ANGER

So we ignore the WHO when it comes to testing but must adhere to their advice when it comes to political point scoring. And why is it political? It isn't one party against another; it's just holding the government in power to account for the worst crisis since WWII. Why are we not allowed to do that when people are dying? Yes tickingbird; it's great that it's only 700 people isn't it....

I might get slated here but I get angry when people accuse the government for mishandling the situation.
This is a new virus that no one knew anything about in the beginning and not much more known about it now.
No one knew what to do.
No one knew if other countries where doing the right thing or not. Some were right we think and others not. I'm sure the government in hindsight would have done better and earlier if they knew then what they know now.
I certainly wouldn't want the responsibility of being a Prime Minister in this crisis.
There's to many critics that think they could do better.

MawB
I'll go with tenuous grip on reality ?

Boris Johnson’s current girlfriend Carrie Symonds said that ‘There is no way Boris can repay’ the medical team that saved his life. I have some good news for her: He is in fact the one person in whole country who can do that.
For a start he could - abolish nurses bursaries
-Treat foreign-born NHS staff fairly- at the moment they have to pay for their own health care.
-Fund the NHS on a par with similar countries
And the list could go on
So will Boris truly actually try to ‘repay’ the medics who saved him? Or will he mainly just make sure he is filmed clapping them in road again, once he is better?

Labaik No more splitting hairs than subtracting almost 300. It wouldn’t be splitting hairs to the extra 300 that didn’t die. The figures seem to be going down and that’s a good thing.

I believe that the WHO's Director General's latest speech asked for
"National unity, do not use this virus for political point scoring"

For me it is sadness, and hope, that we will come out of this as soon as possible. I don’t believe that the govt is ‘complicit’ in anyone’s death, as it’s a strange and dangerous situation affecting the whole world and there has been no template to follow. Each country had to do what they thought best, in a tight timescale, and it must be quite a burden to be involved in decisions of this kind. Obviously lessons need to be learned ‘on the hoof’ and when this is all over.

Every death is a tragedy.

However, you are not quoting statistics correctly, OP, as populations vary so widely in number.

Some countries which have not gone into complete lockdown do not have as high a number of cases per 1m of population. There are so many variables to which we do not yet know the answers.

As for China only identifying this at the beginning of January, it has been reported that cases were identified in China as early as November of a new but unnamed virus causing pneumonia-like symptoms but this news was either not regarded as significant or suppressed.
And of course, we all know the tragic story of Dr Li Wenliang who was silenced by the Chinese authorities when he tried to raise the alarm in December.

Anger can cause a dip in immunoglobulin A which will then depress your immune system, cause high blood pressure and added stress so is not a good emotion to encourage at the present time.

Just catching up. Good post Labaik.

Covid19 isn't going to go away any time soon. Saying we should have been in lockdown earlier is unrealistic. The virus will be here until we get a vaccine and we can't be in lockdown for over a year.
I don't feel angry just sad that this has happened. Laying blame here, there and everywhere is unproductive.
Pandemics happen rarely and nobody is fully prepared for them. We just have to do our best to minimise the damage.
Wishing all GNs and their families to stay well.

Splitting hairs a bit aren't we...only @ 700 deaths today. Hurrah...[phew; and there was me getting worried as well as angry]

I still haven’t seen a figure of 1000 deaths here. I know it’s high but it never reached 1000 and it’s dropping now and, hopefully, will continue to do so.

So those paragons if virtue with their emotion well and truly under control, what is the appropriate emotional reaction to what many perceive as the governments complicity in the death of thousands?

Good point M0nica, anger can be very destructive. I’m sure the govt is well aware of all the criticism thrown at them for doing this or not doing that but I still maintain they are working towards doing their best for the country in these stormy and uncharted waters.

So it's unreasonable to be angry that 1,000 people a day are dying in this country? And that we have been lied to and are still being lied to. That John Humphreys has said the BBC have been told to 'go easy on politicians' and that Priti Patel refused to apologise for the number of NHS workers that are dying...and that we were told that the government and NHS were well prepared for a pandemic...

Anger is a total waste of emotion. people getting wrought-up, unreasonable and unamenable to reason.

What we need is cold calm reason, and a determination to work together to insist on change. Far to many movements for change that start with righteous anger end in disaster, think Syria, Libya, further back Portugal and Yugoslavia.

Good post labaik

I'm angry that the government didn't impose a lockdown sooner. I'm angry that the government said on 9th February that 'the government and NHS are well prepared to deal with this virus' I'm angry that they stopped testing at a time when the WHO told countries to 'test test test'. I'm angry that health care workers still do not appear to have adequate PPE and, when they complain the Health Secretary blames them for not using it properly. I'm angry that some people [eg Michael Goves daughter] are tested for the virus when health care workers aren't. I'm angry that people are put into care homes to recuperate therefore endangering the lives of vulnerable people in those care homes. I'm angry that this government deliberately ran down the sort of supplies needed if there was a pandemic even though it was warned not to. I'm angry that, when everyone was being told to wash their hands and avoid contact with people, the PM of this country boasted that he was still shaking hands with everyone. I'm angry that the government spent millions of pounds sending out a letter to everyone in this country when that money could have been spent on PPE for our NHS. Don't tell me not to be angry. This government doesn't want people to hold it to account for it's shambolic response to this pandemic.

As they say - damned if they do, damned if they don’t. It’s very easy to snipe from the sidelines without being in possession of ALL the facts. Do you know that on the first day of the Battle of the Somme - that’s just one day - 57,470 men died??? Now that’s an almost unbelievable figure and raises/raised huge questions regarding leadership. I would not have BJ’s job for all the tea in China.......

There is a difference between saying that "X is a YYYY" as a fact, and stating your opinion that X is a YYYY. If you just wish to air an opinion you say "It looks to me as if X is a YYYY" or I would guess that . . . " or even "I believe that . ."

If you state it as a bald sentence containing a fact, then you have to be prepared to prove in a court of law that it is so and that you didn't just make that up this morning to blacken X's character - in other words, that you are not libelling X. Publishing a libel on anyone publicly is a crime.

If you were to state as a serious fact, without saying that it is just "your opinion", that a Gransnet poster (giving their real name) is in the habit of drinking twelve vodkas a night and cruising down the Royal Mile in the small hours picking up prosperous-looking strange men to take home and pick their pockets, then they would be justified in having you charged with libel - and convicted too, unless the embarrassed tourists gave evidence that they had indeed been conned. (I hasten to add that I don't actually know any Gransnetters whose career this is. At our average age, it probably wouldn't be all that successful )

Add Grenfell to Windrush.

Great post Pikachu (IMO)!

The government will probably (I hope, anyway) defer any decision about easing up on restrictions because the boss is supposed to be resting. There still isn't any clear pattern about the number of infections and deaths. Until there is, I think any easing up would be stupid. Personally, I'd make them even more restrictive, although I don't suppose the supermarket bosses would agree (but I'm not PM and am never likely to be).

I agree. Anger is the only rational response. Anger has to lead to action. Without that you get dampening phrases like 'it's all in the past'. 'We have to look forward' etc. It must not be brushed under the carpet as Windrush was after a weak promise to compensate or do something about it that was only partially kept.
There is often a need for righteous anger and it will be when it can be used constructively.
There are ways that such anger is dampened down to prevent action like satire which makes people believe that the problem has been noticed. In practice that is all it does.
There will also be an inquiry (which there should be) but they are used to delay while people's anger (and interest) are dissipated so the pressure lessens.
Without anger people will not follow through with a demand for consequences.

Well we shall see, this week, as the government are due to make a decision on whether we ease up on restrictions or not. Given that there has been pressure by businesses to ease up because of the harm its doing the the economy I reckon we will some restrictions lifted rather than waiting. So we will see if the statement the government are making a pigs ear of this is right or wrong, after all money is what the Tories care about.

Leaving aside any this speculation about Boris’ habits or not, I certainly do not agree with your assessment Jane.

This is about leadership which requires much more than blindly following, what turned out to be, bad advice from one set of scientists.

Leadership requires judgement, awareness, lateral thinking, assessment of all facts and opinions. Not all scientists agrees with his initial herd immunity approach. Indeed when those words were first uttered on a daily briefing I was horrified to hear them, and luckily many from the scientific community shouted out in alarm.

Only then did Boris wake up. But it was onky a partial awakening. He again didn’t take in the full extent of the problem. He didn’t look at resources, how to source them and the logistics of supply and transport. He dithered about lockdown until the horse was out of the stable.

I know he is a classics man, not a scientist, but he took on the role willingly and when handed this poisoned chalice did not rise to the challenge. He could have shown leadership, but two weeks in he was still laughing about singing happy birthday and sombreros and jolly old Blighty will prevail.

Lives were lost. One of them, a couple of days ago, a friend of mine. That’s the reality. If we look at the way Moon Jae-in or Angela Merkel has risen the the challenge, that is what leadership is about. Those who think he got it right are like sheep led by asses.