Is anyone else listening to Patrick Vallances testimony?
Its absolutely damning about Boris Johnson.
He's endeavouring to be diplomatic but it seems like trying to explain the basics of how viruses work was like trying to explain it to a particularly dim child and he just couldn't seem to get his head around it all. He'd have it all explained to him in words of less than 2 syllables, then ask a question so stupid that everyone would have their heads in their hands
Repeated failure of PM to understand graphs! Gave up science at 15. Had to repeat concepts multiple times
Apparently there is an objective for 50% of fast-track civil servants to be recruited from STEM subjects. Whether that would have helped, given the leadership and decision making is moot.
Here if anyone wants to listen
Apparently there is an objective for 50% of fast-track civil servants to be recruited from STEM subjects.
But the promotion (and therefore increased salaries) are still going to gained by moving depts to get higher up the rungs. Until the CS recognise value in expertise and reward it accordingly, the issue will remain the same.
Its absolutely damning about Boris Johnson.
Oh he's just a poundshop Trump. Absolutely thick as mince.
They get by in life by bullshitting and blustering and sounding posh and due to their inherited wealth (anyone still wondering why they want to cut inheritance tax...?) and the elitist school background that teaches you how to be dead clever in debating (so that you can argue against anyone calling you stupid) and then they get by on a life of delegating all the details to others.
JRM admitted (or was forced to admit) in an interview that he actually wasn;t very well read at all but he did read the Oxford Book of Quotations all the time and he had memorised a lot of the quotes. It allowed him to sound dead clever and well-read when he could come out with these quotes from learned historical figures but he was simply parroting them.
Johnson isn't that different. Bit of bluster, some pig-Latin and a self-deprecating anecdote. Johnson (and JRM) are the thick person's idea of an intelligent person.
If I were one of the families that lost a loved one during Covid and I was listening to just how criminally incompetent Johnson and the government were, I think of really lose my sh*t over this.
Blood on their hands.
I’m still not sure what the expected outcome of this inquiry is expected to be beyond making some lawyers rich. Yes we are hearing some daming evidence but so what? We all knew Johnson and his cronies were clueless and probably corrupt. It’s not as if anything is going to happen to them as a result of this inquiry though is it. We will get the lessons learnt statements from the government of the day when it finally ends but unless anything actually changes then why bother
There’s a shock, Rishi’s “eat out to help covid out” was news to SAGE when announced to the country! 😆
And they didn't discuss things like that at SAGE meetings anyway as they were minuted, so everything was on the record.
They didn't want that, obviously. Much better to do it by Whatsapp instead, ensuring culpable deniability
The extract says Johnson "looked broken - head in hands a lot", and quotes the PM saying "We are too shit to get our act together".
Finally, I agree with Boris on something.
I still fail to see how they are going to be held criminally accountable? corporate manslaughter?
they aren’t going to be held accountable. Rishi will go back to America and the family business when he is chucked out of office and Boris will carry on being Boris and being overpaid to write drivel in columns
andybrad
Full Member
I agree,I still fail to see how they are going to be held criminally accountable? corporate manslaughter?
There is no search for any criminality in the enquiry.
Some criminality might be proven byb police investigations into some very dodgy PPE contracts to Tory donors etc though but I wouldn't hold my breath.
It still sickens me to think that a fair few in the Tory party and their donors simply saw a national emergency as a cash cow to make millions from.
A bunch of rat-like spivs basically.
A lot of people still missing the point that enquiry is to learn lessons to try and avoid a repeat in the next pandemic, rather than string anyone up.
The main learning point being don't vote Tory.
There’s a shock, Rishi’s “eat out to help covid out” was news to SAGE when announced to the country!
The furlough schemes were news to HMRC at the time too - our Chief Exec is on record saying he was given 30 minutes notice to watch that nights broadcast as it would affect us.
Indeed the Enquiry is about learning from the process and improving for next time around.
Not having the selfish dimwits in charge seems the biggest learning.
Is anyone else perturbed by the extent to which Vallance's testimony is contradicted by the evidence of the SAGE minutes? I'm talking specifically about the mid-March issues right at the start. When did he decide that the doubling time was 3 days (rather than the 5-7 they had previously thought) and when did he decide a proper lockdown was necessary?
He claims this was around the weekend of 14-15 March.
The SAGE minutes of the 16th and 18th March tell a very different story.
I wonder if anyone involved in the Inquiry has actually read these (short, simple) documents?
Is anyone else listening to Patrick Vallances testimony?
Its absolutely damning about Boris Johnson.
He’s endeavouring to be diplomatic but it seems like trying to explain the basics of how viruses work was like trying to explain it to a particularly dim child and he just couldn’t seem to get his head around it all.
When I heard that earlier,I cheered at the radio.
However..
they aren’t going to be held accountable. Rishi will go back to America and the family business when he is chucked out of office and Boris will carry on being Boris and being overpaid to write drivel in columns
Sadly,all of this^^
Such rich rewards for gross incompetence.
And people think this will be any better ? Dozy buggers. Those producing any report will have an axe to grind and it won't be worth the paper it is written on.
All too subjective. I for one think it wasn't too bad although somewhat wishy washy. Could have been better, could have been worse. We lost relatively few people. If it had been Ebola we would have really needed to worry.
Indeed the Enquiry is about learning from the process and improving for next time around.
Yep. And I dearly hope the main point to learn from (aside from people not voting Tory) would be to follow the advise given by experts, and to plan accordingly for those scenarios, perhaps especially if they have very serious potential outcomes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Cygnus
But then again, Matt Hancock.
In all the focus being (unsurprisingly) on Johnson, there was also him pointing out that in a crisis when we needed facts, we had a health Secretary who was a habitual liar who would literally make things up on spec
mattsccm
We lost relatively few people.
Relatively few as opposed to a nuclear detonation?
The figure is around 200,000 people. I'm not sure I see that as a pretty good result frankly. Hearing what a mess the government was in and how badly the response was handled, it's likely that 10,000's of those people might have lived but we will never know.
Each of those 200,000 had a family. Then you have those forgotten thousands still contending with long Covid.
What we do know is that the government was at war with itself when it should have been at war with Covid.
Is anyone else perturbed by the extent to which Vallance’s testimony is contradicted by the evidence of the SAGE minutes? I’m talking specifically about the mid-March issues right at the start. When did he decide that the doubling time was 3 days (rather than the 5-7 they had previously thought) and when did he decide a proper lockdown was necessary?
He claims this was around the weekend of 14-15 March.
The SAGE minutes of the 16th and 18th March tell a very different story.
I wonder if anyone involved in the Inquiry has actually read these (short, simple) documents?
Have you got any links, I'd have a read.
Well, as thecaptain didn't send any links, I went and looked myself, and they're right, the SAGE Minutes from the 16/3/20 do say a doubling time of 5-6 days.
Am I perturbed. No, not really. I've sat in enough business meetings, including some with Gov, to know that what is finally in the distilled down official minutes is not the same as a transcript of the conversations that lead to the final minutes. So it's entirely within reason that PV may have been advising that he thought the doubling time was faster but talked down / convinced / in line with decision that the 5-6 was what should be in the minutes
He's said today that he was in disagreement with CW over the impact of lockdowns, with PV harder on the effect of the virus and CW more concerned by the overall health impact. That's what you want happening in these meetings, challenge and criticism of positions to find the best overall outcome. I'd suggest too as a scientist that keeping notes and diaries isn't that odd, Observe and Record is a basic skill. He also said that he considered resigning over various aspects of his role at that time; I speculated at the time that it must be hard to stand up every night and support positions he didn't always agree with but that's the nature of the advisor to minister relationship, you disagree in private but in the end the minister should listen to advice and decide what to do with it. Both he and Fauci have reflected as well - faced with an alternative of walking out and being replaced by who-knows-who, felt was better to be inside providing appropriate guidance than outside.
[edit - just remembered the horror on the face of the specialist stood there as Trump was talking about injecting bleach or something...... how she didn't resign on the spot IDK]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177
The figure is around 200,000 people. I’m not sure I see that as a pretty good result frankly. Hearing what a mess the government was in and how badly the response was handled, it’s likely that 10,000’s of those people might have lived but we will never know.
Each of those 200,000 had a family. Then you have those forgotten thousands still contending with long Covid.
The 'Covid wall' across the Thames from the Houses of Parliament had a figure of 231,000+ at the weekend. Quite perturbing seeing it all.
Sorry for not replying faster @theotherjonv. I wrote it all down in longer version a couple of years ago when Vallance similarly misled the parliamentary select committee on science and technology:
https://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2020/07/patrick-vallances-faulty-memory.html
I realise that most people don't care about the truth and don't care that the govt's chief scientific advisor is misleading these inquiries. It matters to me that scientists are honest and accurate in their work and in their advice. SAGE failed quite significantly during this important period and if any lessons are to be learnt, they must be based in reality rather than wishful thinking.
Vallance was the most senior member of SAGE (don't know if he was formally the chair, but he's always first on the list of attendees). The idea that he, and all the other SAGE participants we've heard from, were sounding the alarm from 14-15 March onwards and believed the doubling time to be 3 days, and then got together in a room as SAGE on the 16th and again on the 18th and agreed that everything was hunky-dory and the doubling time was 5 days or longer, is risible.
But let's follow your line of logic a little further. You want to believe that Vallance was indeed sounding the alarm from 14-15 March onwards, but the official committee of scientists charged with providing advice to the Govt was directly contradicting him, not just once but twice after that weekend. Why has the Inquiry not addressed this issue? If true it would indicate a substantial problem with the process. No scientist has commented on this curious state of affairs. How can the Govt be blamed here for a delay when SAGE was specifically recommending it?
Don't you think Vallance would have mentioned this, if he had been worried sick about the imminent collapse of the NHS but SAGE was saying calm down, nothing to worry about? Note that in his testimony to the Select Committee, he specifically said SAGE (and not just him personally) recommended lockdown on the 16th or 18th. THat's directly contradicted by the minutes.
But like I said, no-one cares about the truth, they just want to score political points and scapegoat someone else.
I can tell you (first hand) that he was raising the alarm on the 14th of March. What the rest of SAGE were doing? I have no idea. But 14-15th March is the right date. I wasn’t on SAGE at that point.
But the upshot of all of this (the Enquiry) is going to be: That had we locked down earlier, more lives would've been saved.
Regardless of what any of them say now; that's the obvious conclusion that's obvious to everyone and a lot of what's going on at the enquiry is the normal face saving and attempts or deflecting blame to some-one else at the time, and that's going to be as true about the science advice as it is about the politicians.
if he had been worried sick about the imminent collapse of the NHS but SAGE was saying calm down, nothing to worry about?
I don't think they were saying "nothing to worry about", I think they were worried that from a health perspective; lockdowns would make it hard for very ill people to get medical treatments so we need to pay attention to that, and Whitty was specifically worried that people wouldn't follow the advice or would only do so for a limited time.
The real anger in this thread and inquiry should really be directed at the actions surrounding the second lockdown. That killed in excess of 30k people unnecessarily at a time when the levers of policy and their effects on infections, admissions and deaths was well-established. The first was definitely in the fog of war, the second was not. I’m still angry about it.
That had we locked down earlier, more lives would’ve been saved.
The real value is to understand why we didn't.
I think they were worried that from a health perspective; lockdowns would make it hard for very ill people to get medical treatments so we need to pay attention to that
Well, there's a possible lesson right there, is reform of how people receive treatment required if we're to be ready for another pandemic in the future?
Whitty was specifically worried that people wouldn’t follow the advice or would only do so for a limited time
An assumption shared by many, but based on absolutely nothing.
An assumption shared by many, but based on absolutely nothing.
It wasn't helped by the significant comments and "opinion columns" of the time stating that Covid was nothing to worry about, look at Sweden, think of the economy, it's just a cold and so on.
Coupled with a very vague response from Government and ever-changing instructions about what you could and couldn't do (alongside "recommendations" - the classic one being Gove's comment about "1hr of exercise" which got completely misappropriated and used to vilify anyone who'd been out for more than 1hr)
People started to take all that on board and just bend the rules a bit, then break them entirely, then get arsey with everyone else.
I can tell you (first hand) that he was raising the alarm on the 14th of March.
In what way, and to whom?
It's one thing to say, there's a big wave coming, we need to prepare. I'm sure everyone expressed worries about how bad it might be going to be. It's another thing entirely to say that we now think the doubling time is much shorter, the situation is more urgent than we thought yesterday.
It was the evening of the 13th, straight after the SAGE meeting on that day, that Edmunds gave his horrific interview on Channel 4 during which he positively sneered at the suggestion that the doubling time might be as short as 3 days and that we needed to take action urgently. I'm sure you don't need to watch it again but here's the link:
I remind you again that in his evidence to the S&T committee, Vallance very specifically stated that he changed his mind after the SPI-M meeting at which the doubling time mistake was corrected. He claimed that this change of mind took place on the 16th or 18th of March, but the SPI-M meeting is clearly documented to have taken place on the 20th March.
The real anger in this thread and inquiry should really be directed at the actions surrounding the second lockdown.
Exactly this. Its totally understandable that mistakes were made when huge decisions had to be taken, where there is literally no rule book and you're making it up as you go along under huge pressure.
But to then repeat the very same mistakes, having apparently learnt absolutely nothing, represents a literally criminal level of incompetence and negligence.
We now know, through the evidence that we've all been listening to, that this was due to total and complete ****-wittery in the case of Johnson and Hancock and cold, hard, totally uncaring intransigence in the case of Sunak
Not a great look, either of them, are they?
Have you sent any of this [edit - your blog info which I have read for the first time] to the enquiry? Seems reasonable to be asking them directly?
I know it's not a court in the sense of cross-examination, but in times of exponential growth these discrepancies can have significant impacts.
If you don't mind me saying your blog is written in a way that seems quite biased against the scientists involved. I'm interested in challenging and finding the truth but your position seems quite anti- - is there any reason why that would be, if it's possible to say?
The real anger in this thread and inquiry should really be directed at the actions surrounding the second lockdown. That killed in excess of 30k people unnecessarily at a time when the levers of policy and their effects on infections, admissions and deaths was well-established. The first was definitely in the fog of war, the second was not. I’m still angry about it.
Indeed, and by all accounts there was little to no learning from those in charge.
From what I've read they were like gamblers doubling down on their ideology every time in the hope that they'd luck out with a win before they went bankrupt.
Cummings's evidence supports that Vallance was changing his mind over that weekend - that was when he agreed with Cummings to bring Gowers and Hassabis into the SAGE meeting on the 18th. Cummings said it was after this meeting and he (and maybe Vallance and no doubt others) realised that they had to act and the SPI-M models were largely irrelevant to this process.
However, I agreed with you there are plenty of inconsistencies in the evidence by Scientific Advisers which have not been teased out by the lawyers and the Inquiry does not seem interested in investigating this area rigorously.
where there is literally no rule book and you’re making it up as you go along under huge pressure.
Not quite true about there being a rule book.
This was a novel situation, but there was plenty of data about the best ways to deal with a pandemic.
For example, the idea that lockdowns need to be balanced against the economic hit, is an ideological cover in order to resist doing what needs to be done. My understanding is that there was good data prior to this that early intervention is better in the long term for the economy.
The problem now is it's become such a partisan issue, that it's almost impossible to find the truth for the noise surrounding it.
However, I agreed with you there are plenty of inconsistencies in the evidence by Scientific Advisers which have not been teased out by the lawyers and the Inquiry does not seem interested in investigating this area rigorously.
I assume there's opportunity to call them again once evidence is gathered and inconsistencies identified?
Not quite true about there being a rule book.
This was a novel situation, but there was plenty of data about the best ways to deal with a pandemic.
Indeed. In fact, ISTR that they'd done a tabletop exercise on a pandemic (having had SARS and MERS and whatever else, it was pretty clear that one day there would be a pandemic that did majorly affect the UK) - but the learnings from that, such as stockpiling PPE in preparation had just been ignored.
In what way, and to whom?
Posted my plot here on March 12th showing two day doubling time. Neil Ferguson presented it to Patrick Vallance on the 13th or 14th, first email from him asking the implications of a two day doubling time that day. Having spent ten years as his advisor in my day job, he probably recognised my name 😉. I joined SPI-M in early April.
I did make myself available for the inquiry but wasn’t needed. I presume my email conversations were submitted. And for the record (well STW record), I never once used WhatsApp!
For example, the idea that lockdowns need to be balanced against the economic hit, is an ideological cover in order to resist doing what needs to be done. My understanding is that there was good data prior to this that early intervention is better in the long term for the economy.
Chris Whitty has just used an interesting phrase about 'people changing or twisting 'facts' to suit their agendas'
The politicians procrastinated and faffed around with their heads in the sand and locked down far too late, then apparently having learnt absolutely nothing, they did exactly the same again. Its yet another thing we have to thank these libertarian right-wing loons for. Its very apparent that at the forefront of this was our present Prime Minister. Our then Prime Minister was simply an idiot, out of his depth on a damp pavement, but Rishi knew full well what he was doing and didn't give a ****. Its bordering on psychopathic
so far all im hearing from the inquiry is confirming what I thought at the time.
so other than some lessons learnt and some strong words, will those that were so incompetent and contributed to excess deaths, whilst setting their chums up with ppe contracts and having parties face any actual punishment?
We reward failure and corruption in this country, not punish it, as the recent appointment of Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton as foreign secretary demonstrates. Its with spirit-crushing inevitability that we all know he'll soon be joined by Lord Johnson of Shagshire
The 4 or 5 mins of Whitty's testimony on Radio5 was interesting. He obviously didn't want to say anything negative about individuals.
The "other countries struggled too" narrative was wheeled out a few times. Given his clear scientific communication during the crisis, this foray into semi-obfuscation was surprising. He got pulled up for a euphemism too.
Weird
