J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

Posted on by
Reply
Ivan the Terrible - in the film

Ivan the Terrible – in the film

More on the USSR – including other writings of JV Stalin

J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

Introduction

So far on this blog, when it comes to Socialist Realism, the emphasis has been on how it manifested itself in the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania. This has through an analysis of the distinctive (and often very impressive) Albanian lapidars but there have also been articles addressing paintings, art in general as well as looking at architectural representations such as mosaics and bas relief on and in buildings.

There have also been posts about how Socialist Realism was seen in the People’s Republic of China during its socialist period (which tragically ended very soon after the death of Chairman Mao in 1976).

A beginning (small at the moment) has also been made on the country which was the first to develop the Socialist Realist theory and practice, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). So far this has been quite limited to a start on a look at the magnificent decorations of the metro stations – in reality the biggest art galleries in the world (especially in Moscow and Leningrad).

An equally small contribution has also been started in the public art of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

All these projects related to the above countries are ongoing.

However, so far, there has been little presented on the most important technological development in the field of arts of the 20th century – cinema.

VI Lenin, the first leader of the first Socialist State, realised from the very beginning the importance of literature and art in the development of the dictatorship of the proletariat, without which a workers state wouldn’t be able to exist. He also understood the importance of the moving image in this task.

As did JV Stalin and the article below shows that he took a very active interest in how the Soviet Cinema industry was developing – what messages and values it was trying to transmit in the socialist education of the Soviet working class and peasants.

Anti-Communists constantly distort events to twist them to fit into their anti-working class agenda. Not surprising as capitalism and imperialism will do and say anything which they think will strengthen their hold on the majority of the people of the world and to undermine anyone who seeks to challenge their political and economic control.

Many people might have heard/read about Stalin’s intervention regarding Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1934. This criticism was accepted by the composer – and even today the work isn’t considered to be one of Shostakovich’s best. What probably isn’t widely known is that Stalin’s criticism came from a very deep understanding of Russian folk culture and he considered it important for Soviet artists (in all fields) to create artistic works to which the majority of the Soviet population could relate.

His intervention with Eisenstein about the two films of Ivan the Terrible primarily concerned historical accuracy – to which Eisenstein was playing fast and loose. In a socialist society artists have obligations to the people which do not exist in a capitalist society. After all, Eisenstein’s ability to have the luxury of following his artistic ideas was paid for by the working people. Stalin in this interview was reminding the film maker (and by implication all other artists) about his obligations.

Ivan the Terrible - sketch by Eisenstein

Ivan the Terrible – sketch by Eisenstein

Introduction by Revolutionary Democracy

One of the consequence of the anti-Stalin campaign initiated by the CPSU in 1953 has been that a number of facets of Stalin’s interventions on cultural questions are virtually unknown in the Communist movement. It is a telling commentary on this state of affairs that Paresh Dhar in his review of Asok Chattopadhyaya’s book Martiya Chirayat Bhabana – Silpa Sahitya Prasanga (in Bengali) can write that ‘what is most striking is that by a special research work, Asok has unveiled Stalin’s numerous involvements with art and literature of which we never heard before’, (Frontier, May 24th, 1997).

This discussion took place between Stalin, Zhdanov and Molotov from the political leadership of the CPSU(b), and S.M. Eisenstein and N. Cherkasov at the end of February, 1947. It was an integral part of the attempt by the Bolshevik party in the post-war period to raise the artistic level of Soviet culture and to eliminate weaknesses in ideological and political content.(1) Prior to the discussion the Central Committee of the CPSU(B) had, on September 4th, 1946 taken a decision on the film Glowing Life. Parts of the decision which bear on Ivan the Terrible are cited here:

‘The fact of the matter is that many of our leading cinema workers – producers, directors and screen writers – are taking a light-hearted and irresponsible attitude to their duties and are not working conscientiously on the films they produce. The chief defect in their work is failure to study subject matter… Producer Eisenstein betrayed ignorance of historical facts in the second series of Ivan Grozny, depicting Ivan Grozny’s progressive army, the oprichniki, as a gang of degenerates reminiscent of the American Ku Klux Klan. Ivan Grozny, a man of strong will and character, is shown as a spineless weakling, as a Hamlet type… ‘

‘One of the fundamental reasons for the production of worthless films is the lack of knowledge of subject matter and the light-hearted attitude of screen writers and producers to their work.’

‘The Central Committee finds that the Ministry of Cinematography, and primarily its head, Comrade Bolshakov, exercises inadequate supervision over film studios, producers and screen writers, is doing too little to improve the quality of films and is spending large sums of money to no useful purpose. Leading officials of the Ministry of Cinematography take an irresponsible attitude to the work entrusted to them and are indifferent to the ideological and political content and artistic merits of the films being produced.’

‘The Central Committee is of the opinion that the work of the Ministry’s Art Council is incorrectly organized. The council does not ensure impartial and business-like criticism of films for production. It often takes an apolitical attitude in its judgement of film and pays little attention to their idea-content. Many of its members display lack of principle in their assessment of films, their judgement being based on personal, friendly relations with the producers. The absence of criticism in the cinema and the prevalent narrow-circle atmosphere are among the chief reasons for the production of poor films.’

‘Art workers must realise that those who continue to take an irresponsible, light-hearted attitude to their work, may well find themselves superfluous and outside the ranks of progressive Soviet art, for the cultural requirements and demands of the Soviet theatregoer have developed and the Party and Government will continue to cultivate among the people good taste and encourage exacting demands on works of art.’ (Decisions of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U.(B) On Literature and Art (1946-1948), Moscow, 1951, pp. 26-28.)

1. An earlier criticism of the films of Eisenstein (Strike, The Battleship Potemkin, October, and The General Line) was published in 1931: I. Anissimov, ‘The Films of Eisenstein’. This has been reprinted in Bulletin International, 64-67, April-July 1983, pp. 74-91. (In French).

J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

We were summoned to the Kremlin at about 11 o’clock [In the evening – Ed.]. At 10.50 we reached the reception. Exactly at 11 o’clock Poskrebyshev came out to escort us to the cabinet.

At the back of the room were Stalin, Molotov and Zhdanov.

We entered, exchanged greetings and sat around the table.

Stalin. You wrote a letter. The answer got delayed a little. We are meeting late. I first thought of giving a written answer but then I decided that talking will be better. As I am very busy and have no time I decided to meet you here after a long interval. I received your letter in November.

Zhdanov. You received it while still in Sochi.

Stalin. Yes, yes. In Sochi. What have you decided to do with the film?

Eisenstein. We are saying that we have divided the second part of the film into two sections, because of which the Livonsky March has not been included. As a result there is a disproportion between the different parts of the film. So it is necessary to correct the film by editing the existing material and to shoot mainly the Livonsky March.

Stalin. Have you studied History?

Eisenstein. More or less.

Stalin. More or less? I am also a little familiar with history. You have shown the oprichnina incorrectly. The oprichnina was the army of the king. It was different from the feudal army which could remove its banner and leave the battleground at any moment – the regular army, the progressive army was formed. You have shown this oprichnina to be like the Ku-Klux-Klan.

Eisenstein said that they wear white cowls but we have black ones.

Molotov. This does not make a major difference.

Stalin. Your tsar has come out as being indecisive, he resembles Hamlet. Everybody prompts him as to what is to be done, and he himself does not take any decision… Tsar Ivan was a great and a wise ruler, and if he is compared with Ludwig XI (you have read about Ludwig XI who prepared absolutism for Ludwig XIV), then Ivan the Terrible is in the tenth heaven. The wisdom of Ivan the Terrible is reflected by the following: he looked at things from the national point of view and did not allow foreigners into his country, he barricaded the country from the entry of foreign influence. By showing Ivan the Terrible in this manner you have committed a deviation and a mistake. Peter 1st was also a great ruler, but he was extremely liberal towards foreigners, he opened the gate wide to them and allowed foreign influence into the country and permitted the Germanisation of Russia. Catherine allowed it even more. And further. Was the court of Alexander I really a Russian court? Was the Court of Nicolaus I a Russian court? No, they were German courts.

The most outstanding contribution of Ivan the Terrible was that he was the first to introduce the government monopoly of external trade. Ivan the Terrible was the first and Lenin was the second.

Zhdanov. The Ivan the Terrible of Eisenstein came out as a neurotic.

Molotov. In general, emphasis was given to psychologism, excessive stress was laid on internal psychological contradictions and personal emotions.

Stalin. It is necessary to show the historical figure in correct style. For example it was not correct that in the first series Ivan the Terrible kissed his wife so long. At that period it was not permitted.

Zhdanov. The film is made in the Byzantine style but there also it was not done.

Molotov. The second series is very restricted in domes and vaults, there is no fresh air, no wider Moscow, it does not show the people. One may show conversations, repressions but not this.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was extremely cruel. It is possible to show why he had to be cruel.

One of the mistakes of Ivan the Terrible was that he did not completely finish off the five big feudal families. If he had destroyed these five families then there would not have been the Time of Troubles. If Ivan the Terrible executed someone then he repented and prayed for a long time. God disturbed him on these matters… It was necessary to be decisive.

Molotov. It is necessary to show historical incidents in a comprehensive way. For example the incident with the drama of Demyan Bedny Bogatyp. Demyan Bedny mocked the baptism of Russia, but in reality acceptance of Christianity was a progressive event for its historical development.

Stalin. Of course, we are not good Christians but to deny the progressive role of Christianity at that particular stage is impossible. This incident had a very great importance because this turned the Russian state to contacts with the West, and not to an orientation towards the East.

About relations with the East, Stalin said that after the recent liberation from the Tatar yoke, Ivan the Terrible united Russia in a hurried way so as to have a stronghold to face a fresh Tatar attack. Astrakhan was already conquered and they could have attacked Moscow at any moment, The Crimean Tatars also could have done this.

Stalin. Demyan Bedny did not have the correct historical perspective. When we shifted the statue of Minin and Podzharsky closer to the church of Vasily Blazhenova then Demyan Bedny protested and wrote that the statue must be thrown away and that Minin and Podzharsky must be forgotten. In answer to this letter, I called him ‘Ivan, do not forget your own family’. We cannot throw away history…’

Next Stalin made a series of remarks regarding the interpretation of Ivan the Terrible and said that Malyuta Skuratov was a great army general and died a hero’s death in the war with Livonia.

Cherkasov in reply said that criticism always helped and that after criticism Pudovkin made a good film Admiral Nakhimov. ‘We are sure that we will not do worse. I am working on the character of Ivan the Terrible not only the film, but also in the theatre. I fell in love with this character and think that our alteration of the scenes will be correct and truthful’.

In response to this Stalin replied (addressing Molotov and Zhdanov) – ‘Let’s try?’

Cherkasov I am sure that the alteration will be successful.

Stalin. May god help you, – every day a new year. (Laughs.)

Eisenstein. We are saying that in the first part a number of moments were successful and this gives us the confidence for making the second series.

Stalin. We are not talking about what you have achieved, but now we are talking about the shortcomings.

Eisenstein asked whether there were some more instructions regarding the film.

Stalin. I am not giving you instructions but expressing the viewer’s opinion. It is necessary that historical characters are reflected correctly. What did Glinka show us? What is this Glinka? This is Maksim and not Glinka. [They were talking about the film Composer Glinka made by L. Arnshtam. The main role was played by B. Chirkov.] Artist Chirkov could not express himself and for an artist the greatest quality is the capability to transform himself. (Addressing Cherkasov) – you are capable of transforming yourself.

In answer to this Zhdanov said that Cherkasov was unlucky with Ivan the Terrible. There was still panic with regard to Spring and he started to act as a janitor – in the film In the Name of Life he plays a janitor.

Cherkasov said that he had acted the maximum number of tsars and he had even acted as Peter 1st and Aleksei.

Zhdanov. According to the hereditary line. He proceeded according to the hereditary line.

Stalin. It is necessary to show historical figures correctly and strongly. (To Eisenstein). You directed Alexander Nevsky. It came out very well. The most important thing is to maintain the style of the historical period. The director may deviate from history; it is not correct if he simply copies from the historical materials, he must work on his ideas but within the boundary of style. The director may vary within the style of that historical period.

Zhdanov said that Eisenstein is fascinated by the shadows (which distracts viewers from the action), and the beard of Ivan the Terrible and that Ivan the Terrible raises his head too often, so that his beard can be seen.

Eisenstein promised to shorten the beard of Ivan the Terrible in future.

Stalin. (Recalling different actors from the first part of the film Ivan the Terrible) Kurbsky – is magnificent. Staritsky is very good (Artist Kadochnikov). He catches the flies excellently. Also: the future tsar, he is catching flies with his hands! These type of details are necessary. They reveal the essence of man.

…The conversation then switched to the situation in Czechoslovakia in connection with Cherkasov’s participation in the Soviet film festival. Cherkasov narrated the popularity of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia.

The discussion then touched upon the destruction of the Czechoslovakian cities by the Americans.

Stalin. Our job was to enter Prague before the Americans. The Americans were in a great hurry, but owing to Koniev’s attack we were able to outdistance the Americans and strike Prague just before its fall. The Americans bombed Czechoslovakian industry. They maintained this policy throughout Europe, for them it was important to destroy those industries which were in competition with them. They bombed with taste.

Cherkasov spoke about the album of photographs of Franco and Goebbels which was with Ambassador Zorin at his villa.

Stalin. It is good that we finished these pigs. It is horrifying to think what would have happened if these scoundrels had won.

Cherkasov mentioned the graduation ceremony of the Soviet colony in Prague. He spoke of the children of emigrants who were studying there. It was very sad for these children who think of Russia as their motherland, as their home, when they were born there and had never been to Russia.

Stalin. It is unfortunate for these children. They are not at fault.

Molotov. Now we are giving a big opportunity to the children to return to Russia.

Stalin pointed to Cherkasov that he had the capacity for incarnation and that we have still the capacity to incarnate the artist Khmelev.

Cherkasov said that he had learnt a lot while working as an extra in the Marine Theatre in Leningrad. At that time the great master of incarnation Shaliapin acted and appeared on stage.

Stalin. He was a great actor.

Zhdanov asked: how is the shooting of the film Spring going on?

Cherkasov. We will finish it soon. Towards spring we are going to release Spring.

Zhdanov said that he liked the content of Spring a lot. The artist Orlova played very well.

Cherkasov. The artist Plyatt acted very well.

Zhdanov. And how did Ranevskaya act! (Waves his hand.)

Cherkasov. For the first time in my life I appeared in a film without a beard, without a moustache, without a cloak, without make-up. Playing the role of a director, I am a bit ashamed of my appearance and I feel like hiding behind my characters. This role is a lot of responsibility because I must represent a Soviet director and all our directors are worried: How will a Soviet director be shown?

Molotov. And here Cherkasov is settling scores with all the directors! When the film Spring was called into question, Cherkasov read an editorial in the newspaper Soviet Art regarding Spring and decided the film was already banned.

And then Zhdanov said: Cherkasov saw that all the preparations for Spring had perished so he took on the role of a janitor. Then Zhdanov spoke disapproving of the critical storm which had come up around Spring.

Stalin was interested to know how the actress Orlova had acted. He approved of her as an actress.

Cherkasov said that this actress had a great capability of working and an immense talent.

Zhdanov. Orlova acted extremely well. And everybody remembered Volga-Volga and the role of the postman Orlova had played.

Cherkasov. Have you watched In the Name of Life?

Stalin. No, I have not watched it, but we have a good report from Kliment Efremovich. Voroshilov liked the film.

Then that means that all the questions are solved. What do you think Comrades (addresses Molotov and Zhdanov), should we give Comrades Cherkasov and Eisenstein the opportunity to complete the film? – and added – please convey all this to Comrade Bolshakov.

Cherkasov asked about some details in the film and about the outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible.

Stalin. His appearance is right, there is no need to change it. The outward appearance of Ivan the Terrible is fine.

Cherkasov. Can the scene about the murder of Staritskova be retained in the scenario?

Stalin. You may retain it. The murder did take place.

Cherkasov. We have a scene in which Malyuta Skuratov strangles the Metropolit Philip.

Zhdanov. It was in the Tver Otroch-Monastery?

Cherkasov. Yes, is it necessary to keep this scene?

Stalin said that it was necessary to retain this scene as it was historically correct.

Molotov said it was necessary to show repression but at the same time one must show the purposes for which it was done. For this it was necessary to show state activities on a wider canvas and not to immerse oneself only with the scenes in the basements and enclosed areas. One must show wide state activity.

Cherkasov expressed his ideas regarding the future of the altered scenes and the second series.

Stalin. How does the film end? How better to do this, to make another two films – that is second and third series. How are we planning to this?

Eisenstein said that it was better to combine the already shot material of the second series with what was left of the scenario – and produce one big film.

Everyone agreed to this.

Stalin. How is your film going to end?

Cherkasov said that the film would end with the defeat of Livonia, the tragic death of Malyuta Skuratov, the march towards the sea where Ivan the Terrible is standing, surrounded by the army, and says, ‘We are standing on the sea and will be standing!’

Stalin. This is how it turned out and a bit more than this.

Cherkasov asked whether it would be necessary to show the outline of the film for confirmation by the Politburo.

Stalin. It is not necessary to present the scenario, decide it by yourselves. It is generally difficult to judge from the scenario, it is easier to talk about a ready product. (To Molotov.) You must be wanting to read the scenario?

Molotov. No, I work in other fields. Let Bolshakov read it.

Eisenstein said that it was better not to hurry with the production of this film.

This comment drew an active reaction from everybody.

Stalin. It is absolutely necessary not to hurry, and in general to hasten the film would lead to its being shut down rather than its being released. Repin worked on the Zaporozhye Cossacks Writing Their Reply to the Turkish Sultan for 11 years.

Molotov. 13 years.

Stalin. (with insistence) 11 years.

Everybody came to the conclusion that only a long spell of work may in reality produce a good film.

Regarding the film Ivan the Terrible Stalin said – That if necessary take one and a half, two even three years to produce this film. But the film should be good, it should be ‘sculptured’. We must raise quality. Let there be fewer films, but with greater quality. The viewer has grown up and we must show him good productions.

It was discussed that Tselikovskaya acted well in other characters, she acts well but she is a ballerina.

We answered that it was impossible to summon another actress to Alma-Ata.

Stalin said that the directors should be adamant and demand whatever they need. But our directors too easily yield on their own demands. It sometimes happens that a great actor is necessary but it is played by someone who does not suit the role. This is because the actor demands and receives the role while the director agrees.

Eisenstein. The actress Gosheva could not be released from the Arts Theatre in Alma-Ata for the shooting. We searched two years for an Anastasia.

Stalin. Artist Zharov incorrectly looked upon his character without any seriousness in the film Ivan the Terrible. He is not a serious Army-General.

Zhdanov. This is not Malyuta Skuratov but an opera-hat.

Stalin. Ivan the Terrible was a more nationalist tsar, more foresighted, he did not allow foreign influence in Russia. Peter 1st opened the gate to Europe and allowed in too many foreigners.

Cherkasov said that it was unfortunate and a personal shame that he had not seen the second part of the film Ivan the Terrible. When the film was edited and shown he had been at that time in Leningrad.

Eisenstein also added that he had not seen the complete version of the film because he had fallen ill after completing it.

This caused great surprise and animation.

The discussion ended with Stalin wishing them success and saying ‘May god help them!’

They shook hands and left. At 00.10 minutes the conversation ended.

An addition was made to this report by Eisenstein and Cherkasov:

‘Zhdanov also said: ‘In the film there is too much over-indulgence of religious rituals.’

Translated from the Russian by Sumana Jha.

Courtesy: G. Maryamov: Kremlevskii Tsenzor, Moscow, 1992, pp. 84-91.

This text is taken from one of the pages on the Revolutionary Democracy website, specifically J.V. Stalin: The Discussion with Sergei Eisenstein on the Film ‘Ivan the Terrible’

We thank those comrades for permission to reproduce the interview here.

More on the USSR – including other writings of JV Stalin

Increased restrictions in September – too few or too many?

Posted on by
Reply

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

Increased restrictions in September – too few or too many?

On 24th September new restrictions came into force in England (the other three ‘nations’ in the UK following similar but not exactly the same guidelines – only making the confused situation even more so.)

It’s difficult to understand which scientific advice the Buffoon is following. The ‘lock everything down and try to suppress the virus’ brigade, who seemed to have been in the ascendant up till now, don’t think he has gone far enough. The ‘let’s get used to having to live with the virus’ brigade, on the ‘back foot’ in recent times are happy that the restrictions aren’t as severe as they could have been.

Whatever side of the argument there is an expectation that infections will rise and with the return of Universities in England, happening as I write, that’s almost a certainty. One side will argue this is a reason for more restrictions, the other side will say that’s OK, let’s adapt and protect the most vulnerable in society as the majority of those infections will be among the younger, and more resilient portion of the population.

The problem is that as the Buffoon doesn’t have a strategy (or if he does he’s keeping it a State Secret) any future response will be more dependent on the competing forces rather than ‘following the science’.

For any lay person who wants to understand the situation we are hampered by the lack of complete and comprehensive data on these infection rate. We shouldn’t be too surprised at that. Local Councils who have been arguing for a more local based track and trace system have been complaining about lack of information for months now – and I don’t get the impression the situation even now is what they would like.

A big figure of infections will be thrown around but it doesn’t tell us much if the vast majority of those just stay at home and let the disease take its course – as they would with a mild case of the flu or a common cold. What is important to know is: the number of hospitalisations; the age and gender of those infected; where they work or study; their possible health vulnerabilities; and the number of deaths attributed to covid.

And a lot of what should determine the way forward is still not in place. Tests results take too long; some people are asked to travel so far it is impractical so they don’t test and are a potential threat to others; the track and trace system is a farce; communication of what should be done in the event of being told to self-isolate is poor and a support system for those who might live alone is still no where in place. Recent cases of infections in a couple of Scottish universities where students have been told to self-isolate come with support in terms of deliveries of food and other necessities. That’s ‘doable’ in the context of a student accommodation block – not so much countrywide.

One disturbing comment (almost throw away) that the Buffoon made on the 22nd September that should be closely monitored was his mention of the use of the Armed Forces to support the police in the monitoring and control of the population. Some dismissed this as just referring to ‘back room’ operations but if that was all it implies why was there a necessity to mention it as a raft of measures to police the restrictions on peoples’ movements and activity?

Although a Buffoon he’s too – or at least those behind him pulling the strings are – smart to mention something if it didn’t have meaning.

The lack of real response from the Labour Party also shouldn’t be a surprise. From the very beginning they’ve just followed behind what the Tories have proposed, any criticism being limited to the oft repeated phrase ‘too little, too late’. They criticise the Government for not having a strategy but I haven’t seen any sign of a strategy from them.

One issue that is also worrying, in the sense that there’s a move to make it more the norm than the exception, is the increased locations and times people will be obligated to wear a mask or face covering. This is an issue which is very likely to be considered a norm once this present pandemic has passed over (if it doesn’t kill us all in the process).

At one time the Government campaign against flu was the simple, uncomplicated request to take a responsible approach with the slogan ‘Coughs and sneezes spread diseases – trap them in your handkerchief’. Simple and if not adopted by all was something that people were aware of and could act appropriately.

The obligation to wear a mask doesn’t take into account that people; don’t wash them regularly; don’t dispose of the one-use masks responsibly; re-use one-use masks multiple times; don’t wash their hands when they take them off – which is impossible once away from home as in public places all such wash room facilities have disappeared in the last 20 years; wear them around their necks when not on the face; build up the virus in the mask in between uses; touch their faces and masks before touching other hard surfaces where it could be spread to others; and generally don’t use them in a way that would possibly make the use effective.

But what do we know. The millionaire politicians and scientists know better than us.

How good is the science for the September 2020 restrictions?

The figure of 50,000 infections per days was mentioned to frighten people but how likely is it when we compare the UK situation to that which has already developed in France and Spain?

The two sides of the scientific argument – do we suppress or live with the virus?

For an understanding of the statistics the Radio 4 programme, More or Less, looked at the ‘doubling’ of infections on 23rd September, first on hospitalisations and deaths and secondly, the issue of ‘false positives’. (An interesting point in the section on hospitalisations and deaths was the fact that there are delays up to 28 days for the reporting of deaths. If these numbers are important during a pandemic – as they could have an impact upon policy decisions) shouldn’t the Government make it mandatory that these reports are sent as soon as possible?)

Living with the virus or attempting to defeat it?

This subject will probably take on more significance as time goes on and the attempts (perhaps) to suppress the virus don’t have much success. If one tactic proves to be failing then it is time to change direction. Some, including myself, think we are at that place now – the Buffoon, his Government and a sizeable section of the scientific community think not. Time will tell.

How do we live with the virus? We have to plan what to do when there are ‘circuit breaks’ or local lock downs/increased restrictions. David Nabarro, from the World Health Organisation (WHO) gave his view of what should happen in an interview on Radio 4’s World at One on 18th September.

Local ‘lock downs’ – what prompted that in the North east of England?

An item on Radio 4’s World at One on 17th September considered the background to the decision by the Buffoonette to declare the North East of England a special case.

What does ‘follow the science’ really mean?

Six months (at least in the UK) into the pandemic and divsions in the scientific community are becoming more polarised. On Monday 21st September, in expectation of something changing within days two ‘open letters’ were sent to the Chief Medical Officers of the four ‘nations’ of the United Kingdom.

One was written by Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University, the University of Buckingham’s Professor Karol Sikora and Sam Williams, director of the consultancy firm Economic Insight – also being signed by a total of 31 prominent scientists in the field of epidemiology. This letter suggested a different strategy should be followed rather than just shutting the doors and hoping the virus would go away.

The other letter (from the Government’s toadies) can be read by following the link from an article in the online British Medical Journal.

Both these letters came to light on the same day as an ‘unprecedented’ press conference from No 10 Downing Street (the office of the British Prime Minister) by the two most senior scientists who have been ‘advising’ the Government since the very beginning.

In a country that constantly harps on about the media being ‘objective’ it was interesting to see, in two concrete circumstances, where impartiality was certainly lacking. That doesn’t surprise me, even less so bother me, it’s the crass hypocrisy that is most annoying.

The Radio 4 programme, the World at One, at 13.00 on Monday 21st September was almost totally devoted (it’s a 45 minute programme) to presenting the issue as presented by the Government’s scientific commentators earlier that day. But to show ‘impartiality’ the programme had an ‘interview’ with Karol Sikora (one of the authors of the anti-Government policy open letter mentioned above). He was asked 2 questions and the whole ‘interview’ lasted less that 2 minutes 20 seconds.

The British Medical Journal also followed the Government line by having a direct link from the article to a copy of the pro-Government open letter but only a link to a tweet for those arguing for a change in strategy. Here there was a difference in the emphasis that demonstrates the hypocrisy.

The messages from the Government

Some of the adverts produced by the Buffoon’s Government since the end of March are becoming incredibly annoying. The latest, ‘Hands – Face – Space’ doesn’t even get the most important message right, according to some scientists. It should be the other way around with social distancing being the most effective tactic for people to adopt.

Testing

How is the ‘world beating’ testing system operating in Britain during September – before an increase in restrictions. This is a constantly changing situation.

Government to prioritise NHS and care homes for testing.

Matt Hancock – we will ration tests.

Cases are rising rapidly and the UK’s testing infrastructure is straining at the seams.

Hancock says Covid testing crisis may last weeks.

Coronavirus testing chaos ‘puts children at back of queue‘.

Not only are potential vaccines being hovered up by the richer countries, the most simple tests (which would be most effective in countries with less access to laboratory facilities and with poor transport infrastructures) are also being taken selfishly for the ‘rich’.

Problem: private companies have been making a pig’s ear of the test and trace system. Solution: give more work to private companies. This time Amazon are in the frame.

Schools, colleges and universities re-start in September at the same time as many people would return to work following the summer holidays. This has been the situation for decades yet those at the head of the Test, track and trace programme didn’t foresee a huge upsurge in requests for tests. If you made it up it would have been considered fantastical.

Chaos, confusion and anger – welcome to a new Covid test centre.

The failures in the testing centres is starting to put pressure on hospital Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments.

More and more areas of the UK are undergoing their own local lock down caused by the higher than the average number of infections. However, even in these areas the test and trace regime is not up to the job.

But in all crises there are those who benefit – here it’s ‘consultants’.

The head of the Government’s test and trace system didn’t fare so well as an internet provider – she brings the same level of expertise to dealing with the pandemic.

Technology doesn’t always work – so beware putting too much faith in it.

Scientists hit back when accused by the head of the test and trace system, Dido Harding, that she wasn’t given adequate information about the surge in demand for tests in September.

The long-awaited NHS tracing app is due to be launched on 24th September – however (as is normally the case) there’s not a lot of information about some of the crucial aspects of this technology which will determine its success. On 23rd September there was an interview with Lilian Edwards (an expert of technology law) about the known – and unknown – details of this new app, on Radio 4’s World at One.

More or Less, on Radio 4, on 20th September, looked at the numbers on both covid testing capacity in laboratories and also whether the Buffoon’s ‘Operation Moonshot’ makes any statistical sense.

Vaccine

The rise in ‘vaccine nationalism’ continues despite warnings that more will die unless there is equal access to a vaccine globally.

Food Banks, food policy and a lack of a strategy

A recent report by the Trussell Trust (one of the biggest providers of food banks in the UK) demonstrates how the pandemic has made the situation worse for those already using them and is forcing others to go to food banks for the first time.

As with so many other issues surrounding poverty in the 6th richest nation on the planet the fact that so many people struggle to feed themselves with wholesome and healthy food has been highlighted due to the pandemic. Not because the pandemic itself has caused this poverty (although that is part of the problem) but in the present climate of openness and people talking about their problems the rest of the population is being forced to hear about, if not necessarily do anything to prevent, the matters that effect millions in the British population.

On 23rd September Radio 4’s You and Yours consumer programme had an interview with Professor Tim Laing who has long been arguing (and so far not successfully) for the need for a comprehensive and well thought out food strategy to ensure that food poverty is eliminated.

Universities and the student return

If the university experience for young people isn’t bad enough they are now being threatened with the end of their university careers with automatic suspensions if they break any of the ‘oft times not very well thought out’ regulations.

The anti-lock down movement

Protest songs against war, unemployment, climate emergency and now against the imposed lock down on people in the UK.

Care Homes

Life in care homes isn’t getting any better – even though they were the locations of the majority of deaths in the first six months of the pandemic. There are doubts whether they are fully prepared in the event of another general outbreak and some family visits are being curtailed by those providers who are ‘over cautious’.

You can’t change the culture that has developed in care homes in the last decade (poor wages, low staff levels, lack of training, no career path, minimum wage/zero hour contract agency working, etc.) overnight. Glib statements made by the Tories about improving the situation in care homes are merely empty words when confronted with the reality within British society. The current situation was outlined in a  section of Radio 4’s You and Yours programme on 17th September.

The ‘Nationalists’

The Scottish Nationalists don’t only want to determine what happens in the area ‘north of the border’ they also want to determine what happens in the rest of the UK. After spending the last six months constantly wanting to demonstrate their ‘independence’ from England (although they are quite happy to have matters decided for them in the European Union) and arguing that the border between Scotland and England means they can make their own decisions they now interfering in the affairs of another country.

Flu jabs

For some time now there has been talk about increasing the number of people who have been (for a number of years) considered vulnerable to the regular influenza outbreaks – those over 65, pregnant women and those with certain respiratory diseases – to include those over 50. However, if the talk is there it’s not entirely clear that the infrastructure exists to cope with the increased demand. Instead of expecting people to ask for the injection why weren’t they contacted so that the programme could be followed in an orderly and structured manner, ensuring that the most vulnerable were not left out. The situation that seems to be developing is similar to the panic buying that follows the announcement of any new restrictions on movement due to the pandemic.

Even the scientists are millionaires

The forelock-tuggers of Britain have been happy enough for the rich politicians to tell them what to do for the last six months, they must be over the moon now to know that even one of the scientists who are passing on advice to the government are also millionaires. And will be even more wealthy if the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) vaccine proves to be effective.

(One of the interesting developments in the last six months, since the pandemic started to close down British society, is that it’s what are considered the ‘right-wing’, pro-Tory, pro-wealth newspapers (such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph) are more likely to publish scoops about the abuses of wealth by the very politicians they used to support.)

‘Herd immunity’

Even though they (the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and the chief medical officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty) painted a ‘doomsday’ scenario in their presentation on the 21st September – softening up the public for whatever the Buffoon would announce in the next couple of days – it wasn’t enough to save them from being criticised for one time arguing for the ‘herd immunity’ approach in dealing with the virus.

Prospects for employment in the coming months

A recent report by the Resolution Foundation suggests that unemployment levels, in the coming months, will reach those in the 1980s (the ‘Golden Thatcherite Years’).

Poor Housing

Those living in badly maintained and decaying private rented accommodation will be at increased risk this coming winter due to the added threat of covid-19. The report, produced by the Centre for Ageing Better, has repercussions for others than the old, there being people of all ages who are already suffering from ailments caused by their living conditions.

Government strategy

What’s a strategy?

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

The start of a second lockdown – or measures to prevent one?

Posted on by
Reply

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?

The start of a second lockdown – or measures to prevent one?

The recent introduction of restrictions on the numbers of people who can meet others, not from their own household, is a step backwards in the fight against the coronavirus – and offers a potential get out for the Government of the Buffoon when it comes to answering the question of who might have been responsible for the chaos and deaths that have enveloped the country in the last six months.

It was presaged by with an attack upon young people and the crass and ignorant attempt to make them feel responsible if infections, hospitalisations and deaths of their older relatives was a consequence of them meeting up with their friends and partying. Even the Government realised they had gone too far with the slogan that implied young people would be responsible for the deaths of their grandparents.

And now that the so-called ‘Rule of Six’ (how pathetic are the spin doctors who come up with these slogans etc., probably Cummins in No 10) has been introduced the State is attempting to pitch neighbour against neighbour with the Justice (or really no-Justice) Minister calling upon people to report any infringements of the six maximum regulation to the police. This is after the police had asked the question ‘where do you want out priorities to lie?’ when it came to more serious offences.

So the return to a partial lock down is a return to the tactics of March. Nothing has been learnt, nothing has been developed to deal with a pandemic , nothing other than a repeat of how populations dealt with epidemics hundreds of years ago.

But that shouldn’t be surprising.

From the very beginning the idea that testing would lie at the centre of any strategy has been known but, at least in the UK, not actively implemented in any manner that could lead to success against the virus. Promises are made, figures are thrown around like confetti and criticisms are brushed aside by the Buffoon himself as an attack on the ‘hard working NHS workers’ (a phrase that has been brought out a number of times since March), a denial he probably believes himself, in his own Trumpian manner, but which ring hollow to any sentient being.

In six months, even if starting from absolute zero, the country should have been able to set up a functioning testing system that would deal with many thousands of tests per day. In such a serious situation the State should not be asking and paying huge sums to private companies to provide an inadequate service, it should be telling companies what their priorities are and requisitioning whatever is needed to carry out the task that will allow the country to get on top of the disease.

But then capitalism is dominated by its anarchic constitution and has no interest in anything other than the profit motive. If lives are saved in the process that is merely a side product.

The recent votes in Parliament over the break with the European Union show that the present Tory Government thinks it is invulnerable, that it can do whatever it likes. The self serving cretins of the 650 will not do anything to rock the boat and risk losing their privileges.

By pitching the people against each other and stimulating a climate of fear and blame (directed as far away from the Government as possible) they hope to retain their positions of power.

And the virus? Who cares?

Latest restrictions

The 14th September saw the introduction of nationwide restrictions which are supposed to address the issue of the increase of infections in the last couple of weeks. As is always the case with any introduction of a new tactic to combat the coronavirus this introduction was accompanied by confusion – as all the four constituent parts of the UK have adopted a similar but not the same approach.

Although this was touted as a national response to a national issue there were suggestions that they were merely copying some of the approaches used by Belgium, especially as there are rumblings of a nationwide curfew being imposed on pubs and restaurants.

But is this further restriction on the movements in the UK necessary anyway? Yes, the numbers of infections are going up but there are reasons for that which might not indicate a disaster waiting to happen. A break down of the numbers gives a slightly different impression.

Although the Buffoon is always ‘following the science’ not all scientists are in agreement with the new restrictions.

It’s not the Government’s fault – it’s ours

The Buffoon and his Government have always covered themselves since the pandemic hit the UK in March of this year, first by ‘hiding’ behind ‘the scientific advice’ and now by putting all the blame on the people of the country – at the moment specifically the young – for the increase in infections and the threat of a ‘second wave’.

The Buffoonette (Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary) even coming up with the crass sound bite of ‘Don’t kill your gran by catching coronavirus and then passing it on.’ Obviously he has already forgotten that tens of thousands of ‘grans’ died as a result of the lack of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in care homes, together with the lack of any testing capability in those homes, a situation which was exacerbated by the hospitals being instructed to transfer older patients to care homes without adequate safeguards being in place. There’s also no guarantee that this situation won’t arise again if infections get into care homes in the coming months.

Considering that there were so many deaths in care homes during the height of the pandemic in the UK it’s shouldn’t be surprising that there is concern as we go into winter. The Government has written to care home providers warning them of the situation – but they were perfectly aware of the situation and needed no reminder. What do do need is provision of PPE and a reliable testing regime to avoid the spread of the disease if there is a second outbreak. However, unless there’s a change in the approach from Government things don’t look so good in coming months.

The NHS – after the heroes

Once they were ‘heroes’ – but not any more. Now they are just workers who have to do what they are told.

And the general organisation of the NHS doesn’t seem to be getting to grips with resolving the possibilities of ‘collateral damage’ caused by the emphasis, in the past and to some extent still, on the pandemic and its consequences.

The ‘R’ number – what is it?

The ‘R’ Number is being touted all the time now to justify the latest restrictions – after a few months when it was consigned to oblivion. But what exactly is the ‘R’ number? I was led to believe that it was a notional figure that really doesn’t have much use during events such as the present pandemic and can only be really gauged in hind sight and therefore useful in understanding the development of the event but of little use when you are in the middle of it.

Whatever the case a couple of articles which might be able to shed some light on the matter – from the ‘experts’.

What is the R number?

And is it any use when we are talking about ‘herd immunity’?

Testing

A new feature – a quiz. Question: By what date did the Buffoon say that the UK would have a ‘world beating’ track and trace system up and running? Answer: 1st June 2020. This was in a statement in the British House of Commons on 20th May, 2020. (Watch the video if you can stomach listening to his ramblings.) Question: When will Britain have a ‘world beating’ track and trace system in place in the UK? Answer: Either when the pandemic is a distant memory or when Hell freezes over, whichever is the sooner.

Having been out of the headlines for a while (kicked out by the issues surrounding the return of schools and education in particular) testing has come back with a vengeance in the last week or so.

This one has been around for a while, since testing went out into the community. People sent long distances for Covid tests. This ‘apology’ was made 11 days ago – however the situation is no better (and might even be worse now than then). Matt Hancock has insisted problems with the testing system will be ‘sorted in the short term’ – so no need, really, to be concerned.

If you want to get tested (in the country with the ‘world beating’ testing system) then be prepared to see a great deal more of that country than you would really wish to if you were ill. The last I heard (just over a week after this report) the record for the distance someone was told to go to get a test was 618 miles – from Plymouth to Aberdeen, and back again.

And once you’ve travelled more than a thousand miles it’s not certain that the test was worth it in the first place. Some research has shown that the tests might be picking up old and dead bits of the virus – so the person told to self isolate might not really have to do so.

The airline and tourist industries are clutching at straws and are, and have been, arguing for some system of testing at airports to allow (and encourage) more people to travel. They argue this has been proven to be a success in a number of countries. A few days later it was reported that a test to meet all the requirements would be ready by the end of the month.

From the very beginning of this pandemic there have been many calls for testing not just for those who think they might have the infection but also as a means of monitoring the population in general to aid in the society getting back to something approaching normality. It was, therefore, good to hear that mass testing was going to be trialled in the UK – with plans to ‘roll it out’ across the nation towards the end of the year. It was even better to hear that such tests could provide a result within 20 minutes.

Then I woke up from my dream and realised this was just another propaganda exercise by the Buffoon and his minions to give the impression they are doing something meaningful. Dates will slip, numbers of tests will reduce but what will certainly be achieved is another shovelling of millions of £s into the off shore bank accounts of more (sometimes the same) Tory industry supporters.

This developed into the bizarrely named ‘Moonshot’ programme a week later. Although, in principle, a good idea this Government (and the private infrastructure they have contracted to carry out the testing so far) has not shown a shred of evidence that it is capable of getting anyway near the target. In fact, Britain getting a rocket to the real Moon before the end of civilisation is more likely than this testing target. One of the (slight) stumbling blocks being that the technology to make it happen doesn’t yet exist.

A few days ago Matt Hancock was able to identify the reason for the delays in the testing regime – it was the fact that too many people were asking for tests. And these people weren’t genuine in their request, they were not suffering any of the symptoms they just wanted to know if they could go away on holiday with a piece of paper saying they were clear. So nothing to do with the incompetence of the Government or their privatised testing system.

The more the Government says there’s no problem the more the evidence shows that the testing system (let alone the track and trace that’s supposed to go with it) is getting worse not better.

People in England’s 10 worst-hit Covid-19 hotspots unable to get tests.

Even hospitals can’t return to any sort of normality as the testing crisis is even hitting medical staff.

For an up to date review of the testing system, how it’s working (or not) and the problems people have in accessing a test locally here’s a item that was discussed on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme on 14th September.

Corruption in Britain – surely not?

If you think the UK isn’t corrupt you haven’t looked hard enough.

Data

A huge amount of personal data is being collected in all countries – mobile phones are ubiquitous even in poor countries – and there have for long been questions about the breaches in privacy that this means to the population. Regulations about privacy have been discussed and adopted in many countries but the British Government seems to be aiming to crash through all that by using the desire to boost economic recovery after the damage done by the pandemic. As in many spheres of life post-pandemic governments worldwide will be pushing through measures which the populations might have fought against in normal times. They will use the already common phrase of ‘pandemic fatigue’ to get their way. If we let them.

And Hancock has already made statements which mean that any privacy in relation to the data collected by the NHS will be a thing of the past saying ‘We are absolutely rigorous about the needs of privacy, but we must not let that get in the way of innovation that can improve people’s lives.’

Do you know what happens to your data when you scan the pub’s QR code with your Smartphone? Perhaps you should start asking?

The long awaited contact-tracing app

It was promised months ago. It was tested on the Isle of Wight to great fanfare. It was considered a success. Then it wasn’t. Then the home grown app was ditched and an ‘off the shelf’ version by Google/Apple was chosen instead. But it seems the new app is NHSX mark 2 but all details about privacy that were so important a few months ago seem to have been pushed into the background. It’s due to be launched, in England and Wales, on 24th September. We shall see.

And the idea of a ‘passport’, associated with the use of this app, starts to get more attention

Mortality from covid – or something else

Information on the ‘collateral damage’ due to the closure of the NHS for everything that wasn’t covid related continue to emerge. Some statistics indicate that non-virus deaths at home might have been behind surge in excess fatalities. The separation of these statistics in the future will be crucial to get an understanding of the development of the 2020 pandemic to ensure the world is better prepared for the next one.

Considering that the shortage of ventilators was being touted as a problem of the high mortality in the early days (and now there’s probably a glut of un-used – and never to be used – ventilators in hospital store rooms) they might have been the problem and not the solution.

Sweden

Sweden is a conundrum for most governments of the world. Whereas the overwhelming number of countries adopted a response no more sophisticated than that used in the 1340s (with the ‘Black Death’ in Europe) and 1665 (with ‘The Great Plague of London’), which was to introduce a ‘lock down’, the Swedish people decided to do something a bit more measured. Figures sometimes show that it might not been the best tactic – then other statistics come out showing it might well have been the best approach.

Vaccine

The search for a vaccine against the present pandemic has many reasons. Fame, money and recognition are the principle ones. Finding a vaccine that will turn covid into something manageable might also be in the frame. However, whatever the reasons politics will also be involved. The claim (as yet unsubstantiated) that the Russians have developed a vaccine will always be attacked. Capitalist countries invaded the Soviet Union in the first days of the Revolution in 1917 and they cannot tolerate the fact that Russia (even though now a capitalist country) might beat them to the goal. Therefore it must pain them to learn that there are some positive results arising from the vaccine now been tested and developed in the country.

To get an idea of exactly what a vaccine does – and how they are developed – there was a useful introduction on the BBC Radio 4’s Inside Science programme of Thursday 19th September.

The closer the country/world gets to a viable and tested vaccine the more the question of who will get the vaccine first will become more of an issue. For months now the richer countries of the world (even though within those countries there are huge variables in wealth distribution) have been pre-ordering vaccines which might not even prove to work – so ‘vaccine nationalism’ (where a particular country grabs as much as possible for its own population) already exists. There has been talk (probably based more on optimism than reality) since the outbreak that the world would be a more caring and better place after the pandemic. Where an effective vaccine (when/if it ever gets produced) goes in the early days will test the truth of that optimism.

A further update on the progress towards a vaccine in the UK, including some of the caveats, were part of an interview on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme on 14th September.

How the virus is prospering in certain communities

Covid-19 might be demonstrating some unique aspects but it is no different when it comes to attacking the poorest within various societies. It could be around and causing problems in some of the most ‘deprived’ areas of the UK for the simple reason of poverty.

Covid in the world

A pandemic is by definition a worldwide phenomenon but apart from numbers, which are usually published in an attempt to show that other countries are dealing with the problem in an even worse manner than in the UK, we get little information about the consequences of the disease on the very poorest of the world’s population. Immigrant workers in the obscenely oil rich Arabian countries has long been an issue. The treatment of African migrant workers in Saudi Arabia demonstrates the need for a truly radical change of that society.

The future – or not – of the NHS

The whole of the Buffoon’s approach to dealing with covid as we enter winter is to place the burden on the NHS (National Health Service) and then blame it if all goes wrong. Due to the inept dealing with the crisis in the early part of this year the faith that many working in the NHS have in the government is leading many of them to consider leaving the profession – at least in this country or the nationalised sector. Why work in an under funded NHS, with poor provision of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and when you are only considered ‘heroes’ when it suits Government propaganda? A recent survey shows many have doubts of their futures in the NHS.

Covid used to justify anything

It’s already been suggested here, on a number of occasions, that various organisation and businesses will use the pandemic as an excuse to do what they were planning to do before the pandemic but blame it on the worldwide disease. The latest, in a social context, is the barring of the Grenfell bereaved from attending the too long drawn out and almost certainly inconclusive public enquiry.

Food banks

There’s no surprise that the present situation will lead to an increase in the demand for the services of the food banks, especially by those who have never used them before – which should be seen as a cause for shame rather than pride.

The return of mass events?

It’s easy to get lost in the miasma surrounding testing. There are too many claims and too many promises to be sure of what is happening. But a bit of innovation in the use of testing might be a step forward in attacking the effects of the virus rather than just responding to so-called ‘spikes’, or even ‘second waves’. The trouble is that this comes from Hancock – who has spouted so much gibberish in the past months – who suggests that there could be a ‘covid pass’ to allow people to attend theatre performances as well as mass sporting events.

Herd immunity

Does it exist or doesn’t it. The issue of ‘herd immunity’ will be an ongoing one until covid-19 is constrained to the past. At the same time the longer the pandemic continues the more information will be collected which will, perhaps, clarify the situation. Studies of the figures for the period ending in April suggest levels of those infected might have well been much higher than was thought at the time.

And finally …

Face coverings

Face masks could be giving people Covid-19 immunity.

More on covid pandemic 2020-2?