Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walter on April 05, 2020, 04:05:23 PM
-
Do as I SAY, not as I DO !
Hmmm! or just a mistake on two occasion?
-
I don't see how she can avoid resigning.
Little Roses would probably advocate a long prison sentence.
-
She should resign.
-
I don't see how she can avoid resigning.
Little Roses would probably advocate a long prison sentence.
yes I agree but why would she think she could get away with it ?
Arrogance, perhaps ?
In her mind she was following her own rules (door to door in self isolation )?
-
She should resign.
or she could make a statement about how she understands how people are feeling and don't be tempted to do what I've done
'I'm stupid and really sorry' sort of thing
-
I doubt that the trips actually put anyone in any danger directly. It's all about signalling.
So.. remaining as CMO, she could do a lot of hand waving and still manage to persuade people to think carefully about what they are doing and help prevent covid spread.
-
She was certainly at fault and was politically naive, possibly not realising that journalists would be interested in her enough to follow her. She looked very nervous at the briefing today and apologised repeatedly and profusely and all the questions were mostly about her. I thought she'd resign and was surprised that NS would back her, albeit NS probably has the political clout here to brazen this out since no doubt events will move on - whether that would be wise is another matter since it could make her look weak.
Anyway, it has just be announced that she is stepping back from media duties, including the Coronavirus TV info slots broadcast in Scotland, and I'd expect she'll not be heard of much now and that in due course there will be some job-shoogling going on. This from the BBC.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she was "acutely aware" of the importance of public trust in government advice to stay at home.
"To maintain that trust we will be revising our public information campaign and the chief medical officer will be withdrawing from media briefings for the foreseeable future," she said.
"She will continue to provide the Scottish government with the scientific and medical advice on the spread of coronavirus."
-
She was certainly at fault and was politically naive, possibly not realising that journalists would be interested in her enough to follow her. She looked very nervous at the briefing today and apologised repeatedly and profusely and all the questions were mostly about her. I thought she'd resign and was surprised that NS would back her, albeit NS probably has the political clout here to brazen this out since no doubt events will move on - whether that would be wise is another matter since it could make her look weak.
Anyway, it has just be announced that she is stepping back from media duties, including the Coronavirus TV info slots broadcast in Scotland, and I'd expect she'll not be heard of much now and that in due course there will be some job-shoogling going on. This from the BBC.
I think the quote from the BBC is reasonable solution to the situation , Gordon
-
yes I agree but why would she think she could get away with it ?
Arrogance, perhaps ?
In her mind she was following her own rules (door to door in self isolation )?
Yes. I doubt she put anybody in any danger, but it is about the optics. If you’re telling the public to obey draconian rules, it doesn’t look good if you are ignoring them.
-
Hugely problematic, I do wonder though why she has been given a police caution why that didn't happen with Prince Charles.
-
Yes. I doubt she put anybody in any danger, but it is about the optics. If you’re telling the public to obey draconian rules, it doesn’t look good if you are ignoring them.
The big problem for me is that the apology covered 1 visit so feels dishonest.
-
Hugely problematic, I do wonder though why she has been given a police caution why that didn't happen with Prince Charles.
Absolutely.
-
Who? What? Have I missed something?
-
The big problem for me is that the apology covered 1 visit so feels dishonest.
Yes - the second instance was only admitted to after her apology and was only revealed during the media broadcast.
-
Who? What? Have I missed something?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52173157
-
What we have is a mish-mash of badly thought out inconsistent rules being enforced under emergency legislation. No-one, even the police, understand how they are supposed to work or what they are supposed to do.
Also, some people have become even stupider than normal - the roads around here are very quite now - but I have seen a quite a few cases of totally reckless driving. Then you have people out running or on bikes who have clearly never been out before!
Some people just have two homes (not even counting MPs) A neighbour has a flat he uses in the week but always goes (drives) to stay at his partner/girlfriend's in London at weekends, has done for years, can't see why he should stop now?
-
What we have is a mish-mash of badly thought out inconsistent rules being enforced under emergency legislation. No-one, even the police, understand how they are supposed to work or what they are supposed to do.
Also, some people have become even stupider than normal - the roads around here are very quite now - but I have seen a quite a few cases of totally reckless driving. Then you have people out running or on bikes who have clearly never been out before!
Some people just have two homes (not even counting MPs) A neighbour has a flat he uses in the week but always goes (drives) to stay at his partner/girlfriend's in London at weekends, has done for years, can't see why he should stop now?
Which has fuck all to do with this case.
-
BBC now reporting that she has resigned.
-
BBC now reporting that she has resigned.
The fact that she had visited the holiday home twice and the original apology appeared to cover only 1 time and she was the face of the medical instructions to stay home made her position untenable.
Was having a virtual pub with some friends yesterday, and one of the regulars is a psychiatric nurse and his theory was that some doctors just think they are above rules.
-
I wonder if NS knew about the other visit before the media briefing yesterday, since the admission seemed to come as a surprise to the journalists posing questions.
-
I wonder if NS knew about the other visit before the media briefing yesterday, since the admission seemed to come as a surprise to the journalists posing questions.
It would seem unlikely given her (NS's) staunch support for Dr Calderwood after the original disclosure and the speed with which she accepted her resignation after the second came to light.
-
If the CMO thinks it's ok to visit another property, this means she doesn't agree with the extent of the lockdown. It would be good if she just said so.
-
I wonder if NS knew about the other visit before the media briefing yesterday, since the admission seemed to come as a surprise to the journalists posing questions.
Definitely think not.
-
Which has fuck all to do with this case.
This case illustrates that even those responsible for the response and implementing the lockdown do not believe in the rules set out. This was clear from the start in Johnson's look of incredulity even as he brought the measures in and his response to questions. Even if the measures are correct, no-one believes they are right for themselves - just everyone else.
The lockdown is not a solution and cannot last for more than a couple of months - it was a mechanism to buy time to set up the systems that will defeat the virus - but they seem to have brought it in too late, without adequate explanation - and not managed to progress sufficiently, so far, on the other fronts.
-
This case illustrates that even those responsible for the response and implementing the lockdown do not believe in the rules set out. This was clear from the start in Johnson's look of incredulity even as he brought the measures in and his response to questions. Even if the measures are correct, no-one believes they are right for themselves - just everyone else.
The lockdown is not a solution and cannot last for more than a couple of months - it was a mechanism to buy time to set up the systems that will defeat the virus - but they seem to have brought it in too late, without adequate explanation - and not managed to progress sufficiently, so far, on the other fronts.
I think there is a difference between not believing in the rules, and in not believing they apply to you. I think there is a mindset that is relatively common with people who do well in public life that they are special, and that they can have rules that they think are right, and believe to be right but that they don't follow.
The whole issue with the reaction to the virus is that it seems completely after the fact. There has been no real indication that the modelling of such a threat has produced any set of actions to ready most countries for it, apart from Sth Korea, and the decisions seem to be being made on the hoof.
-
From the BBC Scotland live blog - the 'trips' suggests NS knew about both visits before the media briefing yesterday but tat that point thought an apology would suffice, but given the public/press reaction then realised she had to go.
Ms Sturgeon said she first learned on Saturday night about Dr Catherine Calderwood's trips to her second home after being approached by the Scottish Sun.
She said that she had spoken to her chief medical officer about it after the newspaper had been in touch.
The first minister told BBC Breakfast that Dr Calderwood's decision to resign came after a long conversation on Sunday and was a "mutual agreement".
She said she was "very sorry" that the sitation had arisen, but emphasised that Dr Calderwood has been a good chief medical officer and she had valued her advice.
"She made a serious error of judgement and she has payed the price for that," Ms Sturgeon said.
-
What the Scottish Health Secretary, Jeane Freeman, says.
What became increasingly clear is that the advice that Dr Calderwood had given us was the right advice to stay at home [but] as the day wore on it was increasingly clear that her very serious actions in not following her own advice was undermining both that strong message and public confidence in that message.
[It] is not a message we can afford to have undermined.
-
What we have is a mish-mash of badly thought out inconsistent rules being enforced under emergency legislation. No-one, even the police, understand how they are supposed to work or what they are supposed to do.
Also, some people have become even stupider than normal - the roads around here are very quite now - but I have seen a quite a few cases of totally reckless driving. Then you have people out running or on bikes who have clearly never been out before!
Some people just have two homes (not even counting MPs) A neighbour has a flat he uses in the week but always goes (drives) to stay at his partner/girlfriend's in London at weekends, has done for years, can't see why he should stop now?
Here's why. If he catches COVID19 at his house from somebody he interacts with regularly and then drives to his girlfriend he's spreads it to a new area and new people.
Anyway, the problem I have isn't really about the danger: I doubt if any immediate harm was done by these two excursions. It's about standing up and telling people they must effectively consider themselves under house arrest. How can she do that credibly, knowing it is public knowledge that she doesn't consider that the rules apply to her?
-
This case illustrates that even those responsible for the response and implementing the lockdown do not believe in the rules set out. This was clear from the start in Johnson's look of incredulity even as he brought the measures in and his response to questions. Even if the measures are correct, no-one believes they are right for themselves - just everyone else.
The lockdown is not a solution and cannot last for more than a couple of months - it was a mechanism to buy time to set up the systems that will defeat the virus - but they seem to have brought it in too late, without adequate explanation - and not managed to progress sufficiently, so far, on the other fronts.
you are missing the point here .
The point is; a case of do as I say not as I do !
-
I think there is a difference between not believing in the rules, and in not believing they apply to you. I think there is a mindset that is relatively common with people who do well in public life that they are special, and that they can have rules that they think are right, and believe to be right but that they don't follow.
The whole issue with the reaction to the virus is that it seems completely after the fact. There has been no real indication that the modelling of such a threat has produced any set of actions to ready most countries for it, apart from Sth Korea, and the decisions seem to be being made on the hoof.
Most people feel themselves to be special, many don't follow rules that they should but not all are in the public eye.
ETA:
On the reaction generally, clearly we were unprepared. China introduced an unnecessary delay of about three weeks, then we reacted very slowly, adding weeks of delay, making decisions, as you say, on the hoof rather than putting into effect any contingency plans.
We didn't need much modelling or maths to be able to forecast the consequences of inaction for a contagious virus even with very low fatality.
-
Here's why. If he catches COVID19 at his house from somebody he interacts with regularly and then drives to his girlfriend he's spreads it to a new area and new people.
True, they should hole up in one place - he's not back now so maybe doing that.
Anyway, the problem I have isn't really about the danger: I doubt if any immediate harm was done by these two excursions. It's about standing up and telling people they must effectively consider themselves under house arrest. How can she do that credibly, knowing it is public knowledge that she doesn't consider that the rules apply to her?
Yes, it is about communicating clear and credible messages, she certainly can't do that now. But the messages as they were, were not clear, properly explained and enforceable.
-
you are missing the point here .
The point is; a case of do as I say not as I do !
We've always had that though. And, always will?
-
We've always had that though. And, always will?
errr, yes!
is English your first language?
-
errr, yes!
is English your first language?
hmm... can't remember. Was rubbish at English in school though.
-
Yes, it is about communicating clear and credible messages, she certainly can't do that now. But the messages as they were, were not clear, properly explained and enforceable.
Were they not? How come I have known since the lockdown pretty much exactly what I'm allowed to do?
-
Were they not? How come I have known since the lockdown pretty much exactly what I'm allowed to do?
I didn't think so, you (and me) probably understood as we were paying attention.
The "rules" came out in dribs and drabs; weren't we all supposed to receive a copy? - never saw one. As mentioned, most of those telling us what to do were, or came across as, skeptical themselves. We had Stanley Johnson and that Wetherspoon's bloke telling us they were rubbish.
Lot's of TV ads - but most people are conditioned to routinely ignore those. What was the message about policing and penalties? In the end we were told to use our common sense. To do that you need to understand the rationale behind various restrictions. And, unfortunately, most of the rationale boils down to "having to draw a line somewhere" and "what if everyone did that?".
From the common sense pov there wasn't much wrong with what Calderwood did, except that it was her.
If you like you can watch the last week or so of the Jeremy Vine Ch 5 show - they spend about an hour every morning trying to work out what they are and are not allowed to do.
-
Were they not? How come I have known since the lockdown pretty much exactly what I'm allowed to do?
Definitely not. I saw Gove telling us we could drive in the car to some place and then take a walk. A day later that advice was changed.
-
The "rules" came out in dribs and drabs; weren't we all supposed to receive a copy? - never saw one. As mentioned, most of those telling us what to do were, or came across as, skeptical themselves. We had Stanley Johnson and that Wetherspoon's bloke telling us they were rubbish.
Lot's of TV ads - but most people are conditioned to routinely ignore those. What was the message about policing and penalties? In the end we were told to use our common sense. To do that you need to understand the rationale behind various restrictions. And, unfortunately, most of the rationale boils down to "having to draw a line somewhere" and "what if everyone did that?".
From the common sense pov there wasn't much wrong with what Calderwood did, except that it was her.
If you like you can watch the last week or so of the Jeremy Vine Ch 5 show - they spend about an hour every morning trying to work out what they are and are not allowed to do.
I honestly don't understand why people are having an issue with understanding it. For the last two weeks it has been one bit of exercise, shopping and medical emergencies. Tim Martin and this Stanley Johnson bloke are not government representatives so why would I listen to them?
-
Definitely not. I saw Gove telling us we could drive in the car to some place and then take a walk. A day later that advice was changed.
That was ages ago.