Covid-19 Inquiry (was meant to be about 'smart' meters)

[JohnW2]

In Germany they are horrified that we expect charity to do what the state doesn't, here we horrified that the German state pays for stuff we raise through charity.

I suppose that, in the final analysis, it's not that much different, either way - it's members of the population who pay' for the stuff. The only real difference is that, when things are charity-funded, it's up to the people to decide which of them pay, and how much, but when state-funded, it's the state which decides who pays, and how much.

I must say that I have always been pretty uneasy about charities which are entirely funding what might be regarded as 'vital services' (lifeboats, air ambulances etc.) or things which are important to everyone (e.g. medical research), since it takes the pressure of government to fund these things. I can't believe, for example, that the government would/could allow the UK to go without a lifeboat service if the charity were to disappear!

I wonder if there might be 'politics' behind this, in that the charity-dependent approach would presumably be favoured by those people and political parties whose ideology is to minimise all taxes?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I'm sure you meant to say "have allegedly deliberately done things..".

Not really. The people to whom the courts seek to attribute blame and subject to punishment are those initially 'alleged' miscreants who misdeeds come to be regarded as 'proven' after investigation and 'due processes'. As you imply, the courts obviously do not attribute blame to, or punish, people whose guilt has not been 'proven'

Before that stage though there is an investigation ....

Exactly, and that investigation is crucial to determining (to the best of our ability) whether alleged misdeeds really were misdeeds.

This inquiry is the investigation.

Exactly.

It's astonishing that you don't think there should be an inquiry.

I really don't know where that comes from. As I keep saying, an inquiry (into the management of the pandemic) is absolutely crucial if we are to learn lessons from our recent experiences and thereby hopefully be able to plan to 'do better next time'. However, in terms of that aim (which I regard as by far the most important one) it doesn't matter a jot as to who [what individual(s) ]did any 'less-than-ideal' things, and why.

Strongly disagree. There is enough evidence that procurement rules may have been broken, i.e. evidence that there may have been serious wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held by those who decided to award large PPE contracts to friends, family and party donors to merit investigation to see if anybody did/was likely to have committed Misconduct in Public Office.

You are talking about acts which are/were, if proven, criminal and/or in breach of parliamentary rules/regulations. They should be investigates as such, and any appropriate sanctions/punishments applied if the allegations are proven. However, that is totally separate from, and nothing directly to do with, learning lessons which might help us to 'do better next time' - other than to plan (how???) 'to avoid criminal acts by members of government during management of a pandemic!

It's astonishing that you don't think there should be an inquiry.

As above, I'm also astonished that you believe that to be the case, when it's the antithesis of what I keep saying...

How do we know that unless we investigate?

Exactly.

Are we? We are talking about people who ran an illegal PPE procurement scheme.

You seem to be but, as above, those allegations are matters for the police, the CPS and parliamentary authorities to investigate, not thee Covid Inquiry.

And you are so sure that they were all doing their best to do what they believed was the best for the UK population ....

I'm obviously not 'so sure', but I very strongly suspect that the vast majority of members of government, as well as everyone else involved were 'doing their best' to deal with a crises of which none of us had any past experience. I'm sure that the vast majority are ordinary 'decent' people, and find it very hard to believe that any will have deliberately done things that they knew/suspected would lead to an increase in illness and deaths just for some sort of 'person gain', don't you?

that you don't think there should be an investigation ..... Astonishing.

Again, I am astonished by your repetition of this accusation which is the anitheais of my view. It is crucial that there should be an investigation - but related to 'what', not 'who' - if not only because none of the same individuals will be in government (and quite probably not still alive) when 'it next happens'.

.... Secondly, re competing ideologies, absolutely. But maybe people should have their eyes opened to the true consequences of their ideological choices.

Yes, maybe they should, but .....

So if the consequences of a "private good, public bad" ideology, the consequences of a "centralised good, local/devolved bad" ideology, the consequences of cutting spending on health and social care and preparedness are that we were inadequately resourced, we were unable to manage risk properly, we were not sufficiently ready, the government were not making the best decisions, then how can it not be right and proper for the public to be able to make fully informed decisions about whether they think the "costs" of implementing their ideological preferences are acceptable?

... as I recently wrote, we live in a democracy and the fact is that, throughout my lifetime to date, the electorate have rarely been prepared to elect a government with declared policies anything like as 'extreme' as would probably appeal to you - that probably being at least in part to 'human nature' (poorly considered 'self-interest'.

If you want to get philosophical, I don't think that you would ever see an 'extreme Socialist' regime elected (and/or allowed to remain in power for long) in any democratic country. I therefore suspect that the only way one can have such a government is in the context of a 'benevolent dictatorship' - and I'm not too impressed with what has happened in the countries which have tried that!.

 

[blup]

If you are implying that a government of different colour/ideologies would have done any better, there is no certainty of that. They may well have not made some of the same 'mistakes', but they may well have made different ones (in dealing with a situation unprecedented in the experience of any recent government) - and, as for 'political ideologies', I don't think any party could have moved much further 'to the Left' than the Tory government did in relation to some of its actions.

No, a different government would lock down earlier and generally be more cautious, but essentially the same approach. Borris was probably safest being in power during the pandemic. His manipulative political stirring in opposition would have provoked much more active public opposition to lockdown. The right wing media were generally in awe of him in the way they wouldn't be with a left of centre government.

Blup

 

[Murdochcat]

As I keep saying, "hindsight views" are crucial to attempts to enable us to 'do better next time', just as they are in virtually every field of life.

Hindsight views for an inquiry is one thing, commentators on here using hindsight implying they knew better back in the early days of Covid isn't

 

[ebee]

Yes Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Wish we could have it before, before-sight would be even more wonderful.
Boris (and some of his cronies) were not my favourites to govern and I disagreed with them on a lot of things - example Brexit, but not just that.
In fact I loathed Boris, I thought he was a buffoon at best.
However, come the pandemic I thought we should all support him because he was the one in charge on the day when it was impossible for anyone, any Govt, any country, any group to get it right. Accordingly I gave Boris some slack.

So now, let`s see what we got right (if anything), to what extent.
Let`s see what we got wrong, to what extent.
Let`s try to be more ready for the next time something happens.
Now is the time to learn and to reduce the chances of mistakes, we hope.

Whether bad intent/no so good intent/incompetence/ downright evil played a part and to what extent is all a separate issue and must be decided at the ballot box or in a court of law.

 

[JohnW2]

No, a different government would lock down earlier and generally be more cautious, .....

How can you know that? A different (unknown) government surely might have locked down later and generally been less cautious, mightn't they?

.... Borris was probably safest being in power during the pandemic. His manipulative political stirring in opposition would have provoked much more active public opposition to lockdown. The right wing media were generally in awe of him in the way they wouldn't be with a left of centre government.

Maybe, but that's pure speculation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Hindsight views for an inquiry is one thing, commentators on here using hindsight implying they knew better back in the early days of Covid isn't

Exactly. It is, in my opinion, equally unfair (ridiculous?) to suggest that those trying to manage the situation should have 'known better' in the way that none of the rest of us could possibly know without the benefit of hindsight.

Yes Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Wish we could have it before, before-sight would be even more wonderful.

Quite so. As I keep trying to say, the entire evolution of the human race has been reliant on 'learning from past experiences' (a.k.a 'hindsight'). Without it, we would still be "cavemen", or worse.

Boris (and some of his cronies) were not my favourites to govern and I disagreed with them on a lot of things - example Brexit, but not just that.
In fact I loathed Boris, I thought he was a buffoon at best.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I was inclined to think that regardless of what 'he' did, right or wrong', he was probably quite a good person to be interacting with the public about iut all - probably 'better' than would have been the most obvious alternative possiblity.

However, come the pandemic I thought we should all support him because he was the one in charge on the day when it was impossible for anyone, any Govt, any country, any group to get it right. Accordingly I gave Boris some slack.
So now, let`s see what we got right (if anything), to what extent.
Let`s see what we got wrong, to what extent.
Let`s try to be more ready for the next time something happens.
Now is the time to learn and to reduce the chances of mistakes, we hope.

We seem to be remarkably close in what we are thinking and saying. At risk of repeating myself yet again, in terms of 'doing things better in the future', I still; believe that "who did what?" (rightly' or 'wrongly') is an irrelevant distraction. If some people want accountability/'witch hunts, then that should at least be addressed as a totally separate matter, rather than allowing it to be a major distraction in the actually important 'inquiry', As you go on to say ...

Whether bad intent/no so good intent/incompetence/ downright evil played a part and to what extent is all a separate issue and must be decided at the ballot box or in a court of law.

I could have (essentially just have!) written that myself. We do seem to be very very close to one another!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Risteard]

There is a diffrence between making rules or regulations which in hind sight were not correct to making rules and regulations then showing by example they should not be followed.

The real learning should be not to engage in totalitarian and invent new rights for governments to unlawfully intervene in people's lives. Anyone who voted for any of these measures should be prosecuted for Treason in my view.

 

[JohnW2]

The real learning should be not to engage in totalitarian and invent new rights for governments to unlawfully intervene in people's lives. Anyone who voted for any of these measures should be prosecuted for Treason in my view.

Are you talking in relation to management of the Covid-19 pandemic and, if so, are you suggesting that the government should not have had 'the right' to impose any measures at all? If so, I strongly disagree.

The Coronavirus Act gave the government very wide-ranging powers (temporarily). In different ('worse') situations (e.g. if it had been something like Ebola, rather than Covid-19) it would probably also have included the 'right' of authorities to shoot people contravening curfews/lockdowns, but that fortunately was not considered necessary with Covid

 

[EFLImpudence]

Exactly. It is, in my opinion, equally unfair (ridiculous?) to suggest that those trying to manage the situation should have 'known better' in the way that none of the rest of us could possibly know without the benefit of hindsight.

What about those who did know better at the time but who were for some reason ridiculed, demonised and ostracised ?

 

[Risteard]

Are you talking in relation to management of the Covid-19 pandemic and, if so, are you suggesting that the government should not have had 'the right' to impose any measures at all? If so, I strongly disagree.

The Coronavirus Act gave the government very wide-ranging powers (temporarily). In different ('worse') situations (e.g. if it had been something like Ebola, rather than Covid-19) it would probably also have included the 'right' of authorities to shoot people contravening curfews/lockdowns, but that fortunately was not considered necessary with Covid

Yes i an suggesting that, and i am further suggesting that the Coronavirus Act was and is an illegal piece of legislation which unlawfully usurped power and amounted to an Act of Treason. People are not the property of the state. No government has the right to force me to stay in my house or close my business, or anything else they indulged in.

 

[JohnW2]

What about those who did know better at the time but who were for some reason ridiculed, demonised and ostracised ?

Even with the degree of hindsight we now have, 'knowing better' is a very speculative concept - not the least because we cannot know what would have happened had things been done very differently.

In real-time (i.e. without any hindsight), in an 'unprecedented' situation such as this, there will always be a very wide range of views (many of them 'expert views'), and all should be respected and carefully considered. As I've said, the government then has the very difficult balancing act to perform, balancing the beneficial immediate effects of 'measures' against the longer-term and long-term detrimental effects of such measures.

Are you suggesting, for example, that the views/advice of those saying that there should have been no 'measures' (restrictions/lockdowns etc.) should perhaps have been acted upon? One hopes that the decision-makers did not dismiss/ridicule etc. such view, but they clearly decoded (after 'due consideration') that, on balance, that was not the best way to go.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes i an suggesting that, and i am further suggesting that the Coronavirus Act was and is an illegal piece of legislation which unlawfully usurped power and amounted to an Act of Treason. People are not the property of the state. No government has the right to force me to stay in my house or close my business, or anything else they indulged in.

Whilst I am generally a great supporter of the concept of individual freedom, the goalposts move when there is a substantial impact on others.

In particular, a 'Right' to "bring about the death of others" is not a recognised, or sensible, 'Human Right'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Even with the degree of hindsight we now have, 'knowing better' is a very speculative concept - not the least because we cannot know what would have happened had things been done very differently.

Well, we sort of do, don't we?

In real-time (i.e. without any hindsight), in an 'unprecedented' situation such as this, there will always be a very wide range of views (many of them 'expert views'), and all should be respected and carefully considered.

But they were not. They were just dismissed as unacceptable.

As I've said, the government then has the very difficult balancing act to perform, balancing the beneficial immediate effects of 'measures' against the longer-term and long-term detrimental effects of such measures.

Perhaps not the government's fault then, but those offering incorrect advice.

Are you suggesting, for example, that the views/advice of those saying that there should have been no 'measures' (restrictions/lockdowns etc.) should perhaps have been acted upon?

They should have been considered and debated.

One hopes that the decision-makers did not dismiss/ridicule etc. such view, but they clearly decoded (after 'due consideration') that, on balance, that was not the best way to go.

But that is what they - or their advisers - did.


Someone should at least be fired for their incompetence; not rewarded.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, we sort of do, don't we?

Yu might, but I don't think that I (or ;we') really do know. Some countries did much more, and some much less than us

But they were not. They were just dismissed as unacceptable.

By the media, and a fair proportion of the general population, but one would hope that all 'credible expert views' were 'respected and caredully considered by the decision-makers.

Perhaps not the government's fault then, but those offering incorrect advice.

It sounds as if you are more clever than the rest of us, in that you know what advice was 'correct' and what wasn't. Most of us just see/saw differing expert opinions from which someone (government) had to decide which deserved the greatest ';weight';.

They should have been considered and debated.

As above, I would hope that they were 'considered and debated' by the decision-makers. A #public debate' would have been impractical, since that could have gone on for 'years', whereas a decisio was needed in days.

But that is what they - or their advisers - did.

As above, the media and a fair bit of the general population did, but one would hope that the decision-makers will not have dismissed/ridicukled any expert view/advice, but would have put it into the 'decision melting pot'

Someone should at least be fired for their incompetence; not rewarded.

Maybe, IF anyone was 'incompetent', rather than just unable to be sure what was the best approach. However, the main individuals concerned are no longer in government, and the days of government itself are probably numbered - so who would you like to fire? About the only consistent thing is that everything done by government is done on behalf of, and with the implied 'blessing' of the monarch - should we perhaps posthumnously 'fire' the late Queen?!

You appear to have made up your mind about how government decisions were made, and what was 'correct' or 'incorrect (i.e. 'a pile of assumptions'), and are phrasing all your statements to fit with those beliefs. How is it that you know (rather than merely 'assume') more than the rest of us? As far as the rest of us is concerned, this is why we very much need an Inquiry - but about 'what', not 'who'.

Kind Regards, John