Tuesday 14th April 2020

[refitman]

Morning all.

[frog222]

4° , easterly breeze, perfectly blue sky and not one con-trail !

PM's turn to be questioned on France Inter this morning. EX : Police and others still without masks ...an unhappy cop called in. PM:-- " of course we've made mistakes, that will be treated afterwards". (cough!)
Cops and gendarmes have checked 11.8mn times for 'Attestations de Sortie" (reasons for being outside), resulting in 704,000 fines .

Reporters outside a Birmingham hospital , first one :--" if I talk to you the NHS will fire me"; two others:-- " Complete chaos ... chaos ... people dying ... no treatments "

Off to read the paper.

[gilsey]

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
@ONS
Our data shows that of all deaths in England and Wales that occurred up to 3 April (registered up to 11 April), 6,235 involved COVID-19 compared with the 4,093 deaths reported on 4 April 2020 by
@DHSCgovuk

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[frog222]

"

"" Starmer said he had told Corbyn at the time it was wrong for the party to have put out a statement impugning the motives of former officials in the complaints unit who spoke to the BBC’s Panorama programme.

The ex-staff had told the BBC programme that the leader’s office interfered directly in the complaints process and their experience of the system had left them in despair. ""

keir-starmer-criticises-labour-under-corbyn-for-turning-on-its-staff

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -its-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dispiriting .

[gilsey]

So about 50% more than reported in the daily figures.

We won't ever know about the ones where C19 doesn't appear on the death certificate, except in broad statistical terms when the overall death numbers are available for comparison with prior years.

[adam]

From yesterday

The report suggests no institutional anti-semitism in Labour because the investigation of all racism and abuse was as bad as each other and that the focus of the staff concerned was not on these more serious abuses but making sure potential Corbyn supporters could not vote in leadership election.

I don't think it's possible at all to draw that conclusion about the anti-semitism investigation and I think it's very dangerous to try to do so.

Obviously, more than anything, this is a report that says that Labour's institutional hierarchy were campaigning for a conservative government in 2017. No question about that. If it's right then all of the relevant people need to be out of the party if they aren't already.

But trying to be objective for a moment, from the perspective of the ongoing investigation, this is a partisan report prepared and written by the people they have been investigating. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be read and it doesn't mean it doesn't matter but to argue that 'well, that's the end of the antisemitism investigation' seems very dangerous indeed.

[Willow904]

Office for National Statistics (ONS)
@ONS
Our data shows that of all deaths in England and Wales that occurred up to 3 April (registered up to 11 April), 6,235 involved COVID-19 compared with the 4,093 deaths reported on 4 April 2020 by
@DHSCgovuk

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... 3april2020" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a comparison chart with previous years being shared on twitter by a data scientist using the ONS stats:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Willow904]

ONS.JPG (53.29 KiB) Viewed 11761 times

Someone on TV is currently saying that there are about 2,500 deaths more than the yearly average not including those already recorded as caused by coronavirus. Over time the picture will become more complete, especially the impact on non-Covid-19 conditions and whether it has led to higher mortality from heart attacks, strokes etc.

[Willow904]

There's a really useful graph here from the ONS also:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ONS2.JPG (70.87 KiB) Viewed 11757 times

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@Adam

I hope nobody is saying that it’s the end of the Antisemitism issue. But it clearly needs to be seen differently. Only this morning one of my Twitter contacts was criticising the 5 Merseyside MPs who have signed the letter to Starmer. Their crime in his mind? To have “ignored” an Antisemitism initiative led by Louise Ellman and Luciana Berger in Liverpool.

It may be that Ellman and Berger were unwitting in this and genuinely believed that Corbyn is an Antisemite. But this needs to stop now IMO.

[Willow904]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/l ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Coronavirus: Top scientist claims Government recklessly allowed thousands to catch bug

Big questions still about lack of testing:

"I think the general public should be very cautious about extrapolating and saying we will be in the same position in two weeks' time because our epidemic may be bigger than what we have seen in Italy and Spain and we have very limited testing still. There is virtually no testing in the community."

We seem to stand out in this area, even the US has testing in the community now after a slow start. Prematurely ending contact tracing and testing in the Uk appears to have been directly related to not having the tests available and that situation still persists, it seems, despite repeat unfulfilled promises. If that continues as lockdown restrictions are lifted, it's likely we are set for another round of mistakes and missed opportunities.

[GetYou]

The only way we are going to get back to some semblance of normality is by knowing who has, and has had, the virus. Which means mass testing.

Anything else is far too risky.

We should be looking to South Korea for guidance, but instead we seem to be bumbling along in our own unique way.

[AnatolyKasparov]

From yesterday

The report suggests no institutional anti-semitism in Labour because the investigation of all racism and abuse was as bad as each other and that the focus of the staff concerned was not on these more serious abuses but making sure potential Corbyn supporters could not vote in leadership election.

I don't think it's possible at all to draw that conclusion about the anti-semitism investigation and I think it's very dangerous to try to do so.

Obviously, more than anything, this is a report that says that Labour's institutional hierarchy were campaigning for a conservative government in 2017. No question about that. If it's right then all of the relevant people need to be out of the party if they aren't already.

But trying to be objective for a moment, from the perspective of the ongoing investigation, this is a partisan report prepared and written by the people they have been investigating. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be read and it doesn't mean it doesn't matter but to argue that 'well, that's the end of the antisemitism investigation' seems very dangerous indeed.

Well, the leaked report makes clear AS *was* a problem - and part of the critique of those then in charge of party HQ was not dealing with it effectively.

(as well as all the other damning stuff)

[adam]

Screenshot 2020-04-14 at 12.07.20.png (117.58 KiB) Viewed 11688 times

[adam]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/l ... ssion=true

Coronavirus: Top scientist claims Government recklessly allowed thousands to catch bug

Big questions still about lack of testing:

"I think the general public should be very cautious about extrapolating and saying we will be in the same position in two weeks' time because our epidemic may be bigger than what we have seen in Italy and Spain and we have very limited testing still. There is virtually no testing in the community."

We seem to stand out in this area, even the US has testing in the community now after a slow start. Prematurely ending contact tracing and testing in the Uk appears to have been directly related to not having the tests available and that situation still persists, it seems, despite repeat unfulfilled promises. If that continues as lockdown restrictions are lifted, it's likely we are set for another round of mistakes and missed opportunities.

A good quote in this article about the differences between the UK and Ireland

The best time to plant an oak tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.

[adam]

Well, the leaked report makes clear AS *was* a problem - and part of the critique of those then in charge of party HQ was not dealing with it effectively.

(as well as all the other damning stuff)

and @Paul - my comment was really directed at HowSilly's first line. It's possible I'm unfairly taking them out of context.

[AnatolyKasparov]

"

"" Starmer said he had told Corbyn at the time it was wrong for the party to have put out a statement impugning the motives of former officials in the complaints unit who spoke to the BBC’s Panorama programme.

The ex-staff had told the BBC programme that the leader’s office interfered directly in the complaints process and their experience of the system had left them in despair. ""

keir-starmer-criticises-labour-under-corbyn-for-turning-on-its-staff

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -its-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dispiriting .

As the saying goes, that was then and this is now.

[frog222]

"

"" Starmer said he had told Corbyn at the time it was wrong for the party to have put out a statement impugning the motives of former officials in the complaints unit who spoke to the BBC’s Panorama programme.
The ex-staff had told the BBC programme that the leader’s office interfered directly in the complaints process and their experience of the system had left them in despair. ""

keir-starmer-criticises-labour-under-corbyn-for-turning-on-its-staff

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -its-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dispiriting .

As the saying goes, that was then and this is now.

Well, So either Starmer 100% believed the lying Nasties then, or ,as a politician, he was pretending to ?
EDIT PS -- I've never been a Corbynista, but I DID have deep suspicions of the motivation(s) of those attacking him for AS .

[Willow904]

Starmer's response during the leadership campaign could be interpreted as supportive of the rights of whistleblowers more generally and critical of the leadership's reaction to the Panorama programme rather than an actual defence of those involved. I'm not aware anyone anywhere has suggested he knew about the recently leaked details before he became leader. And Long-Bailey and Nandy were both saying similar things at the time. So I think there's still a big question mark over what Starmer will make of all this and how he will react. Which is why I said in a previous comment that his response to this will be informative, the first real clue to what kind of leader he is going to be.

[GetYou]

To be fair, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is a goddamn idiot, so he was grossly outmatched from the time he agreed to sit down with 60 Minutes, but he did it anyway—and got his ass handed to him by the host, the staff and the interns...

“I don’t know what you mean. It’s like if an intelligence agency said a global pandemic could happen, right? I mean, I’m sure they’ve been saying that for decades and nobody took them seriously,” Navarro said, the Hill reports. “Why, I mean black swans are hard to sell. This was the 500-year flood, this hasn’t happened since 1917. You can line up every president since then and say, ‘Why didn’t you think this could happen again,’ but that’s not productive right now.”

And that is where Navarro made his biggest mistake.

[youtube]nSx704KK_Ik[/youtube]

Full story here https://www.theroot.com/trump-official- ... 1842839148

[GetYou]

An update - CitizenJA is OK

[gilsey]

“I don’t know what you mean. It’s like if an intelligence agency said a global pandemic could happen, right? I mean, I’m sure they’ve been saying that for decades and nobody took them seriously,” Navarro said, the Hill reports. “Why, I mean black swans are hard to sell. This was the 500-year flood, this hasn’t happened since 1917. You can line up every president since then and say, ‘Why didn’t you think this could happen again,’ but that’s not productive right now.”

And that is where Navarro made his biggest mistake.

Full story here https://www.theroot.com/trump-official- ... 1842839148

I understand that George W Bush took the possibility of a pandemic very seriously indeed.

Didn't do much else right, but still.

[gilsey]

Eye-opening bar chart here.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AnatolyKasparov]

Glad that cJA is OK, but where has Mr Hindle got to?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Roger in particular will enjoy this one

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Well, the leaked report makes clear AS *was* a problem - and part of the critique of those then in charge of party HQ was not dealing with it effectively.

(as well as all the other damning stuff)

and @Paul - my comment was really directed at HowSilly's first line. It's possible I'm unfairly taking them out of context.

Thanks Adam

[RogerOThornhill]

Afternoon all.

Had a busy morning finishing off and sending articles based on the post-war building survey I've been busily inputting into a spreadsheet since the lock-down. Then out for my usual walk.

Susan Oosthuizen is currently threading...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GetYou]

Thanks Roger, she's very good and never fails to pique my interest.

[citizenJA]

An update - CitizenJA is OK

thank goodness for that
I was getting concerned

[citizenJA]

Good afternoon, everyone.

[citizenJA]

Please excuse me for not checking in sooner. No COVID-19 in the citizen household, as far as we know. There's not much testing going on so we can't know for sure. But no symptoms of the virus here.

[citizenJA]

Please sound off, HindleA.

[howsillyofme1]

From yesterday

The report suggests no institutional anti-semitism in Labour because the investigation of all racism and abuse was as bad as each other and that the focus of the staff concerned was not on these more serious abuses but making sure potential Corbyn supporters could not vote in leadership election.

I don't think it's possible at all to draw that conclusion about the anti-semitism investigation and I think it's very dangerous to try to do so.

Obviously, more than anything, this is a report that says that Labour's institutional hierarchy were campaigning for a conservative government in 2017. No question about that. If it's right then all of the relevant people need to be out of the party if they aren't already.

But trying to be objective for a moment, from the perspective of the ongoing investigation, this is a partisan report prepared and written by the people they have been investigating. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be read and it doesn't mean it doesn't matter but to argue that 'well, that's the end of the antisemitism investigation' seems very dangerous indeed.

That is not what I said at all...I am saying that it seems to say that Labour at the time was institutionally racist and sexist and everything else because no complaints were dealt with correctly not just anti-Semitic ones and if the quotes are correct (and I did caveat my comments with that) it would appear that the unit charged with overseeing the complaints were actually pretty repugnant individuals happy to use violent racist and sexist terminology.

If this report is close to the truth at all it suggests Labour may well be what it is accused of being but perhaps the blame for it lies outside the rather simplistic explanation that has been put forward blaming everything on the leader

The evidence in this report may or may not stand up to full scrutiny but it seems to have more detail behind it than many of the accusations made over the last few years that we are supposed to take without question.

One of the people named in there was prominently featured in Panorama and we were told that even questioning their comments was racist in itself, even though not all these accusations have stood up when documentary and taped evidence has come to light

The report claims what has been relatively frequently reported that AS exists in Labour at a certain level, much of it repugnant. The actual number of complaints is low compared to number of members and that the complaints mechanism in Labour was appallingly bad - this report sets out more detail on that.

If the claims in the report are true, as I said, then there may be a case for Labour not only being institutionally AS but also racist in general....something I am ashamed to admit and worse than I thought.

[citizenJA]

Nick Stripe, head of health analysis and life events at the ONS said:

“The latest comparable data for deaths involving COVID-19 with a date of death up to 3 April, show there were 6,235 deaths in England and Wales. When looking at data for England, this is 15% higher than the NHS numbers as they include all mentions of COVID-19 on the death certificate, including suspected COVID-19, as well as deaths in the community.

“The 16,387 deaths that were registered in England and Wales during the week ending 3 April is the highest weekly total since we started compiling weekly deaths data in 2005.”

[howsillyofme1]

just as a follow up to that last post

I haver read that report and I am sorry that it has leaked with people's details in it. That is not acceptable and shows a real breakdown in data security, although we do not know the full circumstances as to why it was released. If there is any evidence that there was an attempt to prevent publication through the normal channels and redaction so as not to expose the Labour Party to embarrassment then that too needs to be addressed. All this is speculation though

I am offended by what I have read. We have seen the last 5 years on continued accusations against the left of the party being anti-Semitic. Clearly some incidences of this exist and must be dealt with but the numbers need to be taken into account versus an organisation of 600000 people. It is present but from the numbers even submitted by LAAS who are very enthusiastic in finding examples it would be difficult o call it endemic within the party.

The report is quite open about all this and doesn't hide away from criticising the Party and drawing some pretty harsh conclusions. This is no whitewash

However, this report does go more into the detail of who and why these complaints were not dealt with and gives some evidence why not -as well as some speculation that could be challenged.

Reading this I would not be surprised if Labour could be seen to have been institutionally racist and sexist as it clearly did not deal with those accusations in the way that would be expected but the report comes to the conclusion that anti-Semitism was not especially ignored - everything was. I find this nauseating and the quotes of those who were responsible were repugnant.

The evidence contained within this report goes further into detail than any I have seen from the other perspective where the blame is put expressly at the feet of Corbyn and his advisors. We will await the EHRC report with interest now and see how they have looked at the facts but it could be tricky for them if they go on oral evidence alone and the documentary evidence from this report contradicts what they have been told, especially seeing one of those named was very prominent in the Panorama programme and that is not the first time that the evidence presented in that transmission has been challenged strongly. In fact the report states that the reason for writing it was to ensure that the EHRC had access to the primary evidence as well as oral submissions

I am very disappointed by the response of Starmer - not the need for an inquiry which is fair enough - but he should have also moved to suspend those involved who are members of the party pending the outcome of the investigations. This is what has commonly happened to many members at the instigation of those who are now accused.

Those of us on the left who have been called racist anti-Semites because of our support for Corbyn and our requests for evidence are justifiably angry after seeing the contents this report which may not be 100% verified but is a more evidence-based than many of the accusations we have seen laid against us and others.

[AnatolyKasparov]

It might be worth remembering that the EHRC report was originally meant to appear back in January.

I can't definitively say why there has been this apparent delay, but can certainly speculate......

As for the initially cautious Starmer/Labour response to this leak, it has been speculated this may at least be partly due to legal reasons.

[howsillyofme1]

It might be worth remembering that the EHRC report was originally meant to appear back in January.

I can't definitively say why there has been this apparent delay, but can certainly speculate......

As for the initially cautious Starmer/Labour response to this leak, it has been speculated this may at least be partly due to legal reasons.

On the EHRC report, will be interesting to see as if the oral evidence is contradicted by documentary then that would be interesting......I am not sure the plan was for this evidence to have been seen - we will have to wait and see

On Starmer, perhaps, but my concern would be that his background as a lawyer would then be too cautious to be able to operate in the rancid British political atmosphere - we saw what trying to be cautious and polite did to Corbyn and Miliband. My initial concerns about him are that he is overly-cautious.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Caution can be good if one has a clear end point in mind.

We shall see.

[howsillyofme1]

Caution can be good if one has a clear end point in mind.

We shall see.

In general terms and all things being equal I would agree but they are not in this day and age - I really want to like Starmer as I have extreme respect for him but i am fearful that his lack of ability to take risk will be a challenfe

Also, this is not a particularly good look when taken with his response yesterday

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Hi how silly I’m not sure that Starmer is right to be cautious. It was just a general observation on caution!

[howsillyofme1]

Hi how silly I’m not sure that Starmer is right to be cautious. It was just a general observation on caution!

Hi Paul

okay, sorry - I am not averse to caution.....just both Corbyn and Miliband were in their own way. Much better than reckless but I think the word is 'overly' and that is a judgement call

[frog222]

"" Speaking at a hustings hosted by the Jewish Labour Movement, Starmer said: “I remember that programme well and being shocked by the response that was put out … I remember what I said to Jeremy. I said I’ve never been in an organisation that turns on its staff before, ever. Because what message do you think that sends not just to the ex-staff but current staff who speak out. They will be branded disloyal. I think it was utterly wrong that statement was put out and I said that directly the next morning.” ""

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -its-staff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the Metropolitan Police TURNED ON notoriously corrupt coppers when it went after them .

I wouldn't put it that way

[howsillyofme1]

Just one last point on this report

We know there was a legal impediment to release to the EHRe - I accept that there may have been some GDPR sensitivities but am sure that would have been able to be worked out via redactions etc although I assume referencing them would have been acceptable as long as it was for limited circulation.

Could it be the reason that it was not shared with the EHRC be that it could be seen as actually confirming Labour was, for a period, institutionally racist as I mentioned above - not just limited anti-Semitic?

The impact of this report is not the conclusions and interpretations but the indication from the report above that the authors had access to a large amount of documentary evidence, including material that I am sure some people did not ever expect to be released and published as evidence. If we take the case of the person who was in Panorama and what is suggested that their role was it would not surprise me if there was significant amount of contradiction between evidence to the EHRC and the documentary trail

I know some of you will say 'why are we focusing on this instead of CV-19' but if we look back at the last 2 years especially and the character assassination of the Labour leadership and continual focus on AS by all parts of the media leading to the loss in December, it would be absolutely astonishing if it emerged that the root of the problem was not Corbyn and the left but rather the party establishment.

We can already see on social media a new narrative from the' blue ticks' that now says that Corbyn was at fault for not completely removing all these people if it was the case that they were at full - an interesting new take seeing that he was accused of 'Stalinism' and the party being a cult built in his image

I will leave it there but this is both a threat for Starmer but also an opportunity to show to the membership that he is impartial and will treat all aspects of racism equally - he has not yet given that indication. Does anyone imagine if this had been a member of the Corbyn circle making violent racist and sexist comments that they would not have been immediately suspended?

[tinyclanger2]

Lifting lockdown = it’s working so let’s stop doing it. Can’t do it without massive testing. Is that the plan?

[adam]

Some of the guardian has just appeared to go behind a 'registration wall' - you don't need to pay anything but you need to sign in to read.

[citizenJA]

Lifting lockdown = it’s working so let’s stop doing it. Can’t do it without massive testing. Is that the plan?

Without testing, lifting lockdown is frightening

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Some of the guardian has just appeared to go behind a 'registration wall' - you don't need to pay anything but you need to sign in to read.

Groan

[citizenJA]

Is it against the law, working for the Labour party seeking to prevent a Labour government?

[PorFavor]

Donald Trump halts funding to WHO.

[PorFavor]

PTO