So now it's Javid's turn to fake Covid19 infection

[JLR2]

Fiz, I have to say that winds me up somewhat. My 'conspiracy theory' is based simply on the strange convenience of these claims by the likes of Johnson, Hancock and now Javid as to when they are hit personally by Covid19. For Johnson his claim was made at a time when he had both run out of freezers to hide in and the press wasn't as positive for him so where better to hide but a hospital, bare in mind those charged with looking after him in that hospital were required to sign non disclosure statements to the extent that a couple of doctors refused and the only nurses we were told of looking after him were from outwith the UK and left the NHS & UK shortly after Johnson returned to Downing Street.

Hancock?  Well he had his oscar winning fake tears moment during his TV interview but his claim to have experienced Covid19 came as he wanted to push his, we are all in this together theme and in the hope of convincing folk of this he claimed his infection as proof that no one would be immune from Covid19, in other words he wanted both the sympathy of the country and the opportunity to gather some brownie points as some kind of hero minister as he fought against Covid19.

Javid?  He wanted both to earn his brownie points from his boss/master, Johnson, by bringing about a story of distraction (better known as the 'throwing a dead cat on the table' routine just as Parliament moved to recess for the summer holidays. Political programs are all but ended for this period so no facing journalists such as Marr or hard questions from be it Channel 4 news of the BBC's News Night program. His hope being, as many within government hope and expect, the memory retention of voters being so lacking they'll have forgotten all about many of these things by the time Parliament returns after recess and besides he'll be sure there will be some other concocted story filling the media's screens and newspapers.

It is for these reasons I will not believe Javid or the others have suffered from Covid19 without seeing their names engraved on the graveside headstones.

[Sunny Clouds]

Perhaps you might both tolerate my view on 'conspiracy theories'?

This is building on my example of Twin Towers.  I'm also going to mention the use of different words.

English is a fantastic and frustrating language due to our massive vocabulary.  I'm going to throw out some other terms that could map onto 'conspiracy' off the top of my head.  You will see that they each have a different feel to them, but all relate to power & politics.

Plot, cartel, secret society, chumocracy, old boy's network, [other sort of] network, insider dealing, who you know...

To my way of thinking, the reality of the world we live in is that it's very difficult to become very powerful without  making 'connections'.  Also, I believe that it's typically, but not always, the case that those that are prepared to swap favours for favours that succeed, and those that are prepared to bend or even break the rules that succeed. 

Think of the example of getting to be prime minister of the UK.  I struggle to see how anyone could get there without making sure they'd got strong backing and keeping on the right side of those that would otherwise stop them.  That can involve backhanders and it would be difficult to stay on the right side of dodgy.  My negative views on politicians in general (rather than certain specific exceptions) are best summed up by my being a 'least worst' voter.

Looking back over history, I have no doubt in my mind but that our country's leadership has willingly done nasty things, deceitful things, murderous things.

So whilst I disagree as to any certainty that any of our cabinet members have lied about having the virus, I do think it possible that they would, and do feel that it is understandable if people reach the point of saying that those politicians lie and mislead and cheat so often that a default interpretation of what they say and do is that they're lying.

What we call 'conspiracy theories' can do a lot of harm, but they wouldn't happen if it weren't for the reality of what does happen.

I sometimes wonder whether my default view of "We don't know any more whether what they say is true and what isn't" mightn't be more sensibly replaced by "They're politicians, of course they're lying."

On the other hand, if we simply assume that someone who regularly lies is lying, we could as easily be deceived by the truth, and also looking to see whether something is true or not is precisely what some powerful people, politicians and others, rely upon.  Distraction crime.  "Look!" says the stranger.  Whilst you're wondering whether what they're pointing at is really there or whether they're lying, your purse has gone.  And then a different stranger says "Look!" and you assume they're lying and don't look, and you get run over.

[oldtone27]

I broadly agree with what you say. In human society it has always been more important 'who you know' than 'what you know'.

There is strength in numbers so one naturally gravitates towards like minded individuals, particularly those who might wield influence.

What concerns me most is those politicians who claim to male decisions on the basis of science / research or similar but then fail to publish the reasoning behind their decision. My suspicious mind wonders what secrets are they hiding?

[Sunny Clouds]

What secrets they're hiding?  They might not all be hiding the same secrets.

- One might not have read/listened to all that they needed to to make an informed decision.

- One might have read/listened to it but not paid attention.

- One might have read/listened to it but misunderstood, whether because they are hopeless with science and statistics or whether because they couldn't be bothered.

- One might have taken it all on board but decide not to do what would be the best for others, just the best for themselves.

It doesn't help that the science keeps changing but it's hard as a politician to say that.  Whether they're telling the truth or lying, they don't want to look like they're lying unless they really can't find another way to achieve what they want than to be seen to lie on a particular occasion, or they get caught out and have to make the best of it e.g. "No, I didn't tell the whole truth.  I didn't want to cause a panic."

[Fiz]

A theory that people are lying for whatever reason is a conspiracy theory which seems to.me what is described here in this thread. I know so many double vaccinated people who have been or are very ill with Covid that I'd be stunned if someone in the limelight didn't become someone in this fourth wave so think this story highly likely to be true. What I think is a more likely scenario is that someone in the political limelight gets Covid despite being double vaccinated and rather than be honest and state they feel/felt dreadful and wondered whether they would die, would instead release a statement stating it's like having a nasty cold and do get back to work as soon as the app tells you that you can. All to benefit the economy.

[Sunny Clouds]

I don't see thinking of someone lying as a conspiracy theory per se, because for me the essence of a conspiracy theory is that it's a theory about a conspiracy, which requires more than one person because you can't conspire with yourself unless you're psychotic or have a split personality.

But I suppose for some people the term may have become extended to a metaphorical use?  I've not heard it used that way, but it would be pretty normal linguistic drift.

So  maybe if we're disagreeing to some extent about whether this is or isn't a conspiracy theory, it's actually just a difference between literal and extended meaning of the term?

[Fiz]

If this were true there would need to be more than one person involved. There's a team doing PCR tests on government minister's, the person who processed the test and found it to be negative would know the the minister is saying it's positive so they'd be in on it. As would in all likelihood, Boris. 

As said, given numbers are sky rocketing currently, I would be more surprised if no government ministers tested positive. They're still working, remotely having decided it would be unfair for them to be part of the daily PCR testing rathen isolating as the PVR daily testing trial is meant to be a random control trial which it wouldn't be if ministers decided to be in it! Something they didn't think through before suggesting it!

[JLR2]

Fiz, Javid I believe felt he needed to come up with something to avoid being compared too much with Hancock so soon after taking on the job done by Hancock and so decided to announce his positive testing for Covid19. In telling the world he'd be self isolating he would be able to avoid face to face scrutiny by the media, it is so much easier to avoid argument or awkward questions if you can claim a technical problem with your digital connections isn't it.

The other day after it had been made clear by Transport for London that they were not part of this new scheme to use daily testing rather than quarantine, whilst they had applied to be a part of it they had not been accepted, we had the government's minister for vaccines repeating the lie that they were. How often do the government need to lie before folk will understand they are lying?

You know I used to wonder how it was so many of the people of Germany fell for the lies and propaganda of the Nazis in pre-war Germany, I think now I've a far better idea as the people of England are doing the same as they let Johnson's government do much the same to them.

The Scottish government in Edinburgh is not that much better in that they are now facing an official police investigation into the missing funds that were donated to be spent directly on our fighting the next campaign for the regaining of our independence and Sturgeon takes the people of Scotland for complete mugs with the SNP now claiming every penny they spend as a party is towards independence as that is the whole purpose of the SNP's existence. The donated monies for independence campaigning was allegedly ring fenced but is currently missing, least Sturgeon is neither willing or more probable able to show where the money is.

My prediction relating to the SNP issue is that Sturgeon will run before the Police come knocking on her door as they look to question her husband. Once upon a time we had in Scotland a chance to regain our independence Sturgeon is seeing to it that that will NEVER happen whilst she is leading the SNP, not a cats chance in hell of that, Sturgeon's been bought and well paid for hence Westminster's relaxation of their fears of the UK's break up. Such a break up will not happen so long as Sturgeon remains FM of Scotland, she's taken the Kings shilling and with it any hope of independence for Scotland. So it is not just the politicians in Westminster I'm distrustful/wary of, I include the leader of a political party I once once a member of.

[Sunny Clouds]

If this were true there would need to be more than one person involved. There's a team doing PCR tests on government minister's, the person who processed the test and found it to be negative would know the the minister is saying it's positive so they'd be in on it. As would in all likelihood, Boris.

I see what you mean.  I had thought that the suggestion was that he'd faked it, e.g. by using someone else's sample, but with hindsight it would be difficult to swap samples without being caught.  I'd mentally conceptualised it as being like using my local testing centre where it would be easy to grab some used swabs and use them to cross-contaminate one's own, but he wouldn't be going to an ordinary test centre, would he?


That being so, if I were in the position of wanting to fake a test, I don't think I'd want to trust the chain of communication with lab staff, which could involve a lot of intermediaries, so I'd probably just want to get someone positive I knew to provide me with a sample, but that's still more than just him.

Mind you, when it comes to lying, I'd be more inclined overall to expect him to lie and say he hasn't got it when he has, not vice-versa.  Gosh, what sort of world do we live in where my issue isn't with whether someone in his position would lie about such things, but simply which lies he would or wouldn't tell, and which people he would or wouldn't involve in his lies?  Aargh.

[Sunny Clouds]

The other day after it had been made clear by Transport for London that they were not part of this new scheme to use daily testing rather than quarantine, whilst they had applied to be a part of it they had not been accepted, we had the government's minister for vaccines repeating the lie that they were. How often do the government need to lie before folk will understand they are lying?

How often?  A lot of times if they are seen as generally muddle-headed and incompetent.


If a minister can't be trusted to do his homework, as it were, then lying can easily be written off as not bothering to get his facts right.

That being said, I don't see much of a moral difference.  Actively lying to the public isn't, to my way of thinking, much different from not bothering to ensure you're giving correct information, particularly where it's a matter of life or death.

The other thing is that in my opinion, the way our government has delivered information during the pandemic has been dreadful.

No, I don't watch the daily briefings.  I tried, but I found them waffly and indigestible.

The 'official' versions are apparently on the BBC website but I have yet to find on there any clear summary or even transcript.  If you rummage around hard enough on the .gov website you can find the small print but that's a pain. 

For me personally, the clearest summaries have been on Reach, whose journalists or probably interns are getting their clickbait by the oft-used approach of taking information from elsewhere and producing a readable summary.  Usually that's in the form of summarising news stories from elsewhere or extracting the (supposedly) interesting quotes from an online discussion.  ("An argument broke out on Mumsnet/Twitter/somewhere or other today.  One poster said...whilst another responded that...")

But if I have to rummage around to find a digestible, clear version of what the government's saying, then how many people just don't grasp what garbled twaddle is being spewn forth?

I used to think in terms of having political leaders that don't even understand the difference between continuous and continuous, and can't see that 'three times a day' and 'continuous' are directly contradictory, but now think they want the message to be confusing so they can blame the public for whatever they find convenient to blame them for.

I wonder whether our government would ever be good at putting out clear lies?  Some ministers would use that technique instead of the Boris muddled vague approach.

[JLR2]

Just a quick wee note to say, if Johnson told those in either the media or No10 he had tested positive for Covid19 who would challenge him to show who tested him, where he was tested and to show proof of his claims to have been tested?  Substitute a hospital bedroom/ward for a company's freezer and you have Johnson where he wanted to be, in hiding.

[Sunny Clouds]

I can't disagree with that.

Mind you, this morning I mapped on something Fiz said about whether people involved in testing would be prepared to be involved in faking it... apparently in France, there are clinics offering fake vaccination cards.  So there are clinicians willing to be dodgy about the pandemic for money.

But it also maps onto what you're saying.  Would anyone actually check whether a test was actually done and if so, where?  If there's dishonesty, it could be anywhere along the chain.

What a minefield.

I still think the short answer for me is that I'll probably never feel certain as to whether Boris and his chums are telling the truth or not, I just know I can't trust them and that they'll say what suits them.

I know that politicians are probably never entirely honest.  I can't see how they can get into power and stay there if they are.  And if you're too nice and honourable, you'll probably get accused of all sorts of stuff you can't effectively defend yourself against unless you're prepared to be as nasty as your opponents.

[JLR2]

Sunny, listening/watching Laura K's interview with Cummings earlier tonight I was struck by two issues, one was that she was suggesting to Cummings that just because Johnson had become PM that he, Cummings, should be sort of in awe of a Prime Minister and more or less fall over himself to agree to whatever a PM said.

The other issue that stood out for me was far more serious. Cummings said in the early part of the interview that the reason he had taken his family to Durham because of security threats to him and his family at the home they lived in in London, he spoke of speaking with the PM about these threats and the need to get out of London and when the suggestion of moving to a safe home was made he, Cummings, said he felt it would be better to take his family to his father's farm in Durham and so that is what he did.

However the question surely needs to be asked, if his London home was in such danger of attack or he or his family were in real danger from these alleged threats he has alluded to, then why on earth would he return to the same home?   Was there a specific threat, perhaps one known to the Police and which had been neutralised through the arrest and imprisonment of the person or persons making such a threat?  If not then the same threats would still be ongoing and his claim to have fled London due to concerns about any such threats absolutely meaningless.

[Sunny Clouds]

Your arguments make sense to me.

For me, the big flaw in Cummings' various explanations of the Durham trip is that there were witnesses that saw him walking somewhere that was inconsistent with any explanation he gave in the past and would also be inconsistent with this latest explanation.

If he had a valid reason to go to Durham, whatever that reason may have been, that would not excuse his travelling around when he got there and going for a walk out and about.

[JLR2]

Sunny, Cummings claimed during the interview that Johnson had asked him to return to Westminster as soon as possible if he could and then went on to explain his trip to the castle area, testing his fitness to drive, but following this he did return to his home in London before heading back to Downing Street as requested by Johnson (according to Cummings story)  but this still leaves the question about the original reasons regarding an alleged threat of harm to him or his family being proffered now in explanation for his breaking of lockdown on very shaky dubious ground.

Were I a journalist at either the BBC or Sky I'd be looking to ask Cummings live on air about these alleged threats that simply vanished a few weeks after he had in some respects it could be argued fled London in fear of his life. Can it be Cummings is asking us to believe that following his return to London there were no more threats to his wellbeing?   Is he trying to suggest he was a much loved resident living without concern or fear at his London home, the one he had fled from even though both he and his wife were suffering from the Covid19 virus?  Pull the other on Dom, it's got bells on it.