Why won't the government reveal their long-term coronavirus strategy?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by fallen_acorns
I honestly think that the reason they aren't being clear, isn't because they don't want us to know... its because they don't know.
I don't think they have a clear plan that they are decided on at all. This isn't an even that they planned for, and while I'm sure they have mapped out many possible options for us, and how each will play out, I don't think they want to expose them until they know which will happen, or which they will be forced into choosing.
I don't think they have a clear plan that they are decided on at all. This isn't an even that they planned for, and while I'm sure they have mapped out many possible options for us, and how each will play out, I don't think they want to expose them until they know which will happen, or which they will be forced into choosing.
It is something they've planned for. The government have strategies and money hidden away specifically for events like pandemics and wars(where do you think they got the relief package from?). The government don't want us to know; most of the government wont know themselves yet, only those at the top.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by KaptainCliff
To be honest I didn't read it. Perhaps not right of me to criticise something I've not read; I'm quite particular over my sources of news - RT doesn't cut it.
A lot of people are like that. I once linked (on another forum) to quite a long article and someone decided to reply one minute later to pooh-pooh it - they couldn't have done much more than read the name of the website. Not a scholarly attitude.
If RT reports something that the BBC, Guardian and DM don't, does that mean it didn't happen? Like the Tunguska event or something
Original post by redrum2000
The government don't want us to know; most of the government wont know themselves yet, only those at the top.
We vote for them and pay them, and the decisions they take affect us all. Of course they should tell us, if they know.
Original post by Justvisited
We vote for them and pay them, and the decisions they take affect us all. Of course they should tell us, if they know.
I disagree; most people are too emotional/ don't understand statistical predictions to understand that saving the economy is more important than limiting deaths to the minimum you possibly can.
Original post by redrum2000
It is something they've planned for. The government have strategies and money hidden away specifically for events like pandemics and wars(where do you think they got the relief package from?). The government don't want us to know; most of the government wont know themselves yet, only those at the top.
They don't have the money for the relief fund - its going to come from a mix of borrowing (via bonds etc) and quantitative easing (a tax on future growth)
They will have planned out a whole range of different scenarios - but many big questions remain un-answerd and out of their control. The biggest of these is whether a vaccine will be possible or not, and in what timeframe will it come about. No one knows this yet, and which way it goes will really alter their plans.
Original post by fallen_acorns
They don't have the money for the relief fund - its going to come from a mix of borrowing (via bonds etc) and quantitative easing (a tax on future growth)
They will have planned out a whole range of different scenarios - but many big questions remain un-answerd and out of their control. The biggest of these is whether a vaccine will be possible or not, and in what timeframe will it come about. No one knows this yet, and which way it goes will really alter their plans.
They will have planned out a whole range of different scenarios - but many big questions remain un-answerd and out of their control. The biggest of these is whether a vaccine will be possible or not, and in what timeframe will it come about. No one knows this yet, and which way it goes will really alter their plans.
yes i know; but they know where they will borrow it from, and also not all of it is borrowed. I agree; but my point is i reckon they are planning on easing the lockdown earlier than people will want them to and that's why they aren't saying much
Original post by redrum2000
I disagree; most people are too emotional/ don't understand statistical predictions to understand that saving the economy is more important than limiting deaths to the minimum you possibly can.
As the chancellor put it yesterday, there isn't really a trade-off because a healthy economy is one that you need to save lives as well
Original post by Justvisited
As the chancellor put it yesterday, there isn't really a trade-off because a healthy economy is one that you need to save lives as well
Well of course they would say that. But in reality, that is only true to a certain extent, especially as most people dying are pensioners. Healthy people who put a lot into the economy will not die to the extent that the economy will be effected. And the government knows this but they won't tell you that.
Original post by KaptainCliff
You're citing Russia Today (RT) as a source for your concerns. This is widely considered to be a source of reproachable news.
Simply for the fact it is Russian, there is no other reason to particularly question it's content. Indeed, they're somewhat better at covering certain topics than their western counterparts, especially in the realm of foreign affairs.
Original post by Ferrograd
Why is it a problem if I start 70 threads on this? Last time I checked TSR had not outlawed this. Most of the coronavirus thread is just people talking about rubbish rather than asking serious questions like this. I increasingly feel like I'm being treated as a political prisoner on TSR. My views are being repressed and I am forced to relegate my intellect and general questions to a poorly moderated thread which contains over 400 pages off mostly non intelligible rubbish that is often unrelated to COVID-19.
Because the vast majority of them constitute spamming.
As to the question of 'asking serious questions' you have read half the things you've posted right...?
Technically you're being treated as a political pariah, not for no reason though with some of the quackery you've spouted.
Original post by Napp
Simply for the fact it is Russian, there is no other reason to particularly question it's content. Indeed, they're somewhat better at covering certain topics than their western counterparts, especially in the realm of foreign affairs.
I'd respectfully disagree, RT has been linked to being a source of propaganda for the Russian gov't on foreign policy affairs. Take, for example, the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury. RT's biased reporting attracted them a £200k fine from the UK regulator OFCOM. (See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/russia-disinformation-rt-nuanced-online-ofcom-fine)
It's a subjective thing to say they're "better at covering certain topics". Indeed some of their reporting may be genuine; but when there's the persistent deluge of misinformation, why would you bother reading any of it?
Original post by KaptainCliff
I'd respectfully disagree, RT has been linked to being a source of propaganda for the Russian gov't on foreign policy affairs. Take, for example, the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury. RT's biased reporting attracted them a £200k fine from the UK regulator OFCOM. (See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/russia-disinformation-rt-nuanced-online-ofcom-fine)
It's a subjective thing to say they're "better at covering certain topics". Indeed some of their reporting may be genuine; but when there's the persistent deluge of misinformation, why would you bother reading any of it?
It's a subjective thing to say they're "better at covering certain topics". Indeed some of their reporting may be genuine; but when there's the persistent deluge of misinformation, why would you bother reading any of it?
The point being, they're little different from any source such as Fox, DM or indeed the Telegraph in many respects. Although in fairness to much of their more dubious reporting much of it comes in the form of Op-eds. Propaganda simply being news with a political spin on it, it by no stretch means its not true.
To a point but on issues such as the conflict in Syria i'd be more inclined to trust a source who has reporters on the ground compared to outlets who simply take 'rebel' broadcasts as gospel truth. Equally, they're a much better source to gauge the opinion of the Russian state - whether the state itself is fibbing or not being somewhat beside the point.
Original post by Napp
The point being, they're little different from any source such as Fox, DM or indeed the Telegraph in many respects. Although in fairness to much of their more dubious reporting much of it comes in the form of Op-eds. Propaganda simply being news with a political spin on it, it by no stretch means its not true.
To a point but on issues such as the conflict in Syria i'd be more inclined to trust a source who has reporters on the ground compared to outlets who simply take 'rebel' broadcasts as gospel truth. Equally, they're a much better source to gauge the opinion of the Russian state - whether the state itself is fibbing or not being somewhat beside the point.
To a point but on issues such as the conflict in Syria i'd be more inclined to trust a source who has reporters on the ground compared to outlets who simply take 'rebel' broadcasts as gospel truth. Equally, they're a much better source to gauge the opinion of the Russian state - whether the state itself is fibbing or not being somewhat beside the point.
Perhaps, though I'm much more inclined to trust the aforementioned news sources than RT. I can certainly imagine how RT may want to capitalise on the pandemic politically. I hasten to add the UK govt isn't beyond criticism, my preference is just that the criticism I read doesn't have a Russian spin on it.
Just on Syria, of whom Russia is an ally of, I'm not inclined to trust RT on this issue neither personally.
There's no long term plan being told to the public, because nobody yet knows what the long term implications of all of this will be.
Even the countries who are relaxing lockdown rules now aren't sure whether they're in the clear, whether there will be a second major wave, so there's no way of looking anywhere else currently and basing our plan on that.
Basically, the only way we're fully getting out of this is if they develop a vaccine and manage to distribute it quickly - but we all know this takes time. They're working on one now, but there's no guarantee that it'll work when it's tested.
The economy DOES need to be considered. Yes, life is very important, but there's no point in ending lockdown to a ruined country where nobody has jobs and companies have gone under. So we do need to sensibly balance things.
The government probably have many exit strategies in mind, but there's little point in voicing those to the public at the moment because a) they don't know what direction this is going to go as it's still quite early to see if lockdown is really working, and b) if they have to change their strategy they'd have it thrown back in their faces.
What's most likely to happen is that we'll wait until we see a decline in deaths, hospitalisations and cases, and then gradually start allowing things again. I would suspect that schools and businesses would reopen first, followed by bars and restaurants further down the line - but I don't suspect to see any mass gatherings such as concerts/football crowds this side of 2021.
Even the countries who are relaxing lockdown rules now aren't sure whether they're in the clear, whether there will be a second major wave, so there's no way of looking anywhere else currently and basing our plan on that.
Basically, the only way we're fully getting out of this is if they develop a vaccine and manage to distribute it quickly - but we all know this takes time. They're working on one now, but there's no guarantee that it'll work when it's tested.
The economy DOES need to be considered. Yes, life is very important, but there's no point in ending lockdown to a ruined country where nobody has jobs and companies have gone under. So we do need to sensibly balance things.
The government probably have many exit strategies in mind, but there's little point in voicing those to the public at the moment because a) they don't know what direction this is going to go as it's still quite early to see if lockdown is really working, and b) if they have to change their strategy they'd have it thrown back in their faces.
What's most likely to happen is that we'll wait until we see a decline in deaths, hospitalisations and cases, and then gradually start allowing things again. I would suspect that schools and businesses would reopen first, followed by bars and restaurants further down the line - but I don't suspect to see any mass gatherings such as concerts/football crowds this side of 2021.
Original post by KaptainCliff
Perhaps, though I'm much more inclined to trust the aforementioned news sources than RT. I can certainly imagine how RT may want to capitalise on the pandemic politically. I hasten to add the UK govt isn't beyond criticism, my preference is just that the criticism I read doesn't have a Russian spin on it.
Fair enough, i think, being a Russia watcher, i simply take a different view on the matter.
Just on Syria, of whom Russia is an ally of, I'm not inclined to trust RT on this issue neither personally.
Mm to a point, i mean they're far from biased on the matter. However, as one said, i would still be more inclined to pay attention to them than over some of the more err 'traditional' ones like CNN et al. who aside from having no people of note on the ground (usually) also tend to only bother paying attention to the most dubious of sources.
Interesting how this thread has quickly changed from discussing lockdown exit strategy to the bias of news sources.
But fair enough, since where else are we all getting our info from to judge what's best to do next?
The safest route is to regularly consult a basket of sources with obviously contrasting perspectives. In my case the Graun, Wail and RT are three principal ones.
In general the first-named has provided lots of worthwhile thought-provoking enquiry and analysis, but again some areas are being missed thanks to its own presuppositions. Their writers have been good at showing up how this or that way of doing things left us exposed in the face of the current pandemic, but one thing I certainly don't expect them to look at soon if ever, is the way in which feminism has also weakened our position.
Feminism is the ideology that has caused so many families to have both parents working in necessarily out-of-home settings while their children are still too young to look after themselves at home. This inevitably makes it really difficult to suddenly keep your children home for who knows how long. Anyone who thought it was fine to leave so little slack in the system for the present contingency should think again about how hazardous that is, every bit as much as the problems with the gig economy which the Graun was quick to highlight.
But fair enough, since where else are we all getting our info from to judge what's best to do next?
The safest route is to regularly consult a basket of sources with obviously contrasting perspectives. In my case the Graun, Wail and RT are three principal ones.
In general the first-named has provided lots of worthwhile thought-provoking enquiry and analysis, but again some areas are being missed thanks to its own presuppositions. Their writers have been good at showing up how this or that way of doing things left us exposed in the face of the current pandemic, but one thing I certainly don't expect them to look at soon if ever, is the way in which feminism has also weakened our position.
Feminism is the ideology that has caused so many families to have both parents working in necessarily out-of-home settings while their children are still too young to look after themselves at home. This inevitably makes it really difficult to suddenly keep your children home for who knows how long. Anyone who thought it was fine to leave so little slack in the system for the present contingency should think again about how hazardous that is, every bit as much as the problems with the gig economy which the Graun was quick to highlight.
Original post by Napp
To a point but on issues such as the conflict in Syria i'd be more inclined to trust a source who has reporters on the ground compared to outlets who simply take 'rebel' broadcasts as gospel truth. Equally, they're a much better source to gauge the opinion of the Russian state - whether the state itself is fibbing or not being somewhat beside the point.
To a point but on issues such as the conflict in Syria i'd be more inclined to trust a source who has reporters on the ground compared to outlets who simply take 'rebel' broadcasts as gospel truth. Equally, they're a much better source to gauge the opinion of the Russian state - whether the state itself is fibbing or not being somewhat beside the point.
Yes, this is a really good point. It is unsophisticated to just write off RT and its entire content 'because it's Russian'. RT gives a very different, and often insightful different view of world events, particularly as you say as they pertain to Russia and its mindset.
Original post by Ferrograd
My views are being repressed and I am forced to relegate my intellect and general questions to a poorly moderated thread which contains over 400 pages off mostly non intelligible rubbish that is often unrelated to COVID-19.
Oh, stop being so overdramatic, for heaven's sake.
Original post by Justvisited
Interesting how this thread has quickly changed from discussing lockdown exit strategy to the bias of news sources.
It's a mildly amusing one as all news sites, without exception, tend to have some form of bias or downside to their reporting. although, with that being said, I do tend to place a touch more stock in the old newswire services such as AFP, Tass, AP and Reuters who tend to leave much of the spin off their stories and simply report what has occured. Unlike the moral outrage of entities such as Fox, the Guardian, DM et al.
Feminism is the ideology that has caused so many families to have both parents working in necessarily out-of-home settings while their children are still too young to look after themselves at home. This inevitably makes it really difficult to suddenly keep your children home for who knows how long. Anyone who thought it was fine to leave so little slack in the system for the present contingency should think again about how hazardous that is, every bit as much as the problems with the gig economy which the Graun was quick to highlight.
Can you run me through how exactly you've managed to pin two working parents on feminism?
I doubt that there’s a plan. Other than the Nightingale hospital buildings the government has only reacted and usually later than they should.
Contrast that with France and Germany, for example. The ministers were chosen on their views on Brexit, not the most able Tory MPs.
Contrast that with France and Germany, for example. The ministers were chosen on their views on Brexit, not the most able Tory MPs.
Original post by Justvisited
Feminism is the ideology that has caused so many families to have both parents working in necessarily out-of-home settings while their children are still too young to look after themselves at home. This inevitably makes it really difficult to suddenly keep your children home for who knows how long. Anyone who thought it was fine to leave so little slack in the system for the present contingency should think again about how hazardous that is, every bit as much as the problems with the gig economy which the Graun was quick to highlight.
Quite right. Women's place is in the home serving their husbands so they have plenty of strength to service their young secretaries.
WTF! Feminism is about equality of sexes in terms of opportunity and responsibility. Why is that so bad? Sure, we are now in a situation where the cost of living has risen to take into account households that have two earners, but that isn't the fault of feminism. Call it capitalism if you like? After all, the thing that primarily determines that two people must work is house prices.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What do you think of HS2 only going to Birmingham
- Has anyone joined Deloitte Gov & Infrastructure
- Should I go to the Deloitte final Interview?
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- Disease X: A hidden but inevitable creeping danger
- AS Economics Data Response - 25 mark question
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- Questions on "The Ultimate Safari" by Nadine Gordimer
- Grant 2023 A Level grading allowances in England similar to Wales/Scotland/NI
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Myth of Cambridge admissions being just merit based - Mainly international students
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Read & Marking History A-level Essay on American Dream
- Not sure whether to go for Physician's Associate or Children's Nursing
- A-level History exam practice
- Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 3 (9ECO 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Good site of SEO
- Heriot-Watt halls
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 4 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
