if you employed someone else wife and son, that money isn't available for your family, it goes to someone else's family.

Private companies often get contracts on what they say they can achieve, which very often is a long way away from what they actually end up achieving.

2
 jimtitt 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> interesting to know what their ICU admission criteria are


That's probably a big factor, plenty of spare beds and they wheel you in even if you've got indigestion or whatever.

1
 Pete Pozman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> To which I will say one word: Capita. Anything they touch is as close to systematic destruction as you could wish.

Crapita

1
 summo 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Wasn't it Blair and Brown who gave them all the government contracts, capita in return 'loaned' the Labour party £1m? 

> Crapita

 HansStuttgart 10 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> OK I'll try and explain things, suppose we send a patient  to a private clinic while there the patient needs an xray. The NHS will be charged for the treatment and an xray. If this was done within the NHS, we're already paying for a radiologist, so we don't have to pay for the xray, or if they do charge the money they get from the refer is included as income to the NHS, it's not going to the private companies coffers.

But the reason to send a person to a private xray clinic typically is that the NHS did not have a radiologist available. Or maybe one on the wrong side of the country, or only one slot available in month even though the case is urgent. Giving doctors the option to use private clinics therefore increases the quality of healthcare.

A case in point at the moment is Coronatests. Doing this within the NHS in the central lab takes up to 4 days. So hospitals send the samples to private labs in Germany and the results are back in two days.

2
 Coel Hellier 10 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> suppose we send a patient  to a private clinic while there the patient needs an xray. The NHS will be charged for the treatment and an xray. If this was done within the NHS, we're already paying for a radiologist, so we don't have to pay for the xray, ...

But the NHS staff and equipment would not be sitting there idle while you pay the private company.  So, if you need 10,000 more X-rays a year, you'd have a choice of paying a private company to provide 10,000 X-rays of patients, or hiring new staff and buying new equipment and paying running costs, in order to do it.  Either way the money is spent.  Once it is given to staff as pay, it is no longer NHS money any more than when paid to a private company.

> Think of it this way, you have your own company and you employ your wife and your son, the money you pay them stays within your family, if you employed someone else wife and son, that money isn't available for your family, it goes to someone else's family.

And money paid to a NHS doctor or NHS nurse or NHS cleaner is no long NHS money, it is now their personal money, it is no longer within the NHS system. 

> Private companies often get contracts on what they say they can achieve, which very often is a long way away from what they actually end up achieving.

Maybe, but if so that is bad tendering, not a problem with the principle.  Anyone sensible would put performance clauses in the contract. 

8
 summo 10 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> Private companies often get contracts on what they say they can achieve, which very often is a long way away from what they actually end up achieving.

There won't have been an outsourcing contract written in the last 20 plus years that doesn't have KPIs* within it. These will be linked directly to financial penalties if they aren't delivering. 

* key performance indicators. 

1
 Rob Exile Ward 10 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

Dream on. I have sat in meetings discussing Crapita's total failure to deliver a piece of infrastructure, only to hear the golden words 'Everything is up for discussion - except Capita.'

2
 summo 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Dream on. I have sat in meetings discussing Crapita's total failure to deliver a piece of infrastructure, only to hear the golden words 'Everything is up for discussion - except Capita.'

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But both parties have their hands dirty as far as capita is concerned. It was embedded in state contracts long before 2010. 

 marsbar 10 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

As I said you cant accurately measure quality.  KPIs lead to all kinds of nonsense to pass them.  

1
 Offwidth 10 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

It's impossible to comment on his brother's tragic situation without proper evidence. Nottingham city NHS certainly seems to me better than the English averege, except the A&E queues (which they were working on) unlike Nottingham city school education for example (which is improving at last but suffered terribly despite being under Labour councils for many decades). NW Notts is a deprived area and the main big hospital, Kingsmill,  has been struggling for a long time dealing with PFI debts: the situation became so serious recently that Boris was using it for propaganda. Most of the local MPs are now tory in what were once coal mining area safe Labour seats.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/boris-johnson-says-scandal-p...

I think any discussion about dismantelling the NHS is complicated and less party political than many imply. From the beginning, the Attlee government failed to convince GPs to come under state management and also gave consultants a significant bung with the time allowed on private practice. However, the improvements were so blindingly obvious that the NHS looked unbreakable when the tories under Churchill (who had opposed the Attlee reforms) won.  Much later, the tory governments under Thatcher and Major looked for reform and certainly ran down funding (as they did in preparation for various other privatisations) but were unable to make much progress. Labour under Blair accelerated the tory invention of PFIs, to help expand the system, given the parlous state it was in (and this was so badly mishandled on a contract basis that it would have been cheaper for the state to borrow). The coalition pulled the Lilley reforms 'out of a hat', producing an internal market, which I think is probably the biggest waste of money in the NHS yet and put up barriers which reduced flexibility in a crisis.... remember the Lib Dems signed this off, despite it being stupid from a liberal perspective and not even a tory manifesto pledge. Hunt grudgingly impressed me, given the mess he inherited and having to work under what I see as the self imposed foolishness of austerity (since I favour Keynesian economics). The NHS did much better than most state funding areas under the recent tory governments; the serious growth in problems in health funding were all under the remit of the heavily cash starved councils: social care, public health and social sevices, all of which drove unneccesary NHS demand. Popularist liars that they are, I did worry greatly about what this new government would do with the NHS (especially in trade deals with the US, post brexit). The pandemic will now have  massively temper their desires, as it's clearly demonstrated why a centralised health service system is so important: any attempt to mess with the NHS now will likely produce the biggest public storm at any time in its history. 

Post edited at 10:26
 summo 10 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> As I said you cant accurately measure quality.  KPIs lead to all kinds of nonsense to pass them.  

I'd argue the fault probably lies in the ability of those involved to negotiate and define them at the pre contract and contract stage. 

Swinging back to your sector and school league tables, Ofsted inspection etc. and the obsession with attendance as some measure of performance. If you pick the wrong fields to measure in the first place, then neither party will feel happy with it. 

 marsbar 10 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

Whatever you pick will cause consequences.  

The vast vast majority of people don't go to work wanting to do a bad job. 

The right management skills along with a bit of trust and feeling part of a team will have most employees working hard and going above and beyond, especially in vocations like nursing.  

Instead we get KPIs and endless data.  Did you see the thread from someone managing a ward this week?  

 marsbar 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I agree Blair was also part of this.  

 krikoman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> There won't have been an outsourcing contract written in the last 20 plus years that doesn't have KPIs* within it. These will be linked directly to financial penalties if they aren't delivering. 

> * key performance indicators. 


I know this, I've been part of a team, writing and reviewing KPIs, from both sides of the industry. Most of them are pretty shit and pointless, the company taking on an outside provider usually doesn't have the staff to inspect, the quality of the work, so unless it's really shit, no one notices. The incumbent usually underestimates the cost, so towards the end ot the contract, they provider says, "well, we have no money". The contractor, is ALWAYS looking for was to gain some extras, a favourite is "well it's dilapidated". This usually means the original company pays for a new one, the supplier usually has a profit to make on anything they purchase, around 7.5%, so they want more expenditure, as they make more money! They don't want to be f*cking about repairing stuff, they don't make any money doing that. It becomes a battle between what was covered in the original contract, how much the service provider "bought" the job for, how much they can get away with covering things that weren't in the original contract, and the companies ability to police the truth.

You end up, with a load of non-productive staff, arguing about what is and what isn't covered, who's responsibility things are, and who's going to pay. It introduces massive  delays in sorting stuff out. And at the very end if it's really shit, the service provider  goes bankrupt leaving a load of debt and a massive pile of shit for someone to pick up afterwards.

This could, in theory, all be mitigated by some excellent negotiation and contract reviews / solicitors, but people on the whole don't do this, it costs too much.

This is exactly what Blair did, with his PFI scheme, it didn't work how we thought it would, then, and the same type of schemes aren't working now, in a great number of cases.

 wintertree 10 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> This could, in theory, all be mitigated by some excellent negotiation and contract reviews / solicitors, but people on the whole don't do this, it costs too much.

I’ve got an idea for a new outsourcing business...

 krikoman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

>  The pandemic will now have  massively temper their desires, as it's clearly demonstrated why a centralised health service system is so important: any attempt to mess with the NHS now will likely produce the biggest public storm at any time in its history. 

Let's hope so, my fear is short memories and big wads of cash.

1
 krikoman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> > This could, in theory, all be mitigated by some excellent negotiation and contract reviews / solicitors, but people on the whole don't do this, it costs too much.

> I’ve got an idea for a new outsourcing business...


ha ha I've often thought about it myself, but really no one cares, it's like buying a used car, they told "we can do this", "you'll have fixed costs each year..." and customers lap it up.

Most of what I've seen is the total lack of "checking" on what's been done, how it's been done, and to what standard. What tends to happen and this is a plant maintenance example, Service Provider (SP) says we can do this, it'll cost you this, here's some examples.

Customer, list out everything that needs doing, and how often, they often miss bits.

SP comes in on a five year contract, by the end of year three, they are really looking to make up the money they'd planned on making from the "extras", bit's missed out of the original specification, or what they can get away with.

The original work force has either TUPEd over or have f*cked off elsewhere as the wages have either dropped or stagnated. the original engineering / lower management were re-deployed or were made redundant. So by this third year, the SP have self regulating for three years, the first few years we fine because everyone had plenty of money, and there was more coming in. It's usually a rapid downward slope from here, the original company realises they need to keep a better eye on the SP, the SP needs to make more money. Staff increase, but it's the people who produce nothing, more and more meetings, more and more people getting dragged into more arguements. Eventually, they usually find another SP and it's all lovely again, until year 3.

2
 Jim233 10 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

Not to be too controversial but my only worry is that he dies a martyred hero. Be no stopping the blues passport brigade if that happens. Genuinely hope he recovers, to be fair, BUT I kinda hope he's a bit f*cked for life afterwards. After all, he's the poster boy for why the NHS, and the country in general, is such a shit show these days. 

8
 marsbar 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Jim233:

Apparently he is well enough to go for a walk.  

 summo 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Jim233:

>  After all, he's the poster boy for why the NHS, and the country in general, is such a shit show these days. 

Nothing to do with low funding over the last 30 years from a population continually voting for tax cuts, but expecting continually better services? You get what you vote and pay for. 

 krikoman 10 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> Nothing to do with low funding over the last 30 years from a population continually voting for tax cuts, but expecting continually better services? You get what you vote and pay for. 


We have very little influence on where the government spends our taxes, they do what they want.

5
 Coel Hellier 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Jim233:

> After all, he's the poster boy for why the NHS, and the country in general, is such a shit show these days. 

Any particular reason why Boris is the "poster boy for why the NHS" is a "shit show"?

Reviewing his career since the financial crisis:

For most of that time 2008 to 2016 he was Mayor of London -- which is not about running or funding the NHS.

After that he was a back-bencher, and campaigning in the Brexit referendum, during which his main campaign slogan was -- rather famously -- to give the NHS an extra £350 million a week.   

After that he was Foreign Secretary for two years, a role that has little to do with running or funding the NHS.  (That's more the PM, Chancellor and Health Secretary.)

After that he was a back-bencher for a while.

And then he became PM, and in the first budget after he became PM (and before Coronavirus) he promised the NHS an increase of 3.4% above inflation, every year of this Parliament. 

So, as regards the NHS, what's your complaint about him? 

Post edited at 20:26
3
 Dewi Williams 12 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

So he is now out of hospital but not returning to work for a month and is travelling to spend the time at Chequers which is, in effect, his second home. What a fine example to the rest of us. 

7
 Dr.S at work 12 Apr 2020
In reply to Dewi Williams:

Do you think he should go back to no10?

 Bacon Butty 12 Apr 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Apparently he is well enough to go for a walk.  


Beachy Head is nice this time of year

8
 Dewi Williams 12 Apr 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I think he should return to his primary residence which is not Chequers, as per the guidelines issued to the rest of the country. 

5
 krikoman 12 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye

He has risen!! I knew he would, now Jesus = Boris, let's hope he cures the sick, feeds the 5000, I think he's been hanging around with prostitutes for a while.

9
 Bacon Butty 12 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Only three days to go and he'll have buggered off to heaven.
Fantasy, I know, fantasy

9
OP veteye 12 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Allelujah! 

Perhaps he should recuperate by crocheting face masks at his no 1 home, where possibly there was some domestic trouble earlier on in his life. So various connections to current topics.

Certainly, if he is up to doing something, he should precipitate further improvements in the supply of PPE to frontline staff.

3
OP veteye 12 Apr 2020
In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

> Only three days to go and he'll have buggered off to heaven.

What? and leave us with a vacillating cabinet.

Anyway, I thought he had a devilish friend called Nick.

 fred99 12 Apr 2020
In reply to Dewi Williams:

> So he is now out of hospital but not returning to work for a month and is travelling to spend the time at Chequers which is, in effect, his second home. What a fine example to the rest of us. 


My thoughts entirely. After all, when he is well enough to start work again, he will have to travel to Downing Street. So why go to Chequers in the first place ?

3
 squarepeg 12 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

To recover? 

1
 Pete Pozman 13 Apr 2020
In reply to fred99:

>  After all, when he is well enough to start work again, 

Start what again? 

Do you really believe that man has ever done a day's work in his life? 

7
 fred99 13 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> >  After all, when he is well enough to start work again, 

> Start what again? 

> Do you really believe that man has ever done a day's work in his life? 


Actually I do not.

But I also don't see why he should be taken to his second official home (or third in total) with a great convoy of security, all having to hope they don't catch cv-19 off each other, and then expect the same security people to go through it all again in a few days time. He should go into lockdown in the upstairs flat of his PRIMARY RESIDENCE, with occasional walks around the Downing Street garden, not go to a country estate where he can wander to his hearts content - unlike the rest of us.

3
OP veteye 13 Apr 2020
In reply to fred99:

He won't be able to wander round a country estate, as with the cooler day today, he might "catch a chill". (Tee-Hee.)

I presume that by now that he is having a finger back in the pie, with official reports/documents delivered to him again.

 Coel Hellier 13 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Do you really believe that man has ever done a day's work in his life? 

Obviously he has.  That is, so long as you accept that writing columns, writing books, editing magazines, etc, is a form of "work".    Put it this way, people were willing to pay him to do it. 

Of course you may think that only manual labour with a spade counts as "work".

 Rob Exile Ward 13 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

What DOES tend to count as 'work' in a managerial capacity is focusing on difficult issues; making the effort to  understand complex arguments; and making decisions, not always the easy or popular ones, and communicating those decisions in such a way that they get executed.

Don't think Boris has much experience of any of that, unfortunately.  A few cr*p buses, a garden bridge that never happened and credit for inheriting the Olympics.

4
 krikoman 13 Apr 2020
In reply to veteye:

I have this forwarded to me today, since Boris is now on the mend, thought I might post it here.

Sorry for the following rant. Have to get if off my chest.
Just heard Boris Johnson’s current girlfriend Carrie Symonds on the radio saying that ‘There is no way Boris can repay’ the medical team that saved his life. I have some very good news for her: He is in fact the one person in whole country who can do exactly that. What he has to do is fix the following problems, all of which his party have caused:

40,000 to 50,000 nursing shortage (20,000 of the promised 50,000 turned out to be fictional).

We have half as many nurses per capita as Germany.

2017 abolition of trainee nurses bursaries, costing them £9,000 a year to train.

Trusts downgrading nurses from the top pay grade to the level below, cutting their pay.

Near extinction of district nurses because of a £10,000 charge to qualify over 3 years.

Underfunding leading to increasing failure by hospitals to hit their four hour target for A & E.

A record 4.4 million cancer patients who are not treated within the target of 18 weeks.

100,000 jobs unfilled by NHS England, one in 12 of all the posts & enough to staff 10 large hospitals.

Doubling expenditure on private health companies since 2019 to 7% of the care budget.

Maintenance backlogs up by 30% in the last four years.

17,000 hospital beds closed since 2010,

Junior doctors walked out in 2016 because of concerns that underfunding was hitting patient care and safety.

Increases in spending on the NHS down to 1% compared to 6% before 2010.

MRSA infection are nearly 50 per cent higher in hospitals that outsource cleaning services.

NHS has the fewest doctors per 1,000 patients in the EU. (2.8 doctors for every 1,000 patients, EU average = 3.9 doctors.

Exercise Cygnus run in October 2016 for senior government as a simulation of what could happen if there was a pandemic. It pretty much predicted what is now actually happening. The government decided that it was “too terrifying” to put in the public domain and did nothing about it because “Throwing money at the problem was not necessarily the solution.” so they continued with the austerity programme instead.

So will Boris truly actually try to ‘repay’ the medics who saved him? Or will he mainly just make sure he is filmed clapping them in road again, once he is better?

So maybe Boris doing his best hasn't been good enough for sometime, not just Boris obviously the Tories as a whole, and possible a bit of Labour too.

I've not had time to check the details, so feel free to correct them.

 Baz P 13 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Yet people from all over the world fight tooth and nail, clinging under lorries and in small rubber boats, to get here.

9
 Ian W 13 Apr 2020
In reply to Baz P:

> Yet people from all over the world fight tooth and nail, clinging under lorries and in small rubber boats, to get here.


Which is all very fascinating I'm sure, but very little to do with the NHS, its funding, or indeed Boris Johnson.

1
 krikoman 14 Apr 2020
In reply to Baz P:

> Yet people from all over the world fight tooth and nail, clinging under lorries and in small rubber boats, to get here.


What's that got to do with the NHS, are you suggesting all the possible migrants trying to get here are doing it because of the NHS?

I didn't post it, because it was probably too long, but it made interesting reading. There a list of MPs who voted against giving NHS staff a wage rise, just about every Tory MP and all the DUP voted against giving them a raise. And now they're all falling over each other telling us how important our NHS staff are, just not important enough to thank then financially.

Post edited at 11:50
3
 Rob Exile Ward 14 Apr 2020
In reply to Baz P:

Yes, you should get on your effing knees and thank God you live here rather than wherever those immigrants have been forced to flee from.

2
In reply to Baz P:

And for a large part they are trying to escape from extremely desperate circumstances. 

Some might suggest that the bar for effective government should be set a tiny bit higher than "we're better than an active war zone".

 summo 14 Apr 2020
In reply to Baz P:

> Yet people from all over the world fight tooth and nail, clinging under lorries and in small rubber boats, to get here.

Because where they've fled from is likely horrendous and covid19 certainly won't improve it. What would you do? 

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...