CV19. What would the Labour party have done?

ColinBellsjockstrap said:
We now see Labour party voters sticking the boot in blaming Boris and the Conservatives for their response to this crisis, but what could they have done any differently?

They still would have had to borrow hundreds of billions of pounds to help people out, during lockdown, otherwise there would have been riots, maybe they might have introduced it a week or so earlier, but I can't really see how things would have been handled much better.

This is a question aimed mainly at Bluemoon Labour supporters.
Click to expand...
It has come out today that the testing was a sham ,rules were broken ,we already knew they turned down offers to do it by numerous proper labs around the country,stopping testing in march was against what the WHO and other countries told us to do

Instead of going down the well worn path for epidemics we said fuck that and we are going to go out own untested way,HERD IMMUNITY has us as the second worst death rates in the world until Brazil sadly overtook us

Leaving it way to late to then buy tests and PPE ,we left care homes to be sacrificed,sending them hosp patients who were positive for covid,nursing homes are not set up to cope with that

Blaming front line workers of using too much PPE and using it wrong when they got constant pressure for not providing enough,care homes were in competition with the gov instead of together,the lack of PPE to people risking their lives and a lot of them dying was a disgrace

Spinning testing figures

Track and trace app debarkle

Lying ,lying and lying

Not sticking to the rules and the top men all getting it at the same time

Giving Cummings too much power and standing by him I hope will be the death of boris


that enough?

What labour would have done is useless to guess at,i did say I was glad they weren't in charge though,under starmer my opinion would be different ,we can only lament he wasnt,perhaps they would have gone the way we were told do and not the opposite

What the chancellor has done is however amazing
 
Ban-jani said:
The virus was almost certainly here before Italy went to shit, just on a much lesser scale than there, I think what happened was inevitable, in terms of a mass spread nationwide with tens of thousands passing away.

I also think that strong a lockdown had a lifetime. We’ve seen that following the last few weeks and it’s something they said in March.

What people don’t ever remember or say is that around the time herd immunity was being discussed, they said a lockdown would still come but needed to be timed correctly to flatten the curve.

PPE was a fuck up but even the likes of Germany have come under flack for it.

Another fuck up was not doing anything with new arrivals into the country.

I do happen to hold the opinion Sweden was the right way to go, within 6 months it’ll be the safest place in Europe and if everyone had taken the approach, the EU and our economies wouldn’t be so fucked.
Click to expand...

If you read the behind the scenes investigations in The Times, it's clear they locked down later than the scientists wanted. It took a while to convince Dominic Cummings, and apparently he thought he'd convinced Boris, but the PM took a further week to think about it.

I understand the point about the length - but if you start with much lower figures, we'd only need the same length of lockdown, and would have come out of it with a much lower infection rate. We'd have still had the same amount of time in lockdown to prepare for track/trace, school reopening etc., but with less stress on the NHS at the same time.

Sweden has had more deaths per capita than the US and 6 times more than Norway. Their economy has taken a huge hit, and the testing they've done so far indicates they didn't even get close to herd immunity. They didn't lock down, but they did socially distance early on, and "traffic" in Stockholm was something like 30% of it's usual levels. They've also cracked down a lot more in recent weeks. I suspect that they'll do better in the long run than the US, because they don't have a hundred million plus people who believe it's an affront to their freedom, but doubt they'll have done well compared to most first world countries.
 
They would of had an adviser as well and think labour would of been more cautious but the same problems would be still there for the country.
 
Ban-jani said:
Some different things here or there, mostly tweaks to approach but the end result wouldn’t have been too dissimilar.

Tens of thousands would have died, our civil liberties would have been affected in the long term, the economy trashed, care homes (which is the private company’s responsibility, I wish people would get this) would have been ravaged still.

No doubt Tories would have done what the left on here have done and blamed Labour voters for voting for them and failing to predict a global pandemic.

All in all a complete shit show as is our politics now.
Click to expand...
Not all care homes are private,the others are the government's responsibility,the private ones had a normal amount of PPE in,a pandemic it becomes the gov responsibility for all the care sectors and the country,we were bidding against private care homes rather than supplying them properly
 
karen7 said:
Not all care homes are private,the others are the government's responsibility
Click to expand...
That’s fair enough.

Those that are private, like the one my Nan is in, isn’t the government’s responsibility.
 
bluenova said:
If you read the behind the scenes investigations in The Times, it's clear they locked down later than the scientists wanted. It took a while to convince Dominic Cummings, and apparently he thought he'd convinced Boris, but the PM took a further week to think about it.

I understand the point about the length - but if you start with much lower figures, we'd only need the same length of lockdown, and would have come out of it with a much lower infection rate. We'd have still had the same amount of time in lockdown to prepare for track/trace, school reopening etc., but with less stress on the NHS at the same time.

Sweden has had more deaths per capita than the US and 6 times more than Norway. Their economy has taken a huge hit, and the testing they've done so far indicates they didn't even get close to herd immunity. They didn't lock down, but they did socially distance early on, and "traffic" in Stockholm was something like 30% of it's usual levels. They've also cracked down a lot more in recent weeks. I suspect that they'll do better in the long run than the US, because they don't have a hundred million plus people who believe it's an affront to their freedom, but doubt they'll have done well compared to most first world countries.
Click to expand...

I haven’t read it but I’m not surprised if that was the case. It’s a scientific decision but also a political one and I don’t begrudge the government not locking down earlier, it’s the hardest decision a government has ever made and may impact our civil liberties in the future.

The lockdown was done to take the stress off the NHS, flatten the curve and to ensure everyone who needed an ICU got one. That worked and I think they timed it well.

So far no British citizen who has needed an ICU has been denied one, that’s something other countries have failed with.

Sweden have had more deaths per capita but they do have almost double the population of their neighbours. Higher populations, as well as high population centres, mean the virus has a better chance of spreading.

Not that I’m arguing their position won’t have contributed to that, of course it will have but they will better in the long term, as whilst herd immunity hasn’t worked entirely, they’re far closer to it than we are.

Their economy is also in better shape than others and the health and livelihoods attached to economic success isn’t to be sniffed at. A significant recession results in people dying too, if they can get on better than their neighbours, the true number of victims may well turn out less.

Also, I did say that “if everyone had done Sweden’s approach” the economies across Europe would be in much better shape. Sweden’s economy is significantly affected because of the country’s in the Single Market locking down.
 
Is this a what would a Labour government done differently thread or just another for the usual tweets slamming the Tories?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.