UKH

A significant  investigation from the Guardiam with inside sources from  or linked to COBRA, SAGE, DHSC etc.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-...

in a word "Help!" 

Remember, though, that the Graun, while I think they've been quite well behaved over Covid generally, is the Press, and in particular is the Press with a leftward leaning, therefore anti establishment.  Therefore, read the article in that context.  It will contain truth but also some overblown stuff, as any newspaper article does.

For me  an important implication in the article is that behavioural scientists had not advised against an earlier lockdown due to potential public "fatigue" with any restrictions, while the government claimed they had done so.

In hindsight a much earlier lockdown would have led to less infections, less deaths, and less strain on resources and the economy. In short an advantage in every way. Using common sense its hard to see how "fatigue" could be any greater with an early lockdown, since it is surely dependent on the time spent under lockdown and not the starting point.

Edit: Perhaps the one advantage of a later lockdown is we might learn from the experiences of countries who entered lockdown earlier, especially concerning easing of lockdown.

Arguably folk won't sense the need for a lock down until it's too late. Ie. Big death figures. Even when the numbers were hitting 3,4,500 in Italy much of the UK thought football matches, Cheltenham races, Snowdon etc. were acceptable. 

Certainly having a PM who tells the country he shook hands all over a hospital with covid patients doesn’t help.  Just imagine if he’d been filmed going round in full PPE or having a video call to minimise the risk.

The Sunday Times is generally right-leaning but managed to produce a fairly damning report on the government's performance to date. People who talk about "the media" or "the press" tend to forget two things, firstly the huge diversity in the media which renders many statements about them all distinctly overblown, and secondly that many, many individual journalists in many publications really do try hard to get the truth of the matter they are covering. Peter Foster was on the Telegraph until recently and he produced a lot of extremely sceptical coverage of the government's Brexit policies. Should he have been ignored because his work appeared under the "wrong" masthead? (I heartily dislike what the Telegraph has become, btw.)

A more nuanced approach to reading what you see in the papers is better than making rather sweeping statements about "the establishment" or the "mainstream media".

Aren't there some USA senators who despite being of a certain age think they are invincible too. Or even trump himself. 

Yup.  Trump was practically screaming at a CNN reporter "There were no cases, how could I shut the country down?  You tell me - no cases"

The answer is leadership.  If he had been treating the threat with the gravitas it clearly deserved from early on, that would have sent a very different signal - the same for Borris.  They had 4 weeks to make the case for an earlier lockdown.  I note New Zealand for example managed to do this.

FWIW I've read the article and it's quite balanced.

Yes.  But much of the country was already shutting itself down whilst wondering why the government hadn't done it yet.  This article  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-uk-cancelled-sp...  summarises shutdowns on the 15th March.

Boris' handshaking at the hospital moment was a notable leadership failure from that time and for the government to effectively say " we aren't going into lockdown because we don't think the country will follow us" wasn't much of a vote of confidence in their own leadership either.

If I remember correctly, the stated purpose of the lockdown strategy in this country (and others) was to flatten the curve sufficiently so as to ensure that the health system wasn't overwhelmed. Much as I hate to lend any credit to governmental handling of the pandemic, in this they were entirely successful. A&Es remained quiet, Nightingale hospitals unused and there was no footage of seriously ill patients filling corridors as seen in Italy or bodies stacked in truck trailers outside hospitals as was witnessed in New York.

Indeed. The Netherlands is somewhat similar. I am pretty sure we'll end up with similar or larger per capita death than Italy (based on the excess mortality data), but the healthsystem managed. Corona in Italy is/was very unevenly distributed.

PS speaking as a Dutchman here...

My political views could probably be described as (very) slightly right of centre, however  I read and subscribe to the Guardian for the following reasons. 

It challenges my ideas and politics. I'm not interested in reading 'echo chamber' news. 

Generally their articles are well researched and truthfull and without too much sensationalism. 

I can do the crossword.

I think this this article is pretty fair and isn't too overblown, but yes, as you say it needs to be read in context. 

Recently though the Guardian has been doing quite a bit of Tory bashing. More than usual.

There seems to be a really determined attempt to demonise the press recently and smear anything they say by claiming political bias. It is also entertaining seeing the claim the guardian are anti establishment.

The Guardian are a left-wing paper.  Why would they be pro-(the current)establishment?

Of course. Whilst he had his faults, they really need/ed an Obama type leadership more than ever. 

Agree, the lockdown flattened the curve. However my point was that it would have been far better for lockdown to have been earlier. The curve of infections and deaths would have been flattened in the same way but with a lower peak, leading to less deaths and less strain on NHS and resources including PPE etc. and with few, if any, disadvantages compared to the later lockdown.The health system was not overwhelmed but it was possibly a fairly close thing. The government became really anxious about coping, hence the largely unused Nightingale hospitals (perhaps fortunate considering that they were having problems staffing them). There might well have been no need for these with an earlier lockdown.

I think the government bears a deal of responsibility for that attitude. They could have recommended cancellingg the meetings but I remember a government  spokesman saying there was little risk as it was "in the open air". This despite the fact that thousands of spectators would be sitting or walking in very close proximity. Shortly afterwards advice changed to the minimum two metre separation and only household grouping.

This is why terms like "the establisment" are just silly. The City is "the establishment", so are the universities, so is the civil service, so are many if not nearly all Labour politicians. To pretend they all have similar agendas is nonsense, unless you're a radical left or right wing populist, or in some other way opposed to liberal democracy (eg you're Putin, or the Saudi royal family). The Guardian are a left-wing paper and so critical of a right-wing government. But, as I pointed out above, the Sunday Times was critical of this government, and the New Labour government certainly caught a lot of flak from the Guardian.

They are a centre left paper and are pro establishment as a general rule. Within the opinion section there is more variation.

The Guardian is not anti-establishment. Rather it represents the left of the establishment. Don't make the mistake of identifying the Tories as "the Establishment". The right of the Tories is almost anarchist in its enthusiasm for smashing up the nation's cherished institutions. 

Really agree with this, tho the Tory radical right loves rules. Lots and lots of rules, made by them, for them, and with minimal oversight of them by us. They hate the supreme court, pesky judges, human rights, independent journalism, supra-national institutions with liberal ideas, they hate foreigners coming in without rules and control, they hate employment tribunals, local authority oversight of schools, in fact anything that's not power concentrated in their hands.