Is the media more interested in criticizing than reporting?

[xsnaggle]

Is getting to work selfish now? How do you know enough about the situation to make a judgement?

It's beside the point anyway, the airline wasn't operating in a safe manner and needed to be called out on it.

Getting to work is as selfish as going to the pub if getting there you are risking puitting your colleagues in more danger than they otherwise would be, and if he thought it was so unsafe that is what he was conciously doing.

It was just on BBC news and an aircraft expert pointed out the because of the forced air resirculation used in aircraft it would'nt matter if there were just a few people on the plane or it was full, if someone has the virus the chance was they'd all get a whiff of it it anyway

[the other bob wilson]

So an inaccuracy can occur in one category but not others?

Can you explain how a covid-19 death is registered in all nations - is it merely listing it if a person dies who happens to have covid-19?

You and xsnaggle need to take a step back and look at what you're doing here - your desire to paint the UK Government in a good light is making you indulge in all sorts of what iffery to make Germany look less good in comparison to us.

Did you watch last night's Newsnight?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...night-05052020

If you didn't, it's well worth a watch, particularly the professor from Edinbugh University interviewed at the start. There's also a piece about how Germany are dealing with the virus and a discussion about our death figures in which it is claimed that a Cabinet member is saying that 4,000 new cases a day and, consequently, forty deaths per day would be an "acceptable" outcome -

The Government's line is that they are only doing what "the science" tells them, I have two questions arising from that - first, is the UK version of "the science" different from "the science" in other countries, because the policies pursued by the UK has differed from many other countries who are generally reckoned to have handled the crisis pretty well.

My second question is have decisions really been taken based on "the science"? The feeling I find hard to shake off is that UK decisions have had as much, if not more, to do with what is/was possible given the level of equipment, resources, personnel and testing apparatus available at the time - this despite the warning to Government arising from the outcome Pandemic exercise held in 2016.

Also, unless the daily figure for number of tests starts to rise soon, the meeting of the 100,000 target by the end of April will be seen as nothing more than a political stunt.

Finally, I owe you a partial apology regarding your contention that your wife had the virus in December. Given the confirmation from France, from a very reliable source it would appear, that someone had it there during that month, I'd say your claim has moved from the nonsense category to the unlikely, but possible one.

[surge]

Australian take on UK position: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...rt3ME6rWDZzVZc

Not too much new in it (except an outsider account) but the final quote does concern me: Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty says "There is a very long way to run for every country in the world on this and I think let's not go charging in to who's won and who's lost."

We've all lost. It's now a case of who has lost more than others.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

You and xsnaggle need to take a step back and look at what you're doing here - your desire to paint the UK Government in a good light is making you indulge in all sorts of what iffery to make Germany look less good in comparison to us.

Did you watch last night's Newsnight?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...night-05052020

If you didn't, it's well worth a watch, particularly the professor from Edinbugh University interviewed at the start. There's also a piece about how Germany are dealing with the virus and a discussion about our death figures in which it is claimed that a Cabinet member is saying that 4,000 new cases a day and, consequently, forty deaths per day would be an "acceptable" outcome -

The Government's line is that they are only doing what "the science" tells them, I have two questions arising from that - first, is the UK version of "the science" different from "the science" in other countries, because the policies pursued by the UK has differed from many other countries who are generally reckoned to have handled the crisis pretty well.

My second question is have decisions really been taken based on "the science"? The feeling I find hard to shake off is that UK decisions have had as much, if not more, to do with what is/was possible given the level of equipment, resources, personnel and testing apparatus available at the time - this despite the warning to Government arising from the outcome Pandemic exercise held in 2016.

Also, unless the daily figure for number of tests starts to rise soon, the meeting of the 100,000 target by the end of April will be seen as nothing more than a political stunt.

Finally, I owe you a partial apology regarding your contention that your wife had the virus in December. Given the confirmation from France, from a very reliable source it would appear, that someone had it there during that month, I'd say your claim has moved from the nonsense category to the unlikely, but possible one.

I'm sick to the teeth of this sh*t so forgive me for not watching the link, but one thing that the Govt. said yesterday is how different [European] Countries report deaths - they all have different extant systems in place. Belgium and Germany have completely different criteria, and listening to the Radio yesterday some statistics expert was saying there's a 2 month 'lag' in how most other countries report deaths compared to UK - something along the lines of other countries haven't recorded all CV deaths up-to-date.

Anyway, what I'm saying is ignore the numbers, just because country A has fewer deaths/death rate it doesn't necessarily mean they've done 'better' at containing it. By all means hold the Govt. to account, I agree, but there are lots of factors that just haven't been factored in yet.

[surge]

I'm sick to the teeth of this sh*t so forgive me for not watching the link, but one thing that the Govt. said yesterday is how different [European] Countries report deaths - they all have different extant systems in place. Belgium and Germany have completely different criteria, and listening to the Radio yesterday some statistics expert was saying there's a 2 month 'lag' in how most other countries report deaths compared to UK - something along the lines of other countries haven't recorded all CV deaths up-to-date.

Anyway, what I'm saying is ignore the numbers, just because country A has fewer deaths/death rate it doesn't necessarily mean they've done 'better' at containing it. By all means hold the Govt. to account, I agree, but there are lots of factors that just haven't been factored in yet.

One thing I think we can agree is that we've exceeded the 21 deaths in New Zealand (another island nation with time to prepare for what was coming, although similarities may stop there) and the 20,000 figure the UK government set out as a benchmark for a "good result". The Times today, apparently, suggesting it's likely to be above 50,000 now in the UK.

Will re-post your second point because I've become a bit distracted by numbers.

"Anyway, what I'm saying is ignore the numbers, just because country A has fewer deaths/death rate it doesn't necessarily mean they've done 'better' at containing it. By all means hold the Govt. to account, I agree, but there are lots of factors that just haven't been factored in yet."