The Stalin Society – publications

Stalin and the people of the Soviet Union

Stalin and the people of the Soviet Union

More on the USSR

The Great ‘Marxist-Leninist’ Theoreticians

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

The Stalin Society – publications

The Stalin Society was formed in 1991 and for many years had regular meetings which often involved a formal presentation related to the life and work of JV Stalin but also topics about the history, social and economic aspects of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Some of those presentations, which were published in a printed format, are reproduced below.

It is not clear what the current situation is with the Society. There does not seem to have be any activity, either on the website or with public meetings, for more than two years now.

The pamphlets are listed in order of when they were presented to the Society.

The truth about the so-called ‘Hitler-Stalin Pact’ of 1939, translated from Roter Morgen, No 9, September 1989, Roter Morgen is the organ of the KPD (Communist Party of Germany). Published by the Stalin Society, 5 pages.

The German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact of 1939, Bill Bland, presented in London in February 1990, 14 pages.

The Spanish Civil War, Ella Rule, London, March 1991, 44 pages.

Lenin and Stalin on Opportunism, C and K Majid, London, January 1993, 15 pages.

Nikita Khrushchev – his role in the anti-Stalin campaign, Cathie Majid, London, June 1993, 18 pages.

The origin and development of Revisionism in the CPGB, Part 1, London, September 1993, 23 pages.

The enlightenment’s roots in Socialist Realist Theory and aspects of Revisionism in the late twentieth century, Helena Stevens, London, November 1993, 24 pages.

Let us salute the Soviet workers, translated from the Iraqi Review ‘Al-Marxi’, No. 30, November 1993, distributed by the Stalin Society, London, 8 pages.

The origin and development of Revisionism in the CPGB, Part 2, London, February 1994, 24 pages.

The truth about Stalin, Wilf Dixon, a talk given to the Secular Society in Leicester, October 1994, 12 pages.

Albania and China, Kamal Majid, London, April 1995, 35 pages.

The importance of forming a Party, Kamal Majid, London, July 1995, 26 pages.

The role of the revolutionary newspaper in the struggle today, John Green, London, July 1995, 10 pages.

Education in the Soviet Union, Ella Rule, London, June 1996, 8 pages.

George Orwell – anti-Communist, champion of Trotskyism and State informer, Joti Brar, London, February 1998, 16 pages.

Women in the USSR, Ella Rule, London, March 1998, 16 pages.

Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union, Mario Sousa, translated and presented by Ella Rule, London, March 1999, 31 pages.

Marxism-Leninism and the arts, Bill Bland, London, September 1999, 14 pages.

Health in the USSR, Carlos Rule, London, February 2000, 15 pages.

Marxism and law, the struggle over jurisprudence in the Soviet Union, Bill Bland, London, March 2000, 22 pages.

Bourgeois democracy and Fascism, ‘Social democracy objectively represents the moderate wing of Fascism’. JV Stalin, ‘Concerning the International Situation’, September 1924, Harpal Brar, London, May 2000, 37 pages.

The Soviet novel, Ella Rule, London, July 2000, 26 pages.

The role of the individual in history, Ivor Kenna, London, October 2000, 11 pages.

The fight against bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, Carlos Rule, London, September 2001, 48 pages.

Imperialism’s interest in Afghanistan, Ella Rule, London, October 2001, 19 pages.

The Ukrainian famine-genocide myth, John Puntis, London, June 2002, 27 pages.

The Katyn Massacre, Ella Rule, London, July 2002, 25 pages.

A brief history of the Working-class Internationals, Ella Rule, London, October 2002, 37 pages.

A personal account of experiences in the German Panzers at the Battle of Stalingrad, Henry Metelmann, 60 years after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad – the turning point in the war against Nazi fascism, London, February 2003, 20 pages.

The purges of the CPSU in the 1930s, edited by Ella Rule from ‘The class struggle during the thirties in the Soviet Union’, 2005, 20 pages.

Robert Conquest dies – but his lies live on! Grover Furr, August 2015, reproduced by the Stalin Society, 4 pages.

Housing in the USSR, Katt Cremer, London, October 2016, 10 pages.

More on the USSR

The Great ‘Marxist-Leninist’ Theoreticians

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

How anti-Russian sanctions will feed the pandemic

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

How anti-Russian sanctions will feed the pandemic

Once the deaths from covid-19 started to drop (at least) in the UK deaths started to rise following the Special Military Operation carried out by Russia in the Ukraine. The story of the last six months and a bit can be followed on the Ukraine – what you’re not being told page, suffice it to say that the Buffoon was probably glad to have another event taking place worldwide which would take the spotlight off his government’s handling of the pandemic.

But war on the other side of Europe didn’t mean that the pandemic had come to an end. Even though all the indicators in Britain (and the other ‘rich’ countries of the world) were that the pandemic wasn’t as virulent as it had been the disease was still doing it’s worse in those parts of the world where the people suffer from the policies followed in the ‘global north’ on a daily basis.

Not surprisingly the vaccines promised to poorer countries (in their millions) never materialised and once the spotlight of international attention went elsewhere the rich countries started to pull back on their promises and started to vaccinate their own populations, including very young children and also started pumping more of the stuff into the arms of the vulnerable. The recognised fact that by not dealing with a pandemic on a world wide scale the risk of more virulent variants arising – even though a recognised and accepted fact by many – and coming to bite the rich in the arse was forgotten/ignored and those politicians (and countries) just crossed their fingers and hoped it wouldn’t happen. Not having a proper strategy, even after more than two and a half years into the pandemic, that was all they could do.

Instead of spending money on vaccinating the whole of the world’s population (many parts of the which only the likes of 10% of the population have even had just one shot of any of the vaccines) the ‘civilised and sophisticated’ ‘west’ decided to pour billions into the pockets of weapons manufacturers and in so doing were able to perpetuate the war in eastern Europe. More than six months into the conflict none of the western leaders has yet to utter any words about finding a peaceful way out of the conflict and are more concerned on punishing (with the hope of destroying) Russia – both its president and its people.

That aim has not gone too well and, in fact, many of their actions have rebounded in a spectacular manner. Sanctions which were supposed to bring Russia to its knees are having a more deleterious effect on those imposing them, especially when it comes to energy and food.

And this will have a potentially dramatic effect if the pandemic comes back with a vengeance in the next few months.

It didn’t take too long for the statistics to show that the covid-19 virus was having a disproportionate effect on the poorest in the community. (This should never be a surprise. ALL diseases find a welcome host amongst the poor, be it in Britain or any other country in the world. When the rich get affected it’s the exception that proves the rule.)

What is already being predicted is that a sizeable proportion of the population will have a stark choice of either eating or heating. Lacking either of those necessities will have an adverse effect on peoples’ health. They will also be more than likely to share a smaller space – so close contact will become the norm, with there being few opportunities to ‘socially distance’. And no one will be keeping windows open to allow a free circulation of air. Added to that there will be no money available to help people survive the economic crisis as there was in 2020 and 2021 – all the ‘available’ money is going to buy killing machines for eastern Europe.

The same incompetents who were unable to come up with a strategy to deal with the pandemic are the same ones who are following an anti-Russian agenda for political reasons and have no concern of the consequences upon their own populations.

Ending the war should be a priority for many reasons, the threat of a runaway pandemic in the winter being only one of them. Wrapping themselves in the flag of Ukraine will not really keep people warm and healthy.

Where did the pandemic start?

The covid lab leak theory is dead. Here’s how we know the virus came from a Wuhan market.

Covid deaths

Number of UK covid deaths passes 200,000, ONS data shows. Figures show deaths per capita are above European average, at 2,689 per million people.

Vaccines

How the new ‘bivalent’ booster will target omicron

Covid vaccines are linked to heavier periods for many

Vaccine policy worldwide

Yet more medically bogus covid vaccine profiteering: requiring ‘primary’ covid shots to get Omicron ‘booster.

Variants

New covid variants could emerge from animals or from people with chronic infections – but it’s not cause for panic.

The tide of the covid pandemic is going out – but that doesn’t mean big waves still can’t catch us.

Past covid ‘strategies’

Did Sweden’s controversial covid strategy pay off? In many ways it did – but it let the elderly down

Possible infection

Masks and free tests may not curb omicron spread – here’s what we should focus on instead

Measuring infection rates

Wastewater surveillance has become a critical covid tracking tool but funding is inconsistent. [This is in the US but the issue will, almost certainly, be the same in the UK.]

The pandemic in the world

Enduring colonialism has made it harder to end the covid-19 pandemic.

Mask wearing

Face masks affect how children understand speech differently from adults

Global vaccine passport regime

OECD members just met in Ibiza to discuss creating a global vaccine passport regime. On the same day as the OECD meeting, the governments of 21 African countries quietly embraced a vaccine passport system, which will apparently link up with other global systems.

The state of the NHS

NHS vacancies in England at ‘staggering’ new high as almost 10% of posts empty. Quarterly figures show 132,139 roles were vacant at end of June, including more than 46,000 nurse posts .

Long Covid

Long covid: why it’s so hard to tell how many people get it.

Long covid and the labour market, published by the Institute for Fiscal Studiesbriefing note and/or full report.

Hair loss and lower libido among long covid symptoms.

Risk of diabetes and heart disease is higher after infection – but maybe only temporarily.

With no treatment options, it’s little wonder people are seeking unproven therapies like ‘blood washing’.

Covid ‘heroes’

UK’s covid heroes among hardest hit by cost of living crisis

Covid and mental health

We studied how covid affects mental health and brain disorders up to two years after infection – here’s what we found

Poverty in Britain

Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2022, a study carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studieskey findings and/or full report.

Education Inequalities – a chapter from the Deaton Review, published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, executive summary and/or full chapter.

Going without – deepening poverty in the UK, published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, full briefing.

Financial Impact Tracker, July 2022, published by abrdn Financial Fairness Trust together with the University of Bristol found that nearly 60% increase in UK households are in serious financial difficulties, summary and/or full report.

Arrears Fears, a report published by the Resolution Foundation, in partnership with the abrdn Financial Fairness Trust, found that the UK’s wealth gaps has grown to over £1.2 million, summary and/or full report.

The CentrePoint Report – Young, homeless and hungry; the impact of food insecurity on vulnerable young people, published in July 2022, found that almost half of 16-25 year olds are going to bed hungry – summary and comments and/or full report.

A report by the CentrePoint homeless charity (Food or heat; the impossible decision for homeless young people following the £20 Universal Credit cut) found that the government’s cut in the £20 additional amount to Universal Credit during the height of the pandemic disproportionately affected the under 25s.

Energy crisis: UK households worst hit in western Europe, finds IMF.

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

Getting closer to it – but still no real strategy in the UK covid-19 pandemic

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

Getting closer to it – but still no real strategy in the UK covid-19 pandemic

A review of what has been said in the last few days about the coronavirus pandemic in the UK.

Testing

When testing should have take place

In March the World Health Organisation (WHO) was saying ‘test, test, test’. But on 12th March the UK stopped testing in the community and focussed the limited testing capacity on hospital patients.

Boris Johnson’s government failed to impose mass coronavirus testing after being told that COVID-19 was only a ‘moderate’ risk to the UK (1st April).

Senior advisers admit lack of investment in mass testing ‘may have been a mistake’ as they believed influenza was a bigger threat (2nd April).

At the House of Commons Health Select Committee meeting on 5th May, Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government, said he ‘would have liked testing ramped-up sooner’. [Ramped-up is one of the a new words we have come to recognise.]

Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, at the same meeting, said the changes to the policy in early March was because of ‘ insufficient capacity’.

Mass testing earlier ‘would have been beneficial’ (5th May).

How often should care workers be tested?

Sam Monaghan, manager of a group of care homes, arguing for weekly tests on care home staff and resident, on 2nd May;

‘A member of the resident group was diagnosed with the virus and we know that the highest probability how that came into the home was through one of our members of staff. The difficulty is that none of the staff are showing any symptoms at all so it’s a bit like ‘Where’s Wally’ – but Wally’s taken his jumper off and so the manger’s looking across her staff group asking where has this thing come from?’

The numbers game and the current situation

Stephen Powis, NHS England National Director, 4th May;

‘Testing .. has ramped-up very quickly over the last week or so and we are now at a very high level of testing with over 100,00, a little bit of a dip at the weekend but we anticipate that that testing ability will continue to increase.’

On 6th May the Buffoon was saying the aim now was to get testing up to 200,000 per day by the end of May. But it’s probably as useful in defeating the virusas Hancock’s promise of 100,000 by the end of April – which, for some miraculous reason, has only been achieved on 30th April, numbers dropping into 70-80,000 since. But all the classic questions, Who, What, Where, When, Why, remain.

Who will be tested, just those who show symptoms or a wider, random, cross section of the population?

What will the tests be looking for, just if people are infected or as part of an overall strategy of tracking and tracing?

Where will the tests take place, taking the tests to the people or the people to the tests?

When will the testing be part of a strategy?

Why is nothing forward – not even the numbers. 200,000 by the end of May is too low and too long a period for such a minimal increase in testing in relation to the population in general?

A different type of testing

Professor John Newton, the Government’s testing co-ordinator, on 4th May;

‘There are at least two large commercial organisation who have good lab based tests we are currently evaluating. But also people are looking at ways of doing anti-body tests close to the person, the patient. There are a number of options there including a saliva test. And all of the options are looking quite promising and being evaluated.’

Where is testing going – and when?

Jeremy Hunt, Chair, House of Commons Health Select Committee, on Radio 4, World at One, 5th May

‘Everyone accepts that Germany and South Korea have really done a pretty good job. Korea didn’t report more than 9 deaths on any day during the whole course of the coronavirus crisis and are now saying that are getting no new domestic infections. I think the important thing for us is; have we learnt from what is happening in Korea and do we have the Korean strategy in place? I think what we heard this morning from Sir Patrick Vallance and Dr Harries is that that now really is our strategy and that’s the most important thing.’

[Best practice was known about weeks ago. Why, in Britain, is this still going to happen at some indeterminate time in the future?]

Q. To mimic South Korean strategy?

‘Yes, I mean they are are the ones who did this test, track and trace process, very tech centred, very innovative use of apps, backed up with contact tracing on the ground. And remember they had a worse challenge that we had, they’re closer to China, they had less notice than we had, they had a super-spreader who was part of a religious cult. So they had a real challenge to deal with but they did manage to contain the virus. This is what we are now planning to do starting with the Isle of Wight.’

[South Korea and China are amongst those countries that have embraced technology in a big way, much more than in Britain. Many people don’t have Smartphones, many of the Smartphones don’t have Bluetooth and in those countries where technology was used in this way it was followed by extensive testing on a one to one basis. No plans for that have been presented here in the UK.]

Q. Are we past the peak?

‘That’s what the government is saying and I’m sure that’s what their scientific advice is saying. And there’s a lot of gloom about the death figures and to have 11.500 more deaths than you would expect in one week in April is pretty depressing. But the very last question in the Select Committee Hearing to Sir Patrick Vallance, I thought, was, in a way, the most encouraging because I said to him that if we do the test, track and trace, if we observe the social distancing rules, on balance, do you think we can avoid a second wave, and that’s the thing all over the world people are worrying about, and he basically said, Yes. He was an optimist, he said he thought we could. So I think that they are confident we’re not just past the peak but if we implement all the policies that are now in train, we could avoid a second peak.’

Q. When do we get to the point of being able to ease the lock down? When can that system take over?

‘Well, I think we’re going to hear about that on Sunday. And we tried to shed some light on that today. What it appears is that the absolute rule is that the R, the reproductive – rate mustn’t go above 1. They still think we are between 0.6 and 0.9. But within that there’s a lot of variation. So Sir Patrick Vallance was saying that in the community the R rate is probably a lot lower, towards the lower end of the scale, but in hospitals and care homes it is still running higher. So that’s where the risk is that you can perhaps get community transmission down, because people are staying at home, but you have a re-introduction of the virus through an outbreak in care homes, for example. So that’s why I think it’s a very finely balanced judgement.’

Q. That’s where the app may become critical and as well as that human contract tracers will be important. As far as the app is concerned will you be downloading it?

‘Absolutely. I think all of us who have Smartphones should, when we’re asked to do so and I think it can play a very, very important role. But I don’t think they work for everyone. I think 40% of the population don’t have a Smartphone so there will need to be more traditional methods of contact tracing with them. But I do think it has a very important role to play.’

[The British Government recognises that technology will not solve all the problems but doesn’t have an infrastructure in place to deal with those shortcomings.]

Q. Have we been too slow? The SAGE documents were released this morning, under pressure, and the Government is becoming more transparent, except a lot of those documents have been redacted, some to the point of being useless. Were you surprised by the extent to which they had been redacted?

‘Well, there’s a tradition, obviously I was in the cabinet for nine years, and advice to ministers is kept confidential and that is very, very important because you need advice to be completely frank and people giving the advice need to be able to say exactly that they want to say without having an eye over the shoulder to what happens if the advice gets published. But there is something different when you have a crisis like a pandemic and the Governments says that at every stage ‘we are following the scientific advice’.

If they say ‘we’re following the scientific advice’ but they don’t publish the scientific advice then it’s very difficult for MP’s to hold them to account. That was one of the things I asked Sir Patrick Vallance about and I asked Matt Hancock to day in Health Questions, to whether he would consider publishing the SAGE advice that he’s receiving at the same time as he makes his decisions, so that we all have access to the scientific advice that the Government says it’s following.’

[But when will this ‘transparency’ show itself?]

Q. So it’s too slow and it’s too late?

‘Transparency is very important because that ‘s the way you keep the trust of the public. Also, it’s important because there is a lot of uncertainty in these recommendations because it’s a novel virus and I think it helps if the public understand that some recommendations are clear cut but other’s are finely balanced and it’s helpful for us to understand that as well.’

Experts and transparency

Some members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), are arguing for more transparency.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, formerly Director of the Welcome Trust and a member of SAGE, on 4th May;

‘Personally I would make the minutes transparently available after a certain time. I think transparency helps people to understand the uncertainty, the difficulty, the fact that actually science does have to change as the facts change. That is certainly sensible and logical. What we know today is very different to what we knew in February and March.’

Breaking the lock down

On news that Neil Ferguson, the senior advisor to the Government had broken the lock down by having his married lover coming around to his house – apart from the issue of breaking the lock down he obviously had no idea of the gutter press in this country who will be looking for any opportunity to undermine anyone if it helps to sell the paper – or get the name of the paper broadcast on other news media (it’s all about advertising).

Jo Hemmings, Behavioural Psychologist, 6th May;

‘What people are now doing, perfectly understandably, is creating their own version of what they believe to be acceptable. You also have people that were behaving in a pretty sensible way for a while, say when we weren’t going out having obvious public group gatherings. Now the situation is so muddled about what is going on a lot of people have been doing for the last few weeks, and will continue to do is ‘the it’s just me thing’.’

Danger of a second wave

On the chances of a ‘second wave’, Robert West, Health Psychologist at University College London, on 3rd May;

‘With the figure that we have at the moment it looks like, probably, around somewhere between 5% and 10% of the population have been infected. That leaves between 90% and 95% who have still not been infected. So the death rate we’ve got at the moment is with that 5% figure, so we have to be very, very cautious and very careful about how we view the lock down.’

Maria Van Kerkhove, World Health Organisation (WHO), on a second wave, on 4th May;

‘What we’re seeing in countries like Singapore is almost like a second wave. Essentially what it is actually outbreaks that are happening in shared dormitories. So the virus has found a place where it can take hold and can resurge again. So all countries must remain on alert for the possibility of additional transmissions.’

The app that will solve all our problems – or not?

There are a number of issues with the Smartphone app – produced by NHSX (together with an unspecified private company) – that will be tested on the Isle of Wight from 5th May;

the test itself,

  • the Isle of Wight has fewer Smartphones than is the avaerage in the UK (older population)
  • there has been a low incidence of infection to date
  • the island is still on lock down so people won’t be going out of their homes much
  • how effective will the test be?
  • even if the results are ‘positive’ the app won’t be used throughout the UK until towards the end of March

the aspects of the app,

  • still not sure if it will work if the app is not showing on the screen
  • there’s the possibility of the app running the battery down
  • still many people have questions and doubts of the reassurances about privacy

This is on top of the issues discussed in a previous post.

Dame Wendy Hall, Southampton University, Government advisor on technology, on 3rd May;

‘It won’t be storing huge amounts of data about us in central servers, that’s not the case. Almost all of it stays on the phone, it’s all encrypted and what they store is anonymous. There’s no absolute right answer to this but I’m pretty convinced the way the UK is going, for the moment, is the right thing to do.’

Professor Susan Michie, Director of the Centre of Behavioural Change at the University College London who is also on the government’s Behavioural Science Committee for Covid-19, on 5th May;

‘I’m slightly concerned that there hasn’t been enough consultation with the public and a lot of concerns have been raised by the public about the governance of it, the security and privacy of it, the private company that’s owning it and so whether or not the public will take the app in the number that’s needed is a question mark. I do hope the Government quickly gets the trust that’s absolutely needed.’

Robert Hannigan, former National Security Advisor and Director at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the Radio 4 World at One, 5th May;

‘It’s very good that they have said so much about it, there has been a great deal of technical policy detail published by NHSX [the NHS digital section] in the last week about how they’re doing this and I think that’s a very sensible approach and it’s reassuring to anyone who’s concerned about the technical aspects and the privacy aspects. I think they’re doing really well. This is attempting something which has never really been tried before, to use the Bluetooth technology, on this scale right across the country. It’s unprecedented so fair play to them for moving at such speed and trying to get it up and running. I’m sure there will be lots of things that go wrong and they will be putting right but that’s always true with new technology.’

Q. Is it the right decision to go down their own centralised route and not the Apple/Google decentralised route is correct?

‘It’s a balance but I think the downside of the Apple/Google localised route is that it leaves Public Health England and the NHS with no information about the overall spread of the virus and where it is spreading and all things they need to make really important decisions about public health and about how we may be released from the lock down, which is, after all, the major point in this.

The privacy aspect, I don’t think there’s a huge difference. I think given the steps that the NHS have taken to protect privacy and the involvement of the Information Commissioner in all of this it’s sufficiently anonymous not to be a threat to individuals. All the app records is the first part of a postcode and the make of the phone and, of course, this is co-operating with Apple and Google in a sense that it’s using those two operating systems, albeit not with the model they preferred. But having said all that, of course, there will be a good debate about privacy. My own feeling is that this should be time limited, so at the end of the pandemic we need to pause this experiment and have a proper public debate and parliamentary debate about the use of these apps in the future.’

Q. Are you reassured on the security of the data?

‘Yes, obviously the question of a centralise model, for which we are going down, is that the data has to be kept in one place and then it’s a question of who has access to it and for what reason. They have been very clear that it will only be public health authorities or public health reasons, that it will not be linked to other data about people in their health system. There is a question about how this data is kept and when it is destroyed. It will be useful to academics in the future to tackle future pandemics so we shouldn’t suddenly chuck it out, but equally I think we should bring this experiment to a clear close at the end of the pandemic and review it and have a proper debate about it. The key is that it should not be made available to the private sector, to companies to advertise and everybody agrees that this must be severely limited to public health experts and local authorities.’

Q. Do you think that in the way it has been set up it will be impossible for external users to get to this date?

‘Yes I do because I’ve read a lot of detail about how they’re been doing it in the last few days. You can always construct some edge case for how somebody could subvert this and that’s true of any system you build but frankly the conspiracy theories that I’ve seen put out there are pretty far fetched and would require so much effort and would be almost impossible to scale up.’

Q. You will be very happily downloading it?

‘I will and I think it’s important that it shouldn’t be compulsory to downloaded but it is going to help all of us stop the spread of this virus which is affecting all of our families and help all of us to get out of the lock down. So it’s in our interests to download this. It will not keep any personal data about you and I’m satisfied that the very limited data it does have will be properly protected.’

Q. You say is shouldn’t be compulsory but you sound if it’s everyone’s duty to download this app?

‘It’s in everyone’s interest and so far everybody I know, who I meet, wants to stop the spread of this virus, wants to protect the NHS and wants to get out of lock down as quickly as possible and are really desperate for that. And this is a really helpful way of doing it. It isn’t a major solution, it’s only part of a system that really depends on testing and proper tracing. It won’t be perfect, there will be problems, there will be false positives but it’s definitely worth a try.’

If someone who is (or was) a part of the British intelligence ‘community’ likes the idea then that alone is reason to be suspicious. And why is there a former (and not a present) Director giving this interview. That’s a way for the State to distance itself from any comeback.

Contact tracing and the lock down

David Nabarro, World Health Organisation (WHO) Special Envoy for Covid-19, on getting contact tracing up and running, 1st May;

‘This is something that every government is having to make a choice and I understand that the contact tracing process is now well advanced. You don’t need to have 100% tracing in order to get the R number down. You certainly can release the lock down while you’re building up the case finding and contact tracing capacity. That’s what most other countries are doing. They don’t wait until things are absolutely ready.’

Professor Susan Michie, Director of the Centere of Behavioural Change at the University College London who is also on the government’s Behavioural Science Committee for Covid-19, on 3rd May;

‘The Government message has become a lot more complicated, partly because this will need to be a different message for different people. Some people will be asked to go back to work when they are not happy doing that, concerned that there won’t be enough social distancing, giving risks of bringing back infections to the household whilst others, who are wanting to get out of their houses, won’t be able to.’

Chances of dying from the covid-19

David Spiegelhalter, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University, on Radio 4, the Today Programme, 1st May;

‘If you’ve got the virus your chance of dying is roughly about the same as you would have had this year anyway. And if you’re worried about dying this year you shouldn’t be so worried at getting the virus. But I think we do need to have some sort of campaign to encourage people who are at very low risk to actually get out and start living again, when we’re able to.’

Ending the lock down

Robert West, Professor of Health Psychology, University College London, on how we should get to the easing of the lock down on Radio 4, World at One, 1st May;

‘It’s going to be a very odd moment and people will react to it very differently. Some people will say, ‘well actually I don’t really want to because I feel frightened and others will be champing at the bit and perhaps take it too far. I think it’s really important to say that it won’t be juts an all or nothing, it will be a very graded thing and this is going to present some quite significant challenges, in the sense of how you communicate that.’

Q. What sort of challenges does the nuance present?

‘It’s hard enough to get the message across when you are saying thinks that are black and white like ‘Stay at home, protect the NHS, Save lives’. Even there you get exceptions with people saying, ‘well, actually, I realise one should do that but in my case it differs’. When you make a more nuanced message which is that you can go out more, there are certain things you can now do that you weren’t able to to do before you can imagine the problems that you’ve got with people interpreting that is all sorts of different ways. Ad that means that the politicians who are giving the messages are going to have to chose their wording very carefully because a single throwaway remark could be misinterpreted and cause all sorts of critical problems.’

Q. How do you solve that because you have to come down on one side or the other?

‘Yes, the way you handle it is that you, whatever message you put across, you make it very clear who it applies to, what the situations are and give specifics about the situations you are referring to and, as always, you give very clear reasons as to why that is the case and a very important part of that is that if you’ve got an easing of the lock down which applies to some group in society more than it does to others you can imagine that it’s going to start to create problems with a resentment in some cases and people saying, ‘well, why should they be allowed to do this and I can’t’.

Q. The Government says even talking about that is dangerous, do they have a point?

‘They have no choice. They have to talk about it because what people can very clearly see is movement in other countries and that when this Government is already saying, ‘well, we have turned the corner on this one’, they can’t just pretend that it’s business as usual. So they have no choice. They have to talk about it. So then we come to how do you talk about it. The key thing is to help people to realise that this is a very risky time, tight now. This is probably as risky as it has been on any part of this crisis. If we get this wrong then we will be back where we started, possibly even worse. So people have to know that whatever the easing of restrictions, they don’t go beyond it.’

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?