Ask the person who was putting the problem out in the public domain, and then saying it was a basically a load of rubbish which had be debunked, albeit in milder language.

[Link]

Is Victor BAME enough for you?

You might learn some things on this topic if you watch last Thursday's Question Time.

Wibble

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

I've had my character badly insulted on this thread by people who I consider view themselves far more ethically than perhaps is the case.

A case in point is that I and others....from the start argued strongly against mandates. WE for example argued for 'ostracizing' people, their specific word....not in specific favour of mandates but for those who were unvaccinated....that doesn't really make sense but I'll leave it there.

Oh and you can't find 'alternative roles' for tens of thousands of people working in the front line. That's a suggestion of someone who isn't serious.

The whole mandate idea, especially for people whose contracts never made vaccination a requirement, was an ethical vacuum of coercion that treated qualified and hard to get staff with contempt.

Now that an unspecified number are considering leaving the profession and I only hope that they find an employer with more nous and ability to see longer than the next week, which certainly appears longer than our government.

And I see some are still wedded to coercion as a method of controlling people into actions they don't wish.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Feb 2022 1.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

These attitudes come at a cost and the NHS will lose staff it can't afford by the state's unethical behaviour and the painting of coercion as acceptable practice......those with valuable skills will gleefully be accepted into private practice.

This has been intellectually an example of 'go along to get along' and pretty poor.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Feb 2022 2.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You'll wait forever then, because there wasn't any!

The kindest thing that could be said about your approach is that it was a different interpretation to my own of someone else's opinion. A cynical one would be that you are deliberate distorting things.

Which one you believe depends on your own viewpoint, but misinformation there was not. The report was referenced in full. All the information is there, so everyone can reach their own conclusions. You are as entitled to yours, as I am to mine. But no more than that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You need to take your own advice. When I am mistaken, I freely admit it.

I know exactly what you wrote. You made a political point, and suggested that Florida and California were compared. Why should I accept that? I rejected the political approach and provided data I found on ALL the states, but then went on to look at the metrics for your choices. Metrics which suggest the most important, in my opinion, health, came out better in California. Which doesn't match your opinion. You want to look at the other metrics because that's where your whole approach on this is based. You say it again above, that California was rated worse than Florida, when that is simply a matter of opinion as it depends entirely on how you weight each metric. It's not a statement of fact. It's an opinion. Opinions differ.

Now you again accuse me of posting "misinformation". That's offensive, inaccurate and personal. I expressed my opinion, but I also posted all the information on which that opinion was based. Nothing selected in, or out. Others can read it all and make up their own minds. Not have them made up by me, or by you.

Deciding to look at two states you were confident would provide the result you were looking for, based on the metrics you prefer, is indeed cherry-picking. That is the misinformation. Providing all the information, so it can be examined and conclusions drawn isn't.

You confirm your prejudice by mentioning an "overall better outcome" and then making the assumption that California fared worse, just because it scored lower on some metrics. If you believe, as I and many others do, that the overwhelming priority in this is the way the people's health has been protected, then that isn't true. The best outcome is the one in which their health suffered least. That the impact on other health services is part of that calculation is obviously true, but the fact is that should lockdowns, social distancing and mask wearing etc protocols not have been employed, then the impact on other health services would have been far, far worse than it undoubtedly already has been.

There are no good outcomes available for any strategy in these circumstances. There are only bad, or less bad ones.

Decisions needed to be made, based initially on poor data and little experience. No doubt with hindsight some might have been different, particularly with the timing, but overall the general strategy was, in my opinion, the correct one.

There has clearly been a heavy economic hit, children's education has suffered. These things are unarguable. What isn't is that the untried alternative would have been better. It's all too easy to point out the downsides of the decisions taken, without ever having to face the downsides of not taking them, or taking another another strategy. It's all too easy to look at other places, who take a different strategy, look at their short term results and assume they will either be sustained, or replicated elsewhere. Experience shows that to be unwise.

Opposition politicians do this all the time. The grass is always greener in the next field. The one you cannot see, that has lots of poisoned grass the other side of the hill.

For sure, we will be suffering for a while, but we would have done however we responded. That's not the question. We did what we did. It's done. We prioritised health. Now we will prioritise recovery. So how best to do it?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Not sure that the economies have been destroyed, but certainly put under considerable stress.

The poor and the vulnerable were not put in more danger of dying than could have been avoided, by taking the measures we did.

That there have been consequences is obvious and undeniable. The pandemic was always going to have consequences. That though isn't the point and never has been. The question is what strategy, with the knowledge available at the time when it had to be devised, was going to produce the least bad result.

Had the virus just been allowed to circulate the consequences would likely have been far, far worse. Both in my opinion, and in those whose job it was, in most countries, to devise the strategy. Other opinions are available. Obviously.

There is a lot to see here. Not least a a callous disregard for public health and the need to protect the health service.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.