4 ms·

> We all remember Boris Johnson going on TV and saying "Well, you'll have to just take it on the chin". You remember wrongly. He said we considered taking it o

> We all remember Boris Johnson going on TV and saying "Well, you'll have to just take it on the chin". You remember wrongly. He said we considered taking it on the chin, but decided against it. I think Boris has done very badly in his handling of the pandemic; given how many bad decisions he made, it's strange that people seem fixated on this thing he didn't say.

traceroute66 5y ago
> He said we considered taking it on the chin, but decided against it. Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. By the time Boris started appearing on TV, COVID was already on the UK doorstep having marched through China, Asia and Europe. By that time, even a five year old kid could have told you that "taking it on the chin" was not up for discussion.
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  That’s not actually lying though. Expressing an opinion is not lying.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Michael Jordan was a shitty basketball player. That's an opinion, am I lying?
    - righttoolforjob 5y ago
      Except you don't actually believe it, so it's a lie, not an opinion.
      - Clubber 5y ago
        I didn't say it was my opinion, I said it was an opinion. The person may or may not believe it, you don't know. Is it a lie even if they believe it? All people who are ______ are ______. Another opinion. Opinions can be intentionally or unintentionally deceiving, which makes them lies.
- sampo 5y ago
  > Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. Like I explain in my nearby comment, two of the most decorated UK epidemiologists, being also current and former UK chief scientific advisers, recommended that strategy. Boris did listen to science, it just turns out that some of the UK's very top level scientists were really bad, worse than the 5 year old kid your talked about.
- chimprich 5y ago
  > Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. I think it's always worth examining your assumptions. Every time you consider a policy of government, you should consider what would happen if you didn't do it, even if only to compare against a baseline. > By that time, even a five year old kid could have told you that "taking it on the chin" was not up for discussion. It was not so obvious at the time. It seemed like a very bad idea to me, but lots of people, including on this forum, were vehement that it was the only option.
- fivea 5y ago
  > Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. Not really. Two years ago, when COVID started to spread outside China, the initial concern was the potential impact it would have on saturating national health services and there was no concern regarding it's death rate, which led to the "flatten the curve" political talking point. Keep in mind that "flatten the curve" implies that everyone is expected to contract the disease sooner or later, but only in a way that doesn't overwhelm health services. Back then it was presumed that contracting COVID was not a cause for concern, and that after the first infection then everyone was finally immune and everything was back to normal. Only after COVID was experienced first hand outside of china, and thus without being subjected to the CCP's censors, did the world learned about it's true fatality rate, transmission rate, reinfection rate, and lingering health problems. Afterwards there were subsequent variants which again became pandemics. When the real impact of COVID started to become noticeable, the approach to the disease changed radically to one based on containment at all cost followed by mass vaccination campaigns once the first effective vaccines started to become available.

traceroute66 5y ago

> He said we considered taking it on the chin, but decided against it. Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. By the time Boris started appearing on TV, COVID was already on the UK doorstep having marched through China, Asia and Europe. By that time, even a five year old kid could have told you that "taking it on the chin" was not up for discussion.

scoopertrooper 5y ago
That’s not actually lying though. Expressing an opinion is not lying.
- Clubber 5y ago
  Michael Jordan was a shitty basketball player. That's an opinion, am I lying?
  - righttoolforjob 5y ago
    Except you don't actually believe it, so it's a lie, not an opinion.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      I didn't say it was my opinion, I said it was an opinion. The person may or may not believe it, you don't know. Is it a lie even if they believe it? All people who are ______ are ______. Another opinion. Opinions can be intentionally or unintentionally deceiving, which makes them lies.
sampo 5y ago
> Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. Like I explain in my nearby comment, two of the most decorated UK epidemiologists, being also current and former UK chief scientific advisers, recommended that strategy. Boris did listen to science, it just turns out that some of the UK's very top level scientists were really bad, worse than the 5 year old kid your talked about.
chimprich 5y ago
> Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. I think it's always worth examining your assumptions. Every time you consider a policy of government, you should consider what would happen if you didn't do it, even if only to compare against a baseline. > By that time, even a five year old kid could have told you that "taking it on the chin" was not up for discussion. It was not so obvious at the time. It seemed like a very bad idea to me, but lots of people, including on this forum, were vehement that it was the only option.
fivea 5y ago
> Even if this is true, the very fact that it was even an option that came up in discussion in Cabinet says a lot. Not really. Two years ago, when COVID started to spread outside China, the initial concern was the potential impact it would have on saturating national health services and there was no concern regarding it's death rate, which led to the "flatten the curve" political talking point. Keep in mind that "flatten the curve" implies that everyone is expected to contract the disease sooner or later, but only in a way that doesn't overwhelm health services. Back then it was presumed that contracting COVID was not a cause for concern, and that after the first infection then everyone was finally immune and everything was back to normal. Only after COVID was experienced first hand outside of china, and thus without being subjected to the CCP's censors, did the world learned about it's true fatality rate, transmission rate, reinfection rate, and lingering health problems. Afterwards there were subsequent variants which again became pandemics. When the real impact of COVID started to become noticeable, the approach to the disease changed radically to one based on containment at all cost followed by mass vaccination campaigns once the first effective vaccines started to become available.