UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: gollum on March 27, 2020, 04:22:12 pm
-
Not wishing to get into the rights and wrongs of Brexit or which party is in power and whether or not anyone else could be doing any better.
Last night watching QT it struck me that perhaps the political shenanigans of the last few years has lead to a position where the Cabinet simply does not have any real strength in depth with a wide range of schisms, leadership battles and culls leading to, perhaps, more experienced and, arguably, capable individuals being banished to the back benches.
-
I thought Corbyns 'I told you so' sounding interview about Govt spending following their plans to spend spend spend rather distateful and rather reflects why he was such a bad leader.
Whether or not there is any truth in it - now is not the time.
-
Why is now not the time?
-
Because we’re all waiting for someone with decent hair like Keir Starmer to say the exact same thing in two weeks time.
Then we can all agree with it.
-
I thought Corbyns 'I told you so' sounding interview about Govt spending following their plans to spend spend spend rather distateful and rather reflects why he was such a bad leader.
Whether or not there is any truth in it - now is not the time.
I totally agree with you Tom, it was an idiotic remark. He's totally failed to consider the difference between policies that become necessary in a massive crisis, and policy during relatively normal times. Some things were probably going to happen anyway (railways) but some of them weren't ever considered even in Corbyns wildest dreams (basically nationalising the entire economy). Saying he won the argument is plain foolish, he lead a once effective party to it's worst results in a century and a position of near irrelevance, along with bringing in a reputation for anti-Semitism. That doesn't constitute winning anything.
-
Though this was interesting : http://archive.is/fql4r
-
There was only one argument, it was conducted in the ballot booth. The concept is idiotic, the rehashing, worse.
The images of PMQs where parliamentarians do not follow their own guidelines about social distancing are astonishing. I thought there were supposed to be aficionados of behavioural science in number 10?
It will spread through MPs.
-
The images of PMQs where parliamentarians do not follow their own guidelines about social distancing are astonishing. I thought there were supposed to be aficionados of behavioural science in number 10?
It will has spread through MPs.
Fixed. They just haven't been tested yet.
-
Because we’re all waiting for someone with decent hair like Keir Starmer to say the exact same thing in two weeks time.
Then we can all agree with it.
:lol:
TD & TT I Beg to differ. Whilst the light shines over everyone and the choices they make. Now is exactly the time to reconsider our societal values, to challenge the greed and selfishness and to promote the generosity and kind spiritedness on display.
-
Because we’re all waiting for someone with decent hair like Keir Starmer to say the exact same thing in two weeks time.
Then we can all agree with it.
:lol:
TD & TT I Beg to differ. Whilst the light shines over everyone and the choices they make. Now is exactly the time to reconsider our societal values, to challenge the greed and selfishness and to promote the generosity and kind spiritedness on display.
Strategically?
Probably not a good time. Do all the reconsidering you want, take notes, polish arguments, but save it for the wash up.
At the moment, too much political protest, will simply seem opportunistic, annoying, crowing and posturing.
Nobody likes a whinging voice moaning and loudly proclaiming “told you so” whilst they are trying to deal with a difficult, emotional and demanding reality.
You risk simply occupying the role of Job’s comforter.
-
Until this morning I was quite sympathetic to the "let's not be too political at the moment" point of view... But having watched this (hopefully the link works) I can't help but want to punch the Tory guy in the panel in the face. Plus those that voted for him.
https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10157600662352217/?sfnsn=scwspmo&extid=HIM03bE5T85AfbxS&d=n&vh=e
-
Even in times of crisis it is politically important to challenge government detail that matters. Especially so when lives are potentially at risk. Doing so isn't 'Corbyn like petulant I told you so'. Those posters complaining about a political slant to expressed concerns here on data, PPE and testing should think on the fact that in this QT clip this is now the Editor of the Lancet strongly criticising the public government position on PPE and tests. The situation the government faces, when the western world is racing to procure the same limited supply, is difficult, but they should be honest in this and apologise if they have a problem and, unlike the minister in that clip, shouldn't keep pretending it's about to be delivered.
-
To be fair Offwidth, he may not have delivered anything, but at least he won the argument ;)
-
Until this morning I was quite sympathetic to the "let's not be too political at the moment" point of view... But having watched this (hopefully the link works) I can't help but want to punch the Tory guy in the panel in the face. Plus those that voted for him.
https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10157600662352217/?sfnsn=scwspmo&extid=HIM03bE5T85AfbxS&d=n&vh=e
Quite. The Lancet editor Richard Horton is right, the lack of PPE is a scandal. The Tory response (was it Jenrick?) that they've moved so many million masks and many many many millions fewer glasses is, the obvious glaring and uncommented on discrepancy in numbers notwithstanding, both irrelevant and avoiding the question. The question was what problems do they see coming in advance, and what are their plans? This is a very perceptive question, as it highlights the lack of engaged brains in government both now and in the past.
I linked this in the other thread - here is why there are only 10% numbers of glasses to masks. Summary - cost:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
That is a political choice. The comment was that this was being treated as a military operation. Hmm? If so, why was there no strategic reserve of sufficient PPE already in place? The above link shows that any strategic reserve they would have stockpiled "in normal times" would be incomplete anyway. And its not a defence to say that they wouldn't know what sort of pandemic would happen - the link refers to a flu-like epidemic role-played a few years ago, and they did have fair warning for this specific event at least 6 weeks prior, from China. What measures were taken in late January? It looks like the civil service did their job of planning for a foreseeable extreme event, and were let down by the penny pinching execution. And I also struggle to credit a logistics problem - what happened to Operation Yellowhammer?
I don't see why we shouldn't "be too political at the moment". That's classic divide-and-rule. The government's role is first and foremost the well being of the people, and they are in charge of co-ordinating the response to this. Giving them a free pass because its a crisis doesn't really cut it when they are knowingly sending underequipped frontline workers into the firing line, some of whom will die as a result. Although I'll grant them, that is a classic play for a UK military operation.
As the saying goes, if you want to get there, I wouldn't be starting from here. Don't get me wrong I'm willing this to succeed as is everybody, but as OMM said let's not forget things once the wash up comes.
-
Can I clarify, that I didn’t mean that these things should be ignored for the “common good”.
I meant, don’t start shouting from the roof tops (yet), people are too caught up and it won’t make a difference now.
Being written off as “Moaning Mirtles” is a classic Labour failing.
-
I've no desire to let anyone off the hook once this is over - but as OMM explained - which was what I meant, now is not the time to make any political points out of this. For this Corbyn looked (to me at least) like a dick. Starmer would have too if he had said those things - but he didnt.
Its a bit like me and MrsTT being out with the lad on his scooter. He falls over and cuts himself quite badly, and instead of both going to his aid and dealing with the situation, we start arguing and having a full on domestic...
That said, I think the science and medical community is doing a pretty good job of keeping the government honest in their decision making... and whilst it looks an open and shut case that austerity and NHS cuts have left us poorly prepared - that doesnt help the shit show that is about to happen. Getting beds, ventilators, test kits etc.. etc.. etc.. is what matters, not whether they were there or not before. But the time to examine that will happen - and there will be many models from different nations to compare our response to. I don't think there will be anywhere to hide.
Returning to politics, I heard an interesting commentary - that there were several senior conservatives trying to get Boris to bring Starmer into the War Cabinet (like Churchill & Atlee in ww2). Not for any balance or sense of fairness - just so the ownership of the handling of this was shared between labour and conservative. So the blame is spread if you like.
Their concern was that this may end up like WW2 - where Churchill probably did a good job during the war (I'm not qualified to say he did or not! Historians please???) but afterwards people wanted wholesale changes and elected Labour. This may well be the case - if people get a taste for the CV-19 socialism that is happening across the UK right now - they may want it to continue.
Then again - the world may just simply revert back to rabid growth chasing capitalism...
-
Until this morning I was quite sympathetic to the "let's not be too political at the moment" point of view... But having watched this (hopefully the link works) I can't help but want to punch the Tory guy in the panel in the face. Plus those that voted for him.
https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10157600662352217/?sfnsn=scwspmo&extid=HIM03bE5T85AfbxS&d=n&vh=e
I have no idea on what the numbers are in the overall PPE debate, no idea on the numbers of items various sections of the health system have versus what they need versus what they perceive they need (and no idea if there is any difference), and no idea on what the evidence is for when/where PPE is essential versus when it's marginally useful versus when it isn't.
Instinctively I imagine there will be an ideal situation, a realistic situation, a distinctly sub-optimal situation, and an unacceptably dire system-wide shortage situation. I don't know which situation we are in, and I doubt do many at the coal face because there's just too much noise to tell. GPs on facebook are a canary in the mine but not the whole mining sector. That isn't meant to imply any shortage is acceptable.
Something that made me chuckle/roll eyes.. I'd just like to point out the obvious -
As someone who served in the infantry for 10 years and spent time on operational tours wearing my own personally purchased boots, socks, webbing, jacket, trousers, goretex, headtorch, cooking stove, canteen, navigation equipment, gloves, warm jacket, sleeping bag.. and other essential items because the military issue items weren't very good...
The invoking of the idea of this being a 'military operation' is unfortunately an entirely accurate analogy in the PPE discussion :)
Oh, and vehicles which didn't protect against bombs.
-
Can I clarify, that I didn’t mean that these things should be ignored for the “common good”.
I meant, don’t start shouting from the roof tops (yet), people are too caught up and it won’t make a difference now.
Being written off as “Moaning Mirtles” is a classic Labour failing.
I appreciate that you weren't saying to ignore these things! Sorry if that was implied.
I agree that "moaning" is a common stick with which to beat folk, and is best avoided. That said, posting on UKB for posterity when we all have time to kill probably doesn't fall into the roof top yelling category so I think it can safely continue without subverting the government response. Although I appreciate it is tilting at windmills.
Some things do need to be shouted from the rooftops now though, and it is good to see NHS staff highlighting shortcomings and making their demands heard. That's not party political at the moment, quite rightly, but it will be after this is over.
-
Something that made me chuckle/roll eyes.. I'd just like to point out the obvious -
As someone who served in the infantry for 10 years and spent time on operational tours wearing my own personally purchased boots, socks, webbing, jacket, trousers, goretex, headtorch, cooking stove, canteen, navigation equipment, gloves, warm jacket, sleeping bag.. and other essential items because the military issue items weren't very good...
The invoking of the idea of this being a 'military operation' is unfortunately an entirely accurate analogy in the PPE discussion :)
Oh, and vehicles which didn't protect against bombs.
The vehicles point is the more pertinent one here as there was no alternative option with that. Where can front line staff go to purchase their own PPE kit?
-
B & Q, it would seem
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doctors-forced-to-buy-safety-gear-from-diy-stores-hjg9fbsgl
-
Indeed. As to the scale of the problem it was pretty big midweek.
https://www.bma.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/2020/march/bma-warns-that-without-protective-equipment-doctors-and-covid-19-patients-will-die
-
Something that made me chuckle/roll eyes.. I'd just like to point out the obvious -
As someone who served in the infantry for 10 years and spent time on operational tours wearing my own personally purchased boots, socks, webbing, jacket, trousers, goretex, headtorch, cooking stove, canteen, navigation equipment, gloves, warm jacket, sleeping bag.. and other essential items because the military issue items weren't very good...
The invoking of the idea of this being a 'military operation' is unfortunately an entirely accurate analogy in the PPE discussion :)
Oh, and vehicles which didn't protect against bombs.
The vehicles point is the more pertinent one here as there was no alternative option with that. Where can front line staff go to purchase their own PPE kit?
Pretty sure that’s not what he meant.
Plus, we actually went out and bought kit, in advance, because even after a few weeks of basic it was clear the kit issued wasn’t Fit For Purpose (FFP, fit for piss-all).
Allyness saves lives.
(Worth a Google of that statement. way after my time, but I wish senior staff had been so honest in earlier times. From that, many improvements grew and, probably, many lives were saved).
-
Something that made me chuckle/roll eyes.. I'd just like to point out the obvious -
As someone who served in the infantry for 10 years and spent time on operational tours wearing my own personally purchased boots, socks, webbing, jacket, trousers, goretex, headtorch, cooking stove, canteen, navigation equipment, gloves, warm jacket, sleeping bag.. and other essential items because the military issue items weren't very good...
The invoking of the idea of this being a 'military operation' is unfortunately an entirely accurate analogy in the PPE discussion :)
Oh, and vehicles which didn't protect against bombs.
The vehicles point is the more pertinent one here as there was no alternative option with that. Where can front line staff go to purchase their own PPE kit?
Most hardware stores. Ebay. Amazon. Lots of places will screw you right now for a box of FFP3's, a flip-down visor, a paper oversuit and a box of nitrile gloves. This stuff isn't astronaut suits. As stated previously we still have 300 boxes in our warehouse, as will all other large contractors across the UK.
Should they need to? No.
And as I said, I suspect none of us, GPs included, actually know the situation system-wide. But when you have everyone - from caretakers of schools still open, to shop assistants, to GPs, to petrol station staff, to ICU staff - demanding an FFP3 because they perceive that it's 'essential' to their protection, then you're inevitably going to end up with a large number of scared and disappointed people.
-
Though this was interesting : http://archive.is/fql4r
Yes that was interesting. To summarize for those who haven't read the link - its a Tory minister saying that, effectively, they have lost the argument on public spending. I think the key takeaway line is this one:
"So, Conservatives are going to need to come up a radically different narrative that explains why massive spending is not always possible."
Key because it gives the game away - austerity was a narrative, not a necessity.
-
The BMA will be in a good position to see across the UK situation for doctors.
The editor of the Lancet was pretty scathing today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/chaos-and-panic-lancet-editor-says-nhs-was-left-unprepared-for-covid-19
I hope the front line staff have plenty of cash and the DIY stores lots of stock at the required standards as PPE is strictly single use for now.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872745/Infection_prevention_and_control_guidance_for_pandemic_coronavirus.pdf
-
I wasn't really critising being critical of the government's response, I think the Lancet ed statement is fair, and valuable. I was critising the tone and timing of Corbyns comments, he came across as profoundly self important and seemed to be just trying to bang a drum that socialism was the answer all along rather than addressing the situation at the moment, as though nothing has changed in the last six months.
By all means get at how slow the government were to respond but don't try to use it for some sort of generalised political justification.
-
I wasn't really critising being critical of the government's response, I think the Lancet ed statement is fair, and valuable. I was critising the tone and timing of Corbyns comments, he came across as profoundly self important and seemed to be just trying to bang a drum that socialism was the answer all along rather than addressing the situation at the moment, as though nothing has changed in the last six months.
By all means get at how slow the government were to respond but don't try to use it for some sort of generalised political justification.
Do you have a link to Corbyn's comments? I haven't seen / heard them.
-
The BMA will be in a good position to see across the UK situation for doctors.
The editor of the Lancet was pretty scathing today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/chaos-and-panic-lancet-editor-says-nhs-was-left-unprepared-for-covid-19
I hope the front line staff have plenty of cash and the DIY stores lots of stock at the required standards as PPE is strictly single use for now.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872745/Infection_prevention_and_control_guidance_for_pandemic_coronavirus.pdf
There will be a shortage of PPE, I think it's well established that we all agree on that.
What's your opinion on vaccine research companies cutting corners in their usual ethical and moral guidelines which normally would place constraints on the timeline of clinical trials? E.g. lab study-animal trial- small scale human trial-phase 1-to-phase 3 trials etc.? Do you think we should follow protocol, or do you think we should cut corners?
If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?
-
If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?
Anything that's a couple of orders of magnitude less than the expected death rate in the months you're saving. And good luck to the poor bastard who has to come up with that estimate.
-
What's your opinion on vaccine research companies cutting corners in their usual ethical and moral guidelines which normally would place constraints on the timeline of clinical trials? E.g. lab study-animal trial- small scale human trial-phase 1-to-phase 3 trials etc.? Do you think we should follow protocol, or do you think we should cut corners?
If you think we should cut corners, what level of human suffering do you consider is acceptable as an unintended outcome of cutting corners? 1 dead person -10 dead people -1000? 10,000?
Dig out, fill yer boots and have at it.
Mainly because I think the larger numbers (in your suggestion) are hugely unlikely, versus on the low side, when compared with the virus continuing as is.
What ever first appears, is not beyond refinement and replacement, either. Plus, finding knock-ons and treating them, is going to be a slow time exercise.
We’re firefighting, right now, we can look at the buildings structural integrity later.
-
I think its pragmatic to cut corners and bend ethics when many lives are at stake. In the UK that probably still needs to be within some kind of framework. I'm sure there will be (or already have been) ethical committees deciding the amount of acceptable corner cutting.
For pragmatic situations in hospitals etc somewhere in the ECDC EU/UK advice risk update links, that I provided before, even specify what to do when specific items of PPE run out of stock.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-pandemic
-
I thought Corbyns 'I told you so' sounding interview about Govt spending following their plans to spend spend spend rather distateful and rather reflects why he was such a bad leader.
Whether or not there is any truth in it - now is not the time.
I totally agree with you Tom, it was an idiotic remark. He's totally failed to consider the difference between policies that become necessary in a massive crisis, and policy during relatively normal times. Some things were probably going to happen anyway (railways) but some of them weren't ever considered even in Corbyns wildest dreams (basically nationalising the entire economy). Saying he won the argument is plain foolish, he lead a once effective party to it's worst results in a century and a position of near irrelevance, along with bringing in a reputation for anti-Semitism. That doesn't constitute winning anything.
OK, I haven't managed to find a full version of the Corbyn interview despite trying (link https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p033yynf says "sorry clip unavailable??). So I have no idea what he actually said other than inferring from your post. Nevertheless I'll discuss what you wrote....
I totally agree with you Tom, it was an idiotic remark. He's totally failed to consider the difference between policies that become necessary in a massive crisis, and policy during relatively normal times.
Would you share what you think the difference actually is?
It seems to me its one of degree. The current situation of a global pandemic *is* indeed exceptional. The fiscal and monetary response however contains a series of measures which are only exceptional by degree and in how they are directed (i.e. novelty value). But in basic terms increasing public spending to sustain / kick start the economy is the underlying concept. That was Corbyn's concept for the so-called "relatively normal times" which I might say is a fairly devious term for a decade of historically low interest rates, historically consistently low GDP growth rates, and historically low public spending following a global financial crisis! If these levers are available now they were available then. I am not saying they are cost / trade-off free but you must allow that if an economy has issues then these concepts are a possibility. A point now ironically proven by their fiercest opponents. The fact that we are all in a massive crisis now does not nullify the fact that a good number of people were in an economic crisis in the "relatively normal times" previously.
Some things were probably going to happen anyway (railways) but some of them weren't ever considered even in Corbyns wildest dreams (basically nationalising the entire economy).
I try to keep my eye in on current affairs and yet at no time in the near future did I anticipate the railways being nationalised. Why do you think that? You make it sound like something as inevitable as the tides. Its not.
The entire economy hasn't been nationalised has it? What will the government shareholding of businesses be after this? Exactly the same as before. The government are subsidising wages for employees temporarily, not taking over businesses.
That sentence attacks Corbyn from two wildly opposing fronts - both for suggesting a policy (railways) which you make sound childishly simple and just plain always going to happen, and for not having enough imagination to suggest in advance something which a) isn't actually happening and b) he had no reason to suggest as coronavirus hadn't happened. Both points are unsupported by facts.
Saying he won the argument is plain foolish, he lead a once effective party to it's worst results in a century and a position of near irrelevance, along with bringing in a reputation for anti-Semitism. That doesn't constitute winning anything.
That is a total non-sequiteur. To make a very strained analogy - you are in a meeting and the boss has what appears to be an appalling plan of their own design, you suggest something different, and despite mocking it to high heaven in front of everyone else, who all agree with them, they then leave the meeting and go right ahead and implement more or less exactly what you said. You would be within your rights to say you won the argument would you not? The fact that the boss and you haven't swapped roles is neither here nor there on that score.
-
The problem with ‘winning the argument’ as a phrase is that it has become so associated with a childish attempt to gloss over a catastrophic defeat with a veneer of moral high ground. It now merely serves as a reminder of political incompetence.
-
Johnson, Hancock and now Chris Whitty all tested positive.
I reckon it'll only take a couple more awkward press conferences and Gove will shuffle off to the doctors with 'mild symptoms' too.
-
The problem with ‘winning the argument’ as a phrase is that it has become so associated with a childish attempt to gloss over a catastrophic defeat with a veneer of moral high ground. It now merely serves as a reminder of political incompetence.
Definitely this.
But also, Nigel I know what you're saying and not saying I disagree entirely, but... if the tories have shown to the public that they're able to adapt to circumstances - when essential to the welfare of the nation in an existential crisis - by implementing what Corbyn claims are his policies, then doesn't that go some way to negate Corbyn's point about winning the argument?
Unless his argument was that Labour know what economic measures are required during lethal pandemics that threaten the entire world, like some sort of emergency rescue service political party?
Because people might argue that organising our societies by the economic rules of 100-year lethal pandemics isn't the optimal way to organise societies - IF we can adapt our ideology so quickly when they *occasionally* do happen, as we seem to have done.
-
Johnson, Hancock and now Chris Whitty all tested positive.
I reckon it'll only take a couple more awkward press conferences and Gove will shuffle off to the doctors with 'mild symptoms' too.
I watched about 30 min of Goves presser - and was pleasantly surprised by how he came over.
In politics he’s been a big eyed back stabbing slime exuder - but when dealing with something that is at present a-political - so not spewing out some party political line of turgid sound bites - err - he sounded quite statesmanlike..
I’ll just go and have a word with myself in a dark room somewhere...
-
Make that word ‘academies’. And follow it with ‘over £4bn squandered on free schools with no robust evidence of any benefit’.
-
Make that word ‘academies’. And follow it with ‘over £4bn squandered on free schools with no robust evidence of any benefit’.
(Caveat: hate Gove. Not fond of Tories).
Churchill was largely responsible for the debacle of Gallipoli.
He did fairly well, later, under somewhat testing circumstances.
If (if, maybe, possibly, unexpectedly, improbably) he steps up to the plate and proves useful, he should be given credit for that usefulness.
Past crimes should be dealt with separately.
-
But also, Nigel I know what you're saying and not saying I disagree entirely, but... if the tories have shown to the public that they're able to adapt to circumstances - when essential to the welfare of the nation in an existential crisis - by implementing what Corbyn claims are his policies, then doesn't that go some way to negate Corbyn's point about winning the argument?
Come on Pete, you must see I'm not claiming that the Tories are implementing Corbyn's policies line for line as a response to the coronavirus! As you well know, at the election he was not proposing paying everyone 80% of their wages from the government's pockets for sitting at home.
I did say it was all a question of degree. I am absolutely not claiming that Corbyn's policies were the solution to a public health crisis which hadn't happened yet and were therefore over the top. What I am trying to highlight is the *principle* that essentially the public spending taps can come on or off at will, and fast, as long as inflation is not a big risk or can be relegated to a secondary issue after people's immediate welfare, to be dealt with in the future. National debts and deficits do not stop this happening, full stop. That has long been denied by the Tories.
To clarify a little further. A lot of people have no money at present and so, in a crisis where failure to act would see the whole economy stalling, we see that actually, there is money to keep things going. Its not stashed away, it doesn't come from a hidden box under the floorboards of No. 10, its not saved up in an account. The government just magics it up (simplified!). That is not a problem at all as long as it essentially has a purpose, as it negates the risk of inflation. In this instance the effect is to temporarily support the economy, after which the extra money will be kept around to support growth, or taxed back. I get the feeling that most if not all people support this action.
All Corbyn was proposing was using a similar principal, to a lesser degree to fit with the times, of investing public money for a common good. For those in the public sector whose wages had stagnated for a decade and declined in real terms, and those on universal credit and disability benefits, that would have been welcome. The principle that a) the government can choose to do this if it wants, and b) it is a a beneficial idea is what his contribution was. That's all. If you don't accept that yourself then I trust you are well prepared for the following century of hyper-austerity you must expect after this crisis. My theory - it won't happen.
-
Oh we have the administration we have, OMM, let’s hope they excel. Then it’s taxi for Mr Gove, ninth circle please.
-
You're right I knew you weren't claiming that, bit of a strawman on my part.
I'm trying to think it through. At the moment I'm coming up with:
(simplified) Use a mirror to reflect Labour's argument that tory governments are reluctant to implement 'taps on'; and apply it to the tory argument that Labour governments are reluctant to implement 'taps off'. Isn't the argument the same argument? All that remains is the relative merits of taps on or off. The eternal debate?
As for austerity..
I assume the taxpayer will pay the bill in the long run, because we live in a capitalist economy and the ones with the most capital hold the ultimate power. As the guy below thinks. Seems to be saying what you're saying, but goes further into the future:
https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/just-another-massive-transfer-of-wealth/ (https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/just-another-massive-transfer-of-wealth/)
He ends with: It has been widely noted that money is suddenly magically available which was denied to industrial strategy and to the NHS for decades. But do not be fooled; this is not a conversion to Keynes by the Tories. In bailing out the airlines, Branson is not going to be asked to put back one penny of his personal wealth, and nor is David Ross nor any of the other billionaires. Those who have made vast fortunes in our ever-expanding wealth gap are not going to be asked to put anything back into the companies or system which they exploited. Massive state subsidies will predominantly go to the biggest companies and benefit the paid agency of the bankers. You and I will pay. The taxpayer will ultimately pick up the tab through what may prove to be another decade of austerity imposed as a result of another transfer of wealth from us to banks, financial institutions and big companies. The small and medium companies which will go to the wall – and a great many will – are going to provide rich pickings in a few months time for the vultures of the hedge funds and other disaster capitalists.
It is fashionable to write articles at the moment stating the Government has discovered the value of socialist intervention. I suspect history will show that nothing could be further from the truth.
But I hope he's wrong.
-
Sad news
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/first-working-nhs-surgeon-dies-from-coronavirus
-
I'd agree that this crisis will be paid for in higher taxes for several generations. It's not really an argument for taps on massive spending though as at the moment it's necessary for survival.
In a relatively stable political situation the conservative party has always essentially believed that unrestrained spending leads to financial instability, I don't think they've suddenly been converted, they're just trying to do what's necessary. I'm not lending them my support, other than at the moment when to be honest I'd struggle to imagine how anyone could really do all the right things in a massive crisis that changes and intensifies every day. I don't think this somehow relates to a sensible political and financial strategy in a more normal world.
The US did have an amazing organisation to look into and try to plan for and predict pandemics which would have been better than any other Western countries, but Trump closed it down, because he associated it with Obama.
-
What the government have done, is absolutely necessary.
They need to speed up delivery of the money, though. 30 days will be too late.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122 (https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122)
A lot of people were paid weekly, they will already be feeling it.
-
An interesting Gaurdian 'long read':
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/how-will-the-world-emerge-from-the-coronavirus-crisis
-
What the government have done, is absolutely necessary.
They need to speed up delivery of the money, though. 30 days will be too late.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122 (https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-italy-becoming-impatient-with-lockdown-and-social-unrest-is-brewing-11965122)
A lot of people were paid weekly, they will already be feeling it.
Timely, and very worrying. This is why I've been arguing for the least restrictive approach. Thinking we can just embark on months of tight lockdown is a massive gamble on so many levels.
-
We just had our busiest month ever in Holland. Pushed loads of work through in case we have to shut down but it’s not happened. Still totally free to work as before only restrictions are on leisure activities.
Much better approach as far as I can see although time will tell.
-
Could be worse, you could be Iraq. What a shitshow.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/world/middleeast/virus-iraq-oil.html
-
Really grim
-
You're right I knew you weren't claiming that, bit of a strawman on my part.
I'm trying to think it through. At the moment I'm coming up with:
(simplified) Use a mirror to reflect Labour's argument that tory governments are reluctant to implement 'taps on'; and apply it to the tory argument that Labour governments are reluctant to implement 'taps off'. Isn't the argument the same argument? All that remains is the relative merits of taps on or off. The eternal debate?
No worries on the strawman Pete, helps clear thought sometimes.
Basically yes you are right, this is part of the eternal debate RE public spending, yay or nay. That is a proxy for the root ideology though - how big should the state be? Ultimately the Conservative ideology is to shrink the state to allow the private sector a bigger share of the economy. Labour ideology is that the state should take a bigger share as it is better equipped to run certain elements.
At the last election the argument about amounts of spending was basically: public spending (day-to-day) - tiny increase tories, massive increase labour (funded mainly by tax increase, some borrowing). In addition to that you had borrowing to invest in capital spending - modest but not insignificant increase from tories, huge increase from labour. Despite offering the same justification for the borrowing i.e. that yields on government borrowing were so low that any investment would likely pay for itself even off a tiny return, the tories derided labour's proposed level of borrowing as profligate spending. Obviously we already know how that one panned out...although the now memory-holed “B-word” did have some small effect on the result too I suspect!
Now we have coronavirus the tories have in fact decided that large amounts of borrowing / “profligate spending” to fund state intervention does have a place. They aren’t leaving the solution of this one to the market are they? Yes its a very obvious emergency which is why no-one is questioning the volte-face, it is accepted as necessary. But it is an admission that actually this approach is feasible and in fact in some cases desireable. I guess the difference is, coronavirus aside, at what point do you declare the emergency? Corbyn's labour had assessed that the emergency in provision of public services, public sector wages, stalled growth, stalled private investment etc. had already arrived pre-corona. That is why I think it is a question of degree. Obviously you may disagree with that assessment, as many did at the time, but the fact remains that there are situations where the public sector can be more effective than the private sector as we are seeing right now. We are clearly in such a situation now, but an argument exists that *to some extent* we were in one before. That's all I'm saying.
To summarize I suppose you are saying socialism is good for emergencies. My point is where do you draw the line?
The question of whether we end up paying for all this extra borrowing further down the line is an interesting one. I don't know. £200bn of it is coming from the Bank of England via QE / printing money, so unless and until inflation starts rocketing the answer is not necessarily as we don't owe that to anyone. It just adds to the existing £445bn pile of gilts they own which don't seem to be bothering anyone. If inflation stays unaffected but we get asked to undergo austerity MkII "to pay down the debt" I would start to ask questions...
-
:agree: with Nigel
Better put than I could ever have, but my thoughts exactly. Only when it happens on such a huge scale do enough people hopefully start to realise these emergencies (sickness, job loss, increased caring duties etc) are happening on a daily basis in normal times and could happen to anyone. It’s generally not a life choice, and £76/wk or whatever universal credit is isn’t sufficient. Hence why they’ve felt the need to increase it for ‘normal’ people who happen to be without work so it’s more palatable. [As an aside, I wonder if the government will struggle to justify how they can return UC back to the original amount once this is over].
-
The question of whether we end up paying for all this extra borrowing further down the line is an interesting one. I don't know. £200bn of it is coming from the Bank of England via QE / printing money, so unless and until inflation starts rocketing the answer is not necessarily as we don't owe that to anyone. It just adds to the existing £445bn pile of gilts they own which don't seem to be bothering anyone. If inflation stays unaffected but we get asked to undergo austerity MkII "to pay down the debt" I would start to ask questions...
From what I've read, the government are currently planning to fund some of this extra spending through regular investments rather than getting the BoE to buy bonds. Governments are the only people issuing new debt at the moment so investors are apparently quite happy to buy it.
I have no idea where we stand with inflationary pressures from this extra govt spending, but I strongly doubt there will be much. The spending is not an extra but to replace lost incomes, and anyhow people have far less to spend it on as nearly everything is shut and no one is doing anything. There might be a burst when lockdown stops but even then I'm not convinced there will be a sudden lightbulb moment in which life returns to normal.
Do we have to pay it back? Yes I reckon at some point it's inevitable, which is why the government should borrow over a very long time (as long as possible) and spread the debt out over a very long time. Whilst some growth will inevitably erode the debt/GDP ratio, further down the line there will be other emergencies that need paying for, so worth getting it down a bit to give goverments more room to spend later. I have no problem with this, but we have to avoid stupid, damaging and unsustainable idiocies like trying to get rid of the deficit in five years.
Just to weigh in on the "does this prove Corbyn right?" question... Corbyn was suggesting an awful lot of middle class bungs, such as student loans, nationalising railways, free broadband, etc. I'm not sure there is a railway crisis in the UK that warrants limited government attention and money over and above, say, social care or the NHS. To me that's (vegetarian) pork barrel politics.
More seriously, the questions over nationalisation shouldn't be around the costs: if the government run the newly nationalised utility as a profit making enterprise just as the private sector would, then it would have a new asset and an income stream to help pay the cost of acquiring it. The problem then comes when the utility is then used inefficiently for political ends - as a method of redistribution, rewarding the leadership's favoured client groups, or with management positions reserved for political allies, or even sweated for cash for other government goals rather than using any profits for reinvestment. Corbyn's track record is of a man who prefers loyalty to the cause and its leaders over competence. I strongly suspect he would use nationalised utilities for all those things.
-
From what I've read, the government are currently planning to fund some of this extra spending through regular investments rather than getting the BoE to buy bonds. Governments are the only people issuing new debt at the moment so investors are apparently quite happy to buy it.
You may well be right Sean, I don't know what the breakdown of all the bond issues is. The BofE has definitely increased QE by £200bn though: https://www.moneyobserver.com/news/bank-england-slashes-rates-again-and-increases-qe-will-it-do-any-good (https://www.moneyobserver.com/news/bank-england-slashes-rates-again-and-increases-qe-will-it-do-any-good) Most of this will be on government bonds so unless it is somehow hypothecated then *I assume* that yes it will be used for coronavirus measures. I am happy to be told that assumption is wrong though!
Interestingly para 3 of that article mentions that some of this QE is going on "sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds". It doesn't say how much, or which corporate bonds, but as far as I know that is the first time the central bank have printed money and invested directly in companies. Be interesting to know more about this. Sounds a lot like interfering in the market by "picking winners"! Fingers crossed its in vaccine and ventilator companies.
Do we have to pay it back? Yes I reckon at some point it's inevitable....I have no problem with this, but we have to avoid stupid, damaging and unsustainable idiocies like trying to get rid of the deficit in five years.
Assuming for a moment you are right about the source of this money, then overall I agree with the sentiment that hopefully we won't have red-in-tooth-and-claw austerity back. There was never a need for this ten years ago anyway. Continuing to further punish key workers after this crisis is unlikely to be popular politically. We can just grow out of it over a long period of time. We managed that after each world war when debt/GDP hit 200%ish. Currently 80%ish. If we are in "wartime" measures then historically we do have headroom. That said if QE does turn out to have paid for this then there should be no problem based on last decade.
-
From what I've read, the government are currently planning to fund some of this extra spending through regular investments rather than getting the BoE to buy bonds. Governments are the only people issuing new debt at the moment so investors are apparently quite happy to buy it.
You may well be right Sean, I don't know what the breakdown of all the bond issues is. The BofE has definitely increased QE by £200bn though: https://www.moneyobserver.com/news/bank-england-slashes-rates-again-and-increases-qe-will-it-do-any-good (https://www.moneyobserver.com/news/bank-england-slashes-rates-again-and-increases-qe-will-it-do-any-good) Most of this will be on government bonds so unless it is somehow hypothecated then *I assume* that yes it will be used for coronavirus measures. I am happy to be told that assumption is wrong though!
No I stand corrected! I think the government will be borrowing an awful lot just to make up the expected fall in taxes which is going to be very sudden and very sharp.
Interestingly para 3 of that article mentions that some of this QE is going on "sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds". It doesn't say how much, or which corporate bonds, but as far as I know that is the first time the central bank have printed money and invested directly in companies. Be interesting to know more about this. Sounds a lot like interfering in the market by "picking winners"! Fingers crossed its in vaccine and ventilator companies.
I think what they are doing is buying short term corporate debt to help companies keep going right now:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2020/march/the-covid-corporate-financing-facility
It's definitely not "picking winners" and it should absolutely not be in ventilator companies: there is a huge demand for their products right now.
Do we have to pay it back? Yes I reckon at some point it's inevitable....I have no problem with this, but we have to avoid stupid, damaging and unsustainable idiocies like trying to get rid of the deficit in five years.
Assuming for a moment you are right about the source of this money, then overall I agree with the sentiment that hopefully we won't have red-in-tooth-and-claw austerity back. There was never a need for this ten years ago anyway. Continuing to further punish key workers after this crisis is unlikely to be popular politically. We can just grow out of it over a long period of time. We managed that after each world war when debt/GDP hit 200%ish. Currently 80%ish. If we are in "wartime" measures then historically we do have headroom. That said if QE does turn out to have paid for this then there should be no problem based on last decade.
Of course you're forgetting that there was an unprecedented 30 years of high growth after the war which made reducing debt much easier than it would be in today's world of much lower growth.
-
I think what they are doing is buying short term corporate debt to help companies keep going right now:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2020/march/the-covid-corporate-financing-facility
It's definitely not "picking winners" and it should absolutely not be in ventilator companies: there is a huge demand for their products right now.
Thanks for the link, I understand it now and you are right of course. Still, I think this is unprecedented?
Of course you're forgetting that there was an unprecedented 30 years of high growth after the war which made reducing debt much easier than it would be in today's world of much lower growth.
Well yes again you are quite right. Equally the last ten years have been historically low. Maybe after this there will be a productivity revolution and we'll find a middle ground. Wishful thinking I know!
-
Just to weigh in on the "does this prove Corbyn right?" question... Corbyn was suggesting an awful lot of middle class bungs, such as student loans, nationalising railways, free broadband, etc. I'm not sure there is a railway crisis in the UK that warrants limited government attention and money over and above, say, social care or the NHS. To me that's (vegetarian) pork barrel politics.
More seriously, the questions over nationalisation shouldn't be around the costs: if the government run the newly nationalised utility as a profit making enterprise just as the private sector would, then it would have a new asset and an income stream to help pay the cost of acquiring it. The problem then comes when the utility is then used inefficiently for political ends - as a method of redistribution, rewarding the leadership's favoured client groups, or with management positions reserved for political allies, or even sweated for cash for other government goals rather than using any profits for reinvestment. Corbyn's track record is of a man who prefers loyalty to the cause and its leaders over competence. I strongly suspect he would use nationalised utilities for all those things.
I had to rush off for my tea last night so thought I would quickly respond to the above section of your reply. Your general point about nationalisations being an asset acquiring process I agree with. This is usually skipped over by the free-marketeers who focus only on the initial cost / debt. I note they don't usually have the same concern on let's say for example their buy-to-let houses, which are also usually a debt funded asset acquisition paying an indefinite income stream. Usually seen by them as a "good investment". They also give someone a place to live which is socially useful.
The question of how they are run is a separate one. Your perception of how Labour might hypothetically have run any newly nationalised industries is just that - hypothetical. I'll admit I don't know, but personally I don't ascribe Corbyn the Stalin-esque traits you clearly do!
On the subject of "middle class bungs", these were *on top* of the establishment of a National Social Care Service and a 4.3% per year increase in NHS funding. So the proposal at least was not either / or, as you have presented it - it was both. Whether they were necessary is a different question. Personally I think they would be practically good things - a nationalised rail service could for instance could simplify the fare structure, lower fares to a sensible level e.g. on par or less than driving, reintroduce commercially unviable but socially and environmentally useful branch lines, and remove the constant tension / blame game between Network Rail and the rolling stock operators. These social and environmental levers are often forgotten in the rush to assess the bottom line, but they do have at least as much value. Governments role is to direct resources for the long term welfare of the country so to hypothesize for a second, running a national railway at a loss for a decade might in the long run be worthwhile if it gets a lot of people out of their cars and reduces emissions. If enough people end up using it it may well turn a profit. I'm *not* saying this is specifically what I think (I don't know!) but this is the type of joined up strategic thinking we need to have to make society run better and save the planet. The argument that the market will prioritise these things over its bottom line is for the birds.
All that said politically it was probably a bad choice as to most voters it all looked too much, and opened up easy fronts for attack by the tories.
Anyway that's raking over old coals, back to politics and coronavirus!
-
Worth five minutes.
Not advocating this position, but it’s an interesting view:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history (https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history)
-
Worth five minutes.
Not advocating this position, but it’s an interesting view:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history (https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history)
I liked that OMM 👍
-
Worth five minutes.
Not advocating this position, but it’s an interesting view:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history (https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/04/why-crisis-turning-point-history)
It is interesting, but I think that many people, including John Gray in this piece are perhaps struggling to find solace in the current situation by discovering that it proves a thesis or viewpoint which they already hold.
I think it's far too early to tell whether this is going to be something which changes everything, or actually changes very little. I do agree with him that reshoring of vital medical supplies will happen everywhere. There was an interesting episode of in business on R4 this evening where they discussed this, as well as probable refiguring of just in time supply chains.
-
Have you a link to that radio programme Toby? I feel it would be a better use of my time than then John Gray piece, which is junk.
-
Have you a link to that radio programme Toby? I feel it would be a better use of my time than then John Gray piece, which is junk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000gvd3
Voila.
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients
-
On the subject of "middle class bungs"
So as a business qualifying for small business rates relief, we are due a grant of £10,000. Staff costs are largely taken care of, which leaves rent as the biggest ongoing outgoing for most. So from here it looks like most of this huge handout will end up in the pockets of landlords. Commerical tenants have been promised protection from eviction for non-payment of rent, but that rent will still be due eventually. Tories protecting their own, or is there something I've missed here?
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients
Isn't this just the sort of triage decision which, unfortunately, covid19 forces medical staff to make?
To put it in the same sensationalist language as you: slowing down the death of the slightly younger and slightly less vulnerable.
-
On the subject of "middle class bungs"
So as a business qualifying for small business rates relief, we are due a grant of £10,000. Staff costs are largely taken care of, which leaves rent as the biggest ongoing outgoing for most. So from here it looks like most of this huge handout will end up in the pockets of landlords. Commerical tenants have been promised protection from eviction for non-payment of rent, but that rent will still be due eventually. Tories protecting their own, or is there something I've missed here?
Yes. Very much in the same position.
We are trying a slightly tougher line with the landlord, asking for a rent holiday, leaning on them with the “you’d be at least three months without rent while you found a new tenant, if you could in the current climate anyway etc etc”.
Secondly, I will believe the £10k when it shows up, because there’s no actual time line on it yet; just as there’s still no actual process to recover the furlough costs (which we have to pay then claim back).
I suppose 10k sounds meaty. Even for a fairly well paid person that sounds like a couple of months salary. However, even for a small business, with a turnover below 100k, it’s tiny.
I managed to get a cash advance from our card handler (at a fixed fee, no interest and recoverable at 10% of future card sales, no fixed repayment, just a minimum every 90 days), just before everything kicked off. They were all over it, realising they were looking at losing all those transaction fees. Much more reasonable than the banks.
However, if the government don’t deliver by the end of April? Well, then everything stops until they do.
The fact that this scheme is being used by large companies, owned by billionaires too, who are capable of bailing their own companies out, is galling. I suppose I grudgingly understand it and the reality is that the billionaires are untouchable, but it’s not “right” somehow.
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients
Isn't this just the sort of triage decision which, unfortunately, covid19 forces medical staff to make?
To put it in the same sensationalist language as you: slowing down the death of the slightly younger and slightly less vulnerable.
Yes Pete.
Though sending the (possibly) infected into places that are not equipped to provide appropriate isolation, seems likely to spread the infection and compound the problem?
-
To put it in the same sensationalist language as you: slowing down the death of the slightly younger and slightly less vulnerable
However people with learning difficulties being sent Do Not Resuscitate forms to sign has a horrible whiff of eugenics. Eugh. https://twitter.com/VoyageCEO/status/1245415024396587008
We are trying a slightly tougher line with the landlord, asking for a rent holiday, leaning on them with the “you’d be at least three months without rent while you found a new tenant, if you could in the current climate anyway etc etc”.
However, even for a small business, with a turnover below 100k, it’s tiny.
Yes, planning the same. Outgoings last year >600k. If he has a mortgage he can get a holiday. If not, tiny violin (pretty sure he was given the building by his Dad). We also have some context of an impending 30% rent increase.
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients
Isn't this just the sort of triage decision which, unfortunately, covid19 forces medical staff to make?
To put it in the same sensationalist language as you: slowing down the death of the slightly younger and slightly less vulnerable.
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it. I'd say it's the legal H&S duty of care home managers to refuse returned people to their care who have not tested as negative for infection.
-
On the subject of "middle class bungs"
So as a business qualifying for small business rates relief, we are due a grant of £10,000. Staff costs are largely taken care of, which leaves rent as the biggest ongoing outgoing for most. So from here it looks like most of this huge handout will end up in the pockets of landlords. Commerical tenants have been promised protection from eviction for non-payment of rent, but that rent will still be due eventually. Tories protecting their own, or is there something I've missed here?
I don't think you have missed that. People are real but arguments about the economy increasingly become academic and problematic given the complexity and dishonesty of where we are in the world these days. I suspect we all live in a world kleptocracy, due to the reliance of the worlds two biggest economies on shadow banking. The super rich too often use finance in parasitic ways to increase their own wealth and too often hide that in tax havens.
There was a paper I saw on the UK shadow banking, published about 5 years ago looking back at the period running up to the 2008 crash. They said most UK money that was in the UK was if you tracked it back, based on UK property..... arguably a bubble but not massively so.... most of the huge amount of international money held in the UK was in dodgy financial vehicles, mostly based on sub-prime US property. The UK handled a lot of this as we had laxer rules than the US on the number of loops you could take the money around, loops which multiplied up the value of products compared to the value of the security it was based on (in terms of subprime, this was several times a big number secured on something almost worthless). Given the limited effect of 2008 on shadow banking, another crisis will come, not long down the line, maybe even off the back of Covid19.
On another point, to support Nigel's arguments above, various economic think tanks costed Corbyn's plans and the tory plans assuming various degrees of hardness of brexit and the Corbyn fantasy (as he couldn't win a big majority and any coalition would have reigned him in) vs a fairly significant risk of a tory no deal brexit were pretty similar in effect in overall GDP terms.
-
Agreed JB, suspect a lot of this will "trickle up" as per. Tell your landlord to take either a mortgage holiday, or a hike ;)
The fact that there is not enough PPE and testing for the NHS is still grinding my gears, especially since the government have now deflected from the promised "ramping up" to 25,000 tests/day (which is nowhere near being achieved) not by actually doing it, but instead by promising 100,000/day by the end of the month. I hope they get there obvs but let's meet back on 1st May to see how they're doing shall we...
In the first instance, given this is a SARS-type virus, if the government are not providing health care workers *all* of the PPE listed in section 6 of the following HSE link then surely they are in breach of their own HSAW Act? Do journalists ever ask whether the gov thinks it is complying with its own laws? I don't watch the briefings any more but I doubt it. If they've let themselves off it via the new coronavirus bill it would still be good to know:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/diseases/sars.html
Given the old maxim "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" I thought I'd google "NHS preparations SARS 2003". I can't read the full article as I don't subscribe but from the first few paras of the below we had in 2003 plans in place for a special quarantine hospital in the UK while SARS-1 was still only present in China. Compare with known UK gov plans from December this time round? Anyone access the whole thing?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-told-to-prepare-for-sars-outbreak-rllwnrh5sps (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nhs-told-to-prepare-for-sars-outbreak-rllwnrh5sps)
From the same search the following article highlights 2 main things -
1) UK gov pandemic planning was based on an influenza type virus, rather than SARS
2) NHS resilience was/is compromised by a Conservative obsession with efficiency:
https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/03/30/chris-cook-coronavirus-nhs-at-capacity/content.html (https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/03/30/chris-cook-coronavirus-nhs-at-capacity/content.html)
And finally even if the pandemic was an influenza-type one as per the planning, then this Pandemic Influenza Response Plan document from 2014 shows that part of the response was (Pg 13):
the collection and analysis of detailed clinical and epidemiological information on
early cases on which to base early estimates of impact and severity in the UK (First
Few Hundred (FF100), Appendix 9)
"reducing the risk of transmission and infection with the virus within the local
community by:
- actively finding cases
- advising community voluntary self-isolation of cases and suspected cases"
This seems to imply early contact tracing. Was this done?
Full doc here for anyone interested enough to read more than I did, which wasn't much: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/344695/PI_Response_Plan_13_Aug.pdf
-
And from the Cabinet Office National Risk Register 2008 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf
Page 5 shows Pandemic Influenza on a chart as a relatively high likelihood risk (on par with severe weather) with much the highest relative impact of any other risk. I don't have the tech skills to put an image but I wish I could! How does that tally with relative spending across the risks?
There is a section on Pg 15 regarding New and Emerging Infectious Diseases e.g. SARS. It is, as far as I can tell, pretty vague but I'm outside my area.
-
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it.
Under any other circumstance I’d agree. So you’re implying there is somewhere else they could go instead. I’m open to hearing your suggestion for a solution if you have one. Or were you just pointing out another shitty thing for the sake of it?
-
It's pretty obvious...they stay in hospital if they are infected.
-
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it.
This implies there is somewhere else they could go instead. I’m open to hearing your suggestion for a solution if you have one. Or were you just pointing out another shitty thing for the sake of it?
To be fair to Offwidth, shitty things are hard to ignore these days.
I think you are both right, but it’s not up to Offwidth to suggest an alternative. I tend towards the “they know more than we do” end of the spectrum with regards to government decisions, but we’re surely all aware, sometimes, it’s actually a mistake. A detail that’s slipped through a hole in an overtaxed agenda.
The Media and even social media, seem reasonable ways to raise awareness. Like the PPE thing?
-
In the first instance, given this is a SARS-type virus, if the government are not providing health care workers *all* of the PPE listed in section 6 of the following HSE link then surely they are in breach of their own HSAW Act? Do journalists ever ask whether the gov thinks it is complying with its own laws? I don't watch the briefings any more but I doubt it. If they've let themselves off it via the new coronavirus bill it would still be good to know:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/diseases/sars.htm
Sorry for report of above but am just fixing link - I don't know how to edit posts!
-
So, the Queen’s address on Sunday.
“Thanks key workers” or “We regret to announce, terrible x, horrific y and a really awful z”?
Place yer bets...
-
It's pretty obvious...they stay in hospital if they are infected.
It's pretty obvious that, in this situation, there is a chain of events that mean this may not be possible. So having a plan for that event is prudent and pragmatic.
I think you are both right, but it’s not up to Offwidth to suggest an alternative.
Of course not, but people might take him more seriously if he could.
-
It's pretty obvious that, in this situation, there is a chain of events that mean this may not be possible. So having a plan for that event is prudent and pragmatic.
Nothing is obvious in that sense at all. Hospital says to Social Care team we have to get Bob out quick as we have run out of space, but he might still be ill. Social Care team say to Care Manager you need to take Bob back. Care Manager says get stuffed, I'm not risking the others in my home. So then what? You seriously think the Care Manager (the majority of whom are running a private business) can't refuse? This is guidance not law. The most likely outcome is we would have Social Care using small hotels to 'park' such patients. Such facilities seem to be popping up already.
-
My thoughts exactly. But that isn't your 'obviously, they stay in hospital if they're still infected'.
-
The hotels are being called hospital extensions. They are in effect there to remove the bedblocking that the NHS had under normal conditions due to the lack of social care capacity and transfer staff overload due to austerity.
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients
Isn't this just the sort of triage decision which, unfortunately, covid19 forces medical staff to make?
To put it in the same sensationalist language as you: slowing down the death of the slightly younger and slightly less vulnerable.
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it. I'd say it's the legal H&S duty of care home managers to refuse returned people to their care who have not tested as negative for infection.
I'm sorry offwidth, but you're not right. This is closely related to my job.
The care home manager in the article who says you can't SD in a care home is talking crap, or has been misquoted by the journalist. All the homes I've been into in the last week have had residents confined to rooms, and minimal staff contact, closed to all outside visits except emergencies (mainly medical professionals). That's pretty safe as far as I can see.
-
It's pretty obvious that, in this situation, there is a chain of events that mean this may not be possible. So having a plan for that event is prudent and pragmatic.
Nothing is obvious in that sense at all. Hospital says to Social Care team we have to get Bob out quick as we have run out of space, but he might still be ill. Social Care team say to Care Manager you need to take Bob back. Care Manager says get stuffed, I'm not risking the others in my home. So then what? You seriously think the Care Manager (the majority of whom are running a private business) can't refuse? This is guidance not law. The most likely outcome is we would have Social Care using small hotels to 'park' such patients. Such facilities seem to be popping up already.
Ha, often the most likely outcome is that patients are discharged home on discharge to assess when community services and social care organise how to try and keep them there. This is possible and likely whether or not they've tested positive.
-
The hotels are being called hospital extensions. They are in effect there to remove the bedblocking that the NHS had under normal conditions due to the lack of social care capacity and transfer staff overload due to austerity.
You started off saying that moving elderly people with covid19 out of hospital was 'Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?'
When I asked if you had a better suggestion you stated 'it's pretty obvious... they stay in hospital if infected'.
When I pointed out this might not be possible without compromising a higher-priority patient in these unusual circumstances, you back-peddled to 'The most likely outcome is we would have Social Care using small hotels to 'park' such patients. Such facilities seem to be popping up already.'
When I point out that this isn't the same as: 'it's pretty obvious... they stay in hospital', you change your story to 'The hotels are being called hospital extensions.'
Then Toby points out what is known if you do a little reading around the matter.
If you keep up that back-peddling for much longer you'll be owning up to your own bullshitting before I even point it out ;)
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients.
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it. I'd say it's the legal H&S duty of care home managers to refuse returned people to their care who have not tested as negative for infection.
I'm sorry offwidth, but you're not right. This is closely related to my job.
The care home manager in the article who says you can't SD in a care home is talking crap, or has been misquoted by the journalist. All the homes I've been into in the last week have had residents confined to rooms, and minimal staff contact, closed to all outside visits except emergencies (mainly medical professionals). That's pretty safe as far as I can see.
From our previous discussions its clear the places you work with have high standards. However you can't escape the fact that the virus has gone through care homes taking precautions in various countries like a dose of salts. People were left dead in Spain. So I'd expect better from you than saying a concerned manager was talking crap. You won't know whats safe in terms of if someone infected can be successfully isolated in most UK homes. I know carers, district nurses and social workers assessosrs through old relatives of family and friends. Self isolating is up massively and they are worried about PPE and tests, just like health staff.
https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/breaking-news-government-issues-new-covid-19-admissions-and-care-guidance/
-
Oil Price at $20. bbl is going to do some serious damage to US shale and any other marginal producers around the world. hit for those still in the industry.
I have a pet theory in which I'd like to indulge. I'm musing over things I have no deep understanding in, but just normal levels of interest....
2008 financial meltdown. Government did a load of QE. This stabilised the financial sector, and, while I hate the fact in the neoliberal west we have a steadily diminishing social safety net, the big boys get their seriously fraudulent and risky behaviour "socialised" and we pay for it through 10 years of needless austerity. Most of the QE went straight to shareholders. Basically, QE didn't lead to inflation or high interest rates. The money was borrowed cheaply, but we didn't suffer the oft-touted runaway inflation associated. Not sure I fully understand why? Anyone?
We're now in a similar situation. 25% GDP drop likely on the cards, huge spending to support workers shareholders. Why not take this opportunity to borrow cheaply and spend hard on:
- Energy transition
- Environment
- NHS
- Schools & Universities
- High quality energy efficient affordable housing
Spending on these results in the economic multiplier effect, as workers and employees generally spend their earnings, recycle into the economy, pay taxes. On the other hand investors and shareholders hoard wealth, re-invest and generally avoid paying too much tax when they can.
Right, so we have a few existential crises on the horizon - more pandemics. Automation. Ageing population. Climate change.
This is where I get a bit whacky...so bear with me.... This pandemic has shown how fragile the whole system is, it's a big stack of playing cards held up by belief in the money system. Debt is only as real as people believe it is. Climate change is likely* to cause a similar shock or upheaval as this pandemic. At that point, does it matter if we have a heavy burden of national debt? We're never, ever paying it back. There's no intention of that. So why not borrow now, borrow hard and cheap (0.1% base rate, bonds must be mega cheap just now), and invest in the future. Not prop up ailing industries like O&G, but in the technology and industries of the future. Create jobs, wealth, health and prosperity. We don't even need to nationalise anything. The contracts for difference market in wind (failings aside) shows a model where the government can successfully promote technologies that are properly on the open market for companies to bid on.
If things go bad, then we default. Debt is fictional, and the other alternative is climbing on to dying industries and the inevitable collapse.
Right, chew on that for a while. Keen to promote discussion.
-
1/
Uneducated guess:
QE didn’t lead to rampant inflation, because it was given to people/organisations that didn’t “spend” it.
Give money to us plebs and we buy things , too many things too quickly and create inflationary pressure?
-
... This pandemic has shown how fragile the whole system is, it's a big stack of playing cards held up by belief in the money system. Debt is only as real as people believe it is. Climate change is likely* to cause a similar shock or upheaval as this pandemic. At that point, does it matter if we have a heavy burden of national debt?
We've got another thread going on this...
-
Lets see how this terrible news pans out and how long the guidance 'U turn' on advice to care homes will take.
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/covid-19-linked-to-13-deaths-at-scottish-care-home/
Plus two young nurses sadly die
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/03/two-young-nurses-die-as-nhs-braces-for-more-coronavirus-losses
Also an NHS worker resigns in a management farce.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/nhs-worker-quit-when-she-was-stopped-from-wearing-face-mask
-
... This pandemic has shown how fragile the whole system is, it's a big stack of playing cards held up by belief in the money system. Debt is only as real as people believe it is. Climate change is likely* to cause a similar shock or upheaval as this pandemic. At that point, does it matter if we have a heavy burden of national debt?
We've got another thread going on this...
True, missed that. Can a mod move mine post over?
-
2008 financial meltdown. Government did a load of QE. This stabilised the financial sector, and, while I hate the fact in the neoliberal west we have a steadily diminishing social safety net, the big boys get their seriously fraudulent and risky behaviour "socialised" and we pay for it through 10 years of needless austerity. Most of the QE went straight to shareholders. Basically, QE didn't lead to inflation or high interest rates. The money was borrowed cheaply, but we didn't suffer the oft-touted runaway inflation associated. Not sure I fully understand why? Anyone?
Just to correct one point there, the money was not "borrowed cheaply", it was "created, for free".
The process of QE and its effects is pretty convoluted and technical. But in a nutshell, QE *did* cause inflation, of a type. It just didn't cause consumer price inflation, as only a small proportion of the money reached the "real" economy i.e. you, me, and businesses, via bank lending. It did cause asset price inflation (stocks and house prices), the benefits of which are necessarily skewed towards the richer demographic. The whys and wherefores of this I can have a go at explaining my understanding of if you are interested!
This is where I get a bit whacky...so bear with me.... This pandemic has shown how fragile the whole system is, it's a big stack of playing cards held up by belief in the money system. Debt is only as real as people believe it is. Climate change is likely* to cause a similar shock or upheaval as this pandemic. At that point, does it matter if we have a heavy burden of national debt? We're never, ever paying it back. There's no intention of that.
In my opinion, no it doesn't matter what the national debt is, at all. The cost of the debt is the main thing. As long as the UK can keep borrowing money at an affordable level we can just keep issuing new gilts to pay off any gilts that come due. This after all is what we have done for pretty much all of history since government debt was invented. At present UK gov can borrow at rock bottom rates, and there is a strong argument that it should load up and use this to invest, as you suggest with your examples.
-
Did you read the BOE paper on the other thread Nige (or the discussion with the author I linked)?
His thesis is that interest rates have been declining forever and will continue to do so.
-
Did you read the BOE paper on the other thread Nige (or the discussion with the author I linked)?
His thesis is that interest rates have been declining forever and will continue to do so.
No I missed that but have just found the link - 110 pages! Give me a bit of time eh? Something I'm not short of, so I'll get back to you - cheers for the heads up :thumbsup:
-
Speeding up the death of the old and vulnerable?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients.
It's not triage to put infected people in the place with both the highest risk to others and the least government help in staff preparation and protection to deal with it. I'd say it's the legal H&S duty of care home managers to refuse returned people to their care who have not tested as negative for infection.
I'm sorry offwidth, but you're not right. This is closely related to my job.
The care home manager in the article who says you can't SD in a care home is talking crap, or has been misquoted by the journalist. All the homes I've been into in the last week have had residents confined to rooms, and minimal staff contact, closed to all outside visits except emergencies (mainly medical professionals). That's pretty safe as far as I can see.
From our previous discussions its clear the places you work with have high standards. However you can't escape the fact that the virus has gone through care homes taking precautions in various countries like a dose of salts. People were left dead in Spain. So I'd expect better from you than saying a concerned manager was talking crap. You won't know whats safe in terms of if someone infected can be successfully isolated in most UK homes. I know carers, district nurses and social workers assessosrs through old relatives of family and friends. Self isolating is up massively and they are worried about PPE and tests, just like health staff.
https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/breaking-news-government-issues-new-covid-19-admissions-and-care-guidance/
This isn't true, I regularly go to some homes which are less than good to put it mildly, I almost contacted the CQC about one of them quite a while ago, until I talked to the manager and they improved drastically.
I am not relying on second hand reports, Guardian articles or anything else, just being in them all the time. You can isolate people in a care home. They are certainly under supplied with ppe as is the NHS, but I don't know if that's because the relevant home owners are just reluctant to buy it: they are always very reluctant to buy in any equipment and often try to pull a fast one by getting the NHS community services to get it for them. I get this all the time.
Carers are massively underpaid, and often do a great job, but this is separate from the home owners who are often pretty wealthy business people.
On a slightly different topic, there is a lot of misrepresentation of the DNARCPR situation in the media at the moment. Its got bugger all to do with limited resources or anything else, I'm no expert but broadly, if you put someone more than 75 in poorish health on ventilation, you'll probably never successfully wean them off it, and if you do, their quality of life will be appalling. It's a medical decision, and journalists should respect that, I don't envy doctors having to make them, but I'd trust them to make the best informed judgment, which is all anyone can ask I think.
-
You're dodging my point Toby and building strawmen. I have great respect for care workers, social workers, district nurses, physios, dieticians and all the others involved in the army of social health work. The personal wealth of the owner is irrelevant (unless they are not meeting quality requirements).
The current government guidance is that people can be returned from hospitals to homes untested. Why not answer some straight questions on this. Don't you think it is a H&S responsibility of care homes to control re-admission to those who have been tested as negative? I do. Would you let untested people return if you were running a home? I wouldn't. The Lanarkshire care home disaster shows that internal control measures will often be inadequate if the virus gets inside. Allowing people with the virus back into homes will kill many others in homes. It also puts the staff at risk.
On your ventilator point, the evidence from Italy is those who stay on them a long time face an increasing risk of death. However many don't follow that path and recover quickly and a few do recover after a long time . When the health system is under control we can afford to wait and see; when its overwhelmed, doctors have to play god.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/sweden-prepares-to-tighten-coronavirus-measures-as-death-toll-climbs
-
Another article on the nordic countries (thans to Ian Caton in the other channel)
http://theconversation.com/coronavirus-why-the-nordics-are-our-best-bet-for-comparing-strategies-135344
-
Blame
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/ministers-seeking-to-smear-civil-servants-over-coronavirus-handling
-
Boris is in ICU.
Balls.
I hope he doesn’t fall to this.
-
It will ram home to people how real this shit is... of nothing else.
We all know the odds once people enter ICU :(
-
Shit news.
-
Re Boris, terrible news, I hope he pulls through. Even at the best, he's unlikely to be PM for several weeks, possibly more.
In reply to offwidth you've willfully misinterpreted most of what I've said and resorting to talking about doctors playing god, is tabloid level. Doctors make informed medical decisions to cease or alter treatment in the patients best interests every day, in normal medical care. Including not intubating people when it's available.
-
Toby, I can assure you I'm trying to understand and I actually agree with much of what you say (despite you impugning otherwise), there is nothing willful in that. However, I still don't understand how most of it applies to my main concern: the dangerous government advice on the potentially infected returning to care homes, providing a huge mortality risk to others there (including staff).
-
Toby, I can assure you I'm trying to understand and I actually agree with much of what you say (despite you impugning otherwise), there is nothing willful in that. However, I still don't understand how most of it applies to my main concern: the dangerous government advice on the potentially infected returning to care homes, providing a huge mortality risk to others there (including staff).
Apologies if I sounded narky! But if a home is someone's place of residence (most residents) then the hospital doesn't have any choice, and homes are responsible for looking after their residents. If you accept that viral infection is going to be pretty widespread, it's going to happen at some point. They just have to implement proper procedures. The government isn't being callous or negligent in this case, just realistic as far as I can see.
The availability of the PPE to make this possible however is another question. It's not this government's fault specifically that they've been massively negligent in having a pandemic plan in place, however; it's the fault of every world government for the last decade or so, since virologists and epidemiologists have been warning them about it but most people have been preoccupied with trade wars, Brexit, immigration or gender politics etc. All that looks pretty frivolous now really. All of us are guilty really as I doubt it was something anyone thought about when they decided who to vote for, I certainly never have.
-
Thanks. I think that clarifies our difference. I don't think the virus will be there anyway if things go well. Even if things go badly, although in open society it might end up that way, I still think those in care homes will still need stringent protection. If you think it will be there anyway and homes should be open to it you are looking at an extra hundred thousand deaths in the UK and staff working with full PPE, with any not having had it, to avoid high viral load infection doses. My alternatives would be improved isolation controls for those at risk for more than a year or hope for an early vaccine. Boris might have been prepared to play russion roulette with his aged voter base when he was in herd immunity mode but most doctors would never sign off on allowing those in nursing homes to be open to such an infection and I think any such homes would struggle to survive financially. Who would want their gran in a place like that?
-
Offwidth, you can't fully isolate care homes. Even if they're closed to visits, staff go in and out, as do district nurses, maintenance services, GPs, caterers etc. Every person going in or out is a risk, as noone really knows how many people are minimally or non symptomatic. They can put measures in but coranovirus appears to be extremely infectious. I don't think that Boris Johnson ever thought that he'd play Russian roulette with people, however much you (and indeed I!) might not agree with his politics, I don't think he's that sort of leader.
-
Toby,
I have to disagree with you about Johnson. He clearly knew the risks and went ahead shaking hands with people. Lots of people. He showed a complete disregard for his or other people's lives. This is typical of his bluster and bumble.
While I obviously wish him well, he has brought this upon himself.
-
The problem with saying that people brought it upon themselves is that you have no idea where they got it. My manager was telling me that her daughter's boyfriend got it when he went out for a last night out. That may be. Or he could have got it the day before when he did his nan's shopping for her.
Likewise Johnson. He shook some hands he shouldn't have shook, but he also lives and works in a building with people coming and going all the time who've just come in from all over London.
I'm only really saying this because we should be careful about blaming people who contract it. Even following all the guidance it's all too easy to happen upon a few hundred thousand viruses. Unfortunately, the virus is incredibly good at its job and will continue to do it in spite of our best efforts.
-
I think a lot of people got it before they/we realised how widespread it was...Looking at the deaths and the cases (massive underestimate) its clear there were tens if not hundreds of thousands of cases the week/weekend before the lockdown was started (16 days ago??).
That’s a collective being caught out by the government. Clearly the Germans were far more on top of the breakout at that point..
-
And, as PM it's Johnson's fault we are so far behind the Germans. The buck stops with him.
-
Toby,
I have to disagree with you about Johnson. He clearly knew the risks and went ahead shaking hands with people. Lots of people. He showed a complete disregard for his or other people's lives. This is typical of his bluster and bumble.
While I obviously wish him well, he has brought this upon himself.
Talking of Germany, did Merkel also bring it upon herself, when she had to self-isolate because they hadn't realised her doctor was positive? Or was she just unlucky.
-
Toby,
I have to disagree with you about Johnson. He clearly knew the risks and went ahead shaking hands with people. Lots of people. He showed a complete disregard for his or other people's lives. This is typical of his bluster and bumble.
While I obviously wish him well, he has brought this upon himself.
I think you're conflating disagreeing with someone generally in a political context, and them having malign intent. I don't believe for a second Johnson has the latter. There have been significant failings and shortcomings in the way the government has handled the planning but in January, I don't suppose you thought it'd come to much either. Obviously it's rather more important that the government thought about these things, but some experts thought it wouldn't get this bad here as well. All said I hope Johnson recovers soon.
-
How about this for an example of a politician answering a question in a way that means absolutely, totally, completely, nothing at all;
question to Raab; does the 100,000 test per day target still stand?
Raab; "the government has been clear on the target and it is important we have made progress so far".
What does that even mean? And how have you been clear if people are asking questions about it? :wall: :wall: :wall:
-
Well in yesterday’s 5pm briefing Raab was insistent that the PM was still in charge, making decisions, and had been keeping the cabinet fully up to date yada yada...before finally admitting he hadn’t spoken to him by text or face to face since Saturday. And this is the guy Johnson was supposed to be handing over the reins to if he became incapable...which he then did 2hrs later!
-
The availability of the PPE to make this possible however is another question. It's not this government's fault specifically that they've been massively negligent in having a pandemic plan in place, however; it's the fault of every world government for the last decade or so, since virologists and epidemiologists have been warning them about it but most people have been preoccupied with trade wars, Brexit, immigration or gender politics etc. All that looks pretty frivolous now really. All of us are guilty really as I doubt it was something anyone thought about when they decided who to vote for, I certainly never have.
Woah, just a second!
How do I parse the sentence "It's not this government's fault specifically that they've been massively negligent in having a pandemic plan in place"? I can't make it make any sense I'm afraid. Are you saying they've been negligent in not having a plan, or negligent in not implementing it? Either way, I agree! But if you think they have been *negligent* then how is it not their fault that there is a massive PPE, ventilator, and testing shortfall? By definition it is. Who else's is it?
You seem very keen to excuse the government by saying other nations didn't nail it - several wrongs don't make a right though. Finland are a useful counter example - they do have a PPE stockpile. South Korea and Taiwan seem to be doing OK too.
And then "All of us are guilty really as I doubt it was something anyone thought about when they decided who to vote for, I certainly never have." What??!! I can't accept that. When I'm voting I don't think who is going to best defend UK veterinary standards either. Or who has the best policy on cats-eye maintenance. I just trust that these are part of the basic functions of government, and take it for granted. So no, I'll be not guilty thanks.
It is the government's job to protect against threats to the nation, and they do have a plan to deal with pandemics. They also have a National Risk Register which places Pandemic Influenza as a relatively highly likely threat with much the biggest impact relative to all other threats - apologies for awful photo:
(https://i.imgur.com/0ONFTZJ.jpg)
There is a link to full doc earlier in thread.
I have no doubt that the government has appropriately planned and resourced countermeasures against say "Attacks on Transport", or "Inland Flooding" (er?!). Great, that's why we elect the government, to deal with this stuff so we don't have to do it all on an individual level.
Put it like this - this government has been in office for a decade now. As you say they will have had virologists sounding warnings. There were pandemic scares with SARS-01 in 2003 and swine flu in 2009. Their own risk register identifies a pandemic (OK flu rather than SARS) as a very high impact, fairly high likelihood threat. They definitely have a pandemic plan - I linked to a 2014 version of it earlier in thread. We role-played a pandemic in 2016. We witnessed China going through all this in December, over 3 months ago, and they warned the world it could become pandemic.
In light of that the least I would expect is that we could have been confident of having enough PPE for health care workers. At least. Not even a stockpile, just a planned procedure for having enough, as a nation, within say a month of a pandemic being announced. Domestically. That doesn't include buying from abroad as any decent planner might guess that they might be somewhat in demand in a *pandemic*.
Basically I would ask, given we have a pandemic plan - is this it? Are we in the midsts of it? Because if you are a doctor or nurse on a ward with insufficient PPE it looks a little weak to put it mildly. Or alternatively, have we just jibbed it off? Either way, that's not my fault, or the fault of other world governments. Its on the UK government, no wonder how much you'd like to give them a free pass...
PS as a final point I note that in Trident we have a very, very, very expensive system for transporting nuclear missiles around the world's oceans to counter no particular threat, and yet we still do it. But we don't have enough masks and gloves for doctors and nurses.
-
How do I parse the sentence "It's not this government's fault specifically that they've been massively negligent in having a pandemic plan in place"? I can't make it make any sense I'm afraid. Are you saying they've been negligent in not having a plan, or negligent in not implementing it? Either way, I agree! But if you think they have been *negligent* then how is it not their fault that there is a massive PPE, ventilator, and testing shortfall? By definition it is. Who else's is it?
...
You seem very keen to excuse the government by saying other nations didn't nail it - several wrongs don't make a right though. Finland are a useful counter example - they do have a PPE stockpile. Are we in the midsts of it? Because if you are a doctor or nurse on a ward with insufficient PPE it looks a little weak to put it mildly. Or alternatively, have we just jibbed it off? Either way, that's not my fault, or the fault of other world governments. Its on the UK government, no wonder how much you'd like to give them a free pass...
PS as a final point I note that in Trident we have a very, very, very expensive system for transporting nuclear missiles around the world's oceans to counter no particular threat, and yet we still do it. But we don't have enough masks and gloves for doctors and nurses.
I'll try to respond to a few parts of your post. Apologies, mine was a pretty unclear.
Essentially what I meant was all countries knew broadly that something like this was a possibility, but all of them shelved it. This doesn't excuse the UK, but it also doesn't mean anyone else did much better, and I don't believe for a second that any particular political party would have done much different. The UK has been slow to react in some respects, which has certainly made matters worse, but your example of Finland isn't really comparable. It's got a much lower population, lower population density, fewer international airports, and many other factors that make something like this a lot easier to deal with there.
This government has not been in power for a decade, the conservative party has been, but this government has been in power since December. There is a difference.
Your last point, well I'm not a doctor or nurse but I am a physio, partly on a ward, with inadequate PPE. I think the situation with that is pisspoor, especially that PHE change the regulation and recommendations every other day at the moment, which is confusing and frustrating. However, using that to make a point about trident is a bit cheap. There are a hundred things one could start bitching about the government spending money on which suddenly seem rather frivolous. I think trident seems a bit silly these days, but trying to use a massive crisis to make party political points just isn't very helpful.
-
A news item on the 2016 pandemic response excercise Nigel referred to:
https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiamh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRlbGVncmFwaC5jby51ay9uZXdzLzIwMjAvMDMvMjgvZXhlcmNpc2UtY3lnbnVzLXVuY292ZXJlZC1wYW5kZW1pYy13YXJuaW5ncy1idXJpZWQtZ292ZXJubWVudC_SAW5odHRwczovL3d3dy50ZWxlZ3JhcGguY28udWsvbmV3cy8yMDIwLzAzLzI4L2V4ZXJjaXNlLWN5Z251cy11bmNvdmVyZWQtcGFuZGVtaWMtd2FybmluZ3MtYnVyaWVkLWdvdmVybm1lbnQvYW1wLw?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen
-
...and I don't believe for a second that any particular political party would have done much different.
This government has not been in power for a decade, the conservative party has been, but this government has been in power since December. There is a difference.
I disagree with the first sentence quoted - the failure to stockpile PPE was a cost desicion, and I think the Labour party - or indeed any party that valued healthcare workers and was not ideologically wedded to fanatical austerity and breaking up the NHS would likely have gone along with the expert advice on prep for a known major threat, that was rejected by the conservatives.
The second sentence is disingenuous at best - A large number of the current lot have been in government for several years.
The FIRST duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe - and this one has failed, initially by running down its health service, then by rejecting advice re planning for a pandemic just such as this on cost grounds, and then by dismissal and delay in the face of mounting evidence from the far east and then Italy (not in december though Nigel it was jan - feb), and finally by the farce around testing - witness Germany.
In the context of keeping citizens safe the cost of Trident (and defence spending as a whole) is a perfectly valid point to make.
-
There have been significant failings and shortcomings in the way the government has handled the planning but in January, I don't suppose you thought it'd come to much either.
What?
It was blindingly obvious a pandemic was a very likely outcome in January. Based on past history and statistics it was always highly likely a pandemic would occur in our lifetime. The news out of China was not hard to interpret and you would expect/hope governments would be alert to this specific threat. It's not hard to find a myriad sources loudly stating this exact outcome was a 'when' rather than 'if' prospect. I certainly for one was very alarmed about this virus in January and very unreasured by the response from our government.
-
Essentially what I meant was all countries knew broadly that something like this was a possibility, but all of them shelved it. This doesn't excuse the UK, but it also doesn't mean anyone else did much better, and I don't believe for a second that any particular political party would have done much different. The UK has been slow to react in some respects, which has certainly made matters worse, but your example of Finland isn't really comparable. It's got a much lower population, lower population density, fewer international airports, and many other factors that make something like this a lot easier to deal with there.
I'm not sure that's true. Like I say, South Korea and Taiwan *are* doing much better. OK they aren't western democracies, but in that case I give you Germany. You say we have been slow to react in some respects. I'll say! I'll overlook social distancing measures, ventilators, and even testing for now if you like, all of which might arguably come under the "difficult" column. PPE - the reason I gave the Finland example was that they have a load stockpiled. That's easy, you just produce / buy a stock and keep it safe. Number of airports, population density does not feature. The solution to our higher population than Finland - stockpile more than Finland. We had a 3 month headstart on this...
This government has not been in power for a decade, the conservative party has been, but this government has been in power since December. There is a difference.
Yes, accepted. I'm sure I remember Boris being Prime Minister last summer though? He certainly was in December when this started in China. Yes its a different government but I don't think they started from a totally blank sheet of paper - the plans were already in place. Raab, Gove, Hancock etc. look somewhat familiar too...these were not ingenues finding their feet in government in January / February.
Your last point, well I'm not a doctor or nurse but I am a physio, partly on a ward, with inadequate PPE. I think the situation with that is pisspoor, especially that PHE change the regulation and recommendations every other day at the moment, which is confusing and frustrating. However, using that to make a point about trident is a bit cheap. There are a hundred things one could start bitching about the government spending money on which suddenly seem rather frivolous. I think trident seems a bit silly these days, but trying to use a massive crisis to make party political points just isn't very helpful.
I didn't make a party political point I don't think? Trident is a countermeasure to a national threat, which though currently unspecified, we still keep around at great expense just in case. I made what I though was a reasonable comparison between what we have in place there, and the comparative lack of preparation / investment for a national threat (pandemic), which although unspecified in nature or time, can still be foreseen. And was foreseen. It is all the main parties' policies to keep Trident so the point is not to bitch about its existence or make a political point, it just looks like skewed priorities. Masks and gloves maybe don't look flashy for a government procurement project in normal times, but they sure would be handy now...
On PPE, I do feel for you having to do your job without the proper stuff. I agree it is pisspoor. How many NHS workers have died of coronavirus caught while working now? I don't know but one is too many - they should be properly equipped by their employer, HM Government. I would say that whoever was at the helm, whatever their stripe. If a company in industry lost this many of its workers in a couple of weeks due to insufficient equipment then the high ups would be standing in court, no question. HSE would be on them like a ton of bricks. They are breaking their own laws on this.
-
I disagree with the first sentence quoted - the failure to stockpile PPE was a cost desicion, and I think the Labour party - or indeed any party that valued healthcare workers and was not ideologically wedded to fanatical austerity and breaking up the NHS would likely have gone along with the expert advice on prep for a known major threat, that was rejected by the conservatives.
The second sentence is disingenuous at best - A large number of the current lot have been in government for several years.
The FIRST duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe - and this one has failed, initially by running down its health service, then by rejecting advice re planning for a pandemic just such as this on cost grounds, and then by dismissal and delay in the face of mounting evidence from the far east and then Italy (not in december though Nigel it was jan - feb), and finally by the farce around testing - witness Germany.
In the context of keeping citizens safe the cost of Trident (and defence spending as a whole) is a perfectly valid point to make.
So why was there not a vocal, effective opposition party in January jumping up and down demanding that the government buy ppe? I don't remember any of them pushing the government on this, asking questions in the commons or giving interviews about it, unless it was something I just missed.
I'm partly just playing devils advocate here, as I think there's a fine line between criticism of the government response to the escalating crisis (which it needs, and I think that so far Keir Starmer has done well) and using that to bang on about austerity or try to make a party political point. I'm no fan of this administration, and quite a few ministers are massively over promoted lightweights, but at the moment I think that constructive criticism is really the only decent response.
Fingers crossed that people all adhere to the lockdown properly, don't start driving around to go climbing or whatever and hope that it makes the difference to allow the NHS to cope with it.
-
[How many NHS workers have died of coronavirus caught while working now? I don't know but one is too many - they should be properly equipped by their employer, HM Government. I would say that whoever was at the helm, whatever their stripe. If a company in industry lost this many of its workers in a couple of weeks due to insufficient equipment then the high ups would be standing in court, no question. HSE would be on them like a ton of bricks. They are breaking their own laws on this.
It may be pedantic but I, and all NHS workers as far as I know are employed by the healthcare trusts, not the Government. What really pisses me off is the trust management more than politicians, they sit in comfy offices (or at home now) firing off emails telling us how to do our jobs, that we'll suddenly have to go and do a different job, or work longer hours while they no doubt take in plenty of glory for working for the NHS. If we ask (email, I haven't seen a manager for a couple of months) them for guidance or training on ppe, they'll just forward us a link to government advice. Now that is pisspoor.
Nigel, I agree with you, in that I think some trusts have been negligent in sorting this out, but the extent to which its devolved to trusts and not central is better, as requirements in a community trust will be so different to a big acute facility. I don't need a hazmat suit (I hope) but more than one surgical mask and visor would be good.
Phew, I'm glad I've got that off my chest.
-
Aside from any political argument about Corbyn's leadership, the main problems were the cover up of the 2016 pandemic response exercise and it's recommendations and loads of government and expert reassurance that tests and PPE would be OK, early on. As soon as shortages became evident, Corbyn was on that.
I'm sure one day we will learn why the government were so slow getting going on dealing with logistics and supply issues, as for the moment it doesn't even make political sense.
There were some criticisms of Labour in mid March but the civil service must have been working on this as soon as the epidemic became evident in China. Maybe we should be briefing all main political parties on the science a bit earlier in such situations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-cases-uk-deaths-labour-response-corbyn-a9409966.html
-
Toby,
I have to disagree with you about Johnson. He clearly knew the risks and went ahead shaking hands with people. Lots of people. He showed a complete disregard for his or other people's lives. This is typical of his bluster and bumble.
While I obviously wish him well, he has brought this upon himself.
Ironically the theory in the times today was that Neil Ferguson quite probably infected the cobra committee en masse when he came in to brief them the day before going in to self isolation himself.
-
It's the US ....covid 19 and guns had to figure at some stage.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/07/paul-broun-ar15-gun-coronavirus-campaign-video-atlanta-looting-hordes
.... and the latest resignation of a member of the administration, also linked to covid 19
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/07/thomas-modly-acting-navy-secretary-resigns
-
What I really don’t understand is how working with inadequate PPE isn’t a breach of H+S regs?
I know that guidance was recently revised down in the case of PPE but surely there are still breaches for NHS and care home staff ?
-
It wouldn't surprise me if families of healthcare workers who die bring class action suit against the NHS if PPE provided is shown to be inadequate?
-
What I really don’t understand is how working with inadequate PPE isn’t a breach of H+S regs?
I know that guidance was recently revised down in the case of PPE but surely there are still breaches for NHS and care home staff ?
I asked this earlier in the thread - report below:
In the first instance, given this is a SARS-type virus, if the government are not providing health care workers *all* of the PPE listed in section 6 of the following HSE link then surely they are in breach of their own HSAW Act? Do journalists ever ask whether the gov thinks it is complying with its own laws? I don't watch the briefings any more but I doubt it. If they've let themselves off it via the new coronavirus bill it would still be good to know:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/diseases/sars.htm
The HSE doc looks to have been produced following SARS-01 in 2003. Section 6 details the precautions to be taken by healthcare workers "until the cause and route of transmission are known". They include FFP3 masks, long sleeve fluid proof gowns, eye protection, latex gloves. Looks a clear breach to me. I suppose the gov could argue that the cause and transmission routes are now known and they can downgrade the PPE to suit. But as I said earlier, a private company in a similar situation of dealing with a load of employee deaths would be explaining that decision in court. Saying "the right PPE was in the post" would not cut it.
-
Haven't read the replies up thread but just a musing - does anyone posting here actually KNOW - not have anecdotal evidence or using media reports as evidence - firstly what PPE is or isn't being worn in different areas of different hospitals (it's not a blanket policy in all areas of hospitals), and secondly what their actual stock of PPE is.
A small example which isn't meant to prove or disprove anything (just a bit of anecdote..): we donated 50 FFP3 masks, 100 tyvek overalls and 50 pairs of eye protection to Alder Hey hospital last Friday, as a friend's wife who works there lets us know they were short on stock and they were starting to take adult covid patients.
I was told the policy there is staff wear masks all the time even in areas without covid patients, as a way to prevent them touching their faces.. Make of that what you will but if true I don't think that is an effective use of a limited potentially life-saving PPE resource.
One doctor quote in a BMA report: '‘We are being asked to risk our lives and our loved ones' lives, in flimsy paper masks and plastic aprons. I don't know if I can do it. I just don't know if I can. I don't think it is fair to expect this of us. I am terrified. How can this risk to practitioners, other patients, practitioners' families be justified?
Emotive stuff. But an FFP3 mask is the correct respiratory PPE, and it is indeed a 'flimsy paper mask'. Whether the doctor works in an area which requires visors isn't made clear, nor whether he has one.
All I mean by the above is from what I can tell it isn't clear to us or the media who's *really* not got access to life-saving PPE they *need*; who's not got access to PPE they'd *like*; and who's making noise. I think the truth will be a combination. That isn't meant to suggest we shouldn't be discussing it, just with some circumspection of what's said in media reports especially.
-
Firstly, well done for donating the PPE.
On the rest, fair enough, we don't know for sure in the detail you quote. As always I am circumspect about media reporting as a rule! But I would take that as an argument for the media to do a better job of finding out for us. Investigative journalism would be useful on this.
Anecdotally I know GP's who were still issued only a surgical mask in middle of last week. I would guess they are FFP-zero!
Last week my nextdoor neighbour, and A&E doc, had no FFP3 mask at all as the stock had been all used up in the process of face fitting other doctors on the previous shift. So he was unprotected, and couldn't be face-fitted. He was told more would arrive, sometime soon.
Just those anecdotes are an obvious enough failing. The fact NHS workers are contracting it, and dying, is telling enough. That shouldn't happen at work.
-
My thanks therefore to Toby and other NHS and social care staff for everything they are doing to care for people in what must be a very worrying environment.
-
Nigel, regards your point on breach of HSE regs. Infection by coronavirus is a RIDDOR-reportable event. Reg 6 and reg 9 (for fatalities).
HSE guidance says FFP2 masks are considered suitable PPE if P3 masks are unavailable, as these are equivalent of N95 masks which are the standard recommended by WHO.
Eye protection required where risk of splashing from 'aerosol generating procedures'. I.e. sticking a tube down someone.
Working in areas where 'aerosol generating procedures' are being done requires masks/eye protection. Guidance from HSE seems pretty clear. I imagine there's room for interpretation of where the physical boundaries of those areas begin and end.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/face-mask-equivalence-aprons-gowns-eye-protection-coronavirus.htm (https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/face-mask-equivalence-aprons-gowns-eye-protection-coronavirus.htm)
-
A nursing home tragedy:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/canadian-nursing-home-reels-from-death-of-half-its-residents-bobcaygeon
Plus John Crace's political sketch. After saying nice things about a couple of cabinet ministers last week, this is really back to sticking the knife in:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/07/leadership-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it-with-captain-raab-on-bridge
-
Eye protection required where risk of splashing from 'aerosol generating procedures'. I.e. sticking a tube down someone.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/face-mask-equivalence-aprons-gowns-eye-protection-coronavirus.htm (https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/face-mask-equivalence-aprons-gowns-eye-protection-coronavirus.htm)
Many thanks for the link Pete, informative.
Your link had another link within to this https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/personal-protection-equipment-letter-28-march-2020.pdf which is informative in very clear language about the PPE health care workers *should* have in different settings.
In light of the current lack of PPE and HSE discussion, this has been raised today by the Royal College of Nursing in a letter to the Parliamentary Health Committee. Below copy-and-pasted from Guardian Live blog as I couldn't find an actual full story on it:
Actions to mitigate PPE distribution is regarded by our members to have been too slow and not transparent.
Public commitments have not translated into increases in consistently deployed and accessible stocks of adequate PPE.
Without adequate and proper PPE, nursing staff are putting their own lives, the lives of their families and patients, at risk. This situation is unconscionable.”
A lack of PPE and hand sanitiser is particularly acute for nurses in GP surgeries and care homes, the RCN added. The RCN said that insufficient and inadequate PPE means health and care employers are breaching statutory obligations.
The union said it had written to the Health and Safety Executive calling for intervention.
-
Sadly even more care home deaths
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52175891
Plus a row breaks out as the EU's 'most senior scientist' resigns over the EUs covid 19 response
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/eu-most-senior-scientist-mauro-ferrari-resigns-handling-coronavirus-crisis
-
Haven't read the replies up thread but just a musing - does anyone posting here actually KNOW - not have anecdotal evidence or using media reports as evidence - firstly what PPE is or isn't being worn in different areas of different hospitals (it's not a blanket policy in all areas of hospitals), and secondly what their actual stock of PPE is.
As Toby said, it actually very much depends on the Trust. My wife works in two hospitals, both run by different trusts. She is an oncologist so giving cancer treatment to patients with Covid, not treating v.ill Covid patients. One has a specific covid ward with a PPE room, in which when going from a non-Covid to Covid area, you have to go through the PPE room where you can get masked up etc and there is plentiful PPE stock there. It's a good system that all the staff are happy with. The other has a lot less defined system and the PPE is spread around the hospital (which is comparably massive and also is dealing with patients who are in their solely for Covid) so it's more a case of grab the PPE when you can and hang onto it.
I imagine the scenario is a big London hospital is probably very different to a regional DGH that is suddenly overrun and is very different again for people like Toby who are out "in the community".
-
Haven't read the replies up thread but just a musing - does anyone posting here actually KNOW - not have anecdotal evidence or using media reports as evidence - firstly what PPE is or isn't being worn in different areas of different hospitals (it's not a blanket policy in all areas of hospitals), and secondly what their actual stock of PPE is.
As Toby said, it actually very much depends on the Trust.
Thanks Pete, and Nick, we have a community hospital with virus patients in side rooms, and at the moment doing emergency domiciliary visits usually for admission avoidance or discharge support. Basic surgical mask for either, although as far as I know for community work we got a box of about 25 for a team of 15-20. Ordinary gloves and ordinary aprons. Most worried really about uniform ie in community you basically have to strip off somewhere, change, bag the uniform and wash it immediately at home as hot as possible.
The worst thing has been that what we're told to do for different categories of patients has changed so many times, it leaves you very uncertain that there's much real evidence behind whatever is in place.
-
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-given-an-extra-10000-to-work-from-home/09/04/
Irksome??
-
Get with the hymn sheet :devil-smiley:
https://spectator.us/britain-needs-boris-extraordinary-man-35-years/
-
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/mps-given-an-extra-10000-to-work-from-home/09/04/
Irksome??
If you've gone to your MP to ask about help with a late universal credit payment, you might want them to have a functioning remote office with staff who have the equipment they need.
-
Giving them all 10k seems a bit stupid, suggest allowing tthem to claim for additional expenses would be fair though.
Its cost us a lot to get all our staff working from home. Most of our staff dont have laptops so we had to buy a lot of them (at stupid prices as well) to get them up and running from home. Ditto phones, we have a VOIP system at work so now asking everyone to use mobile phones to make calls so will be stuck with a bill from every person.
Add in a few other bits and the cost of our IT company setting everyone up and dealing with far more issues i can see how its easily going to cost us over a grand for most people.
I would however have expected most MPs to have facilities at home already and laptops etc.
-
Not sure what to make of the extra £10K for MPs. All I can say is wouldn't it be great if other key workers could boost their pay so easily?
Dominic Raab at today's briefing dodged answering a question about increasing NHS workers pay - "there will be a moment when we look at formally recognising all those on the front line who have done so much to pull us through this very difficult period for our country." he said. I guess if you're an MP, that moment is now. Some people are more equal than others. I also wonder if his opinion of British workers as "...among the worst idlers in the world" (from Britannia Unchained) is still unchanged, given his numerous paeans to the NHS during the briefing?
In other news yesterday the health secretary issued a plea to biotech businesses to develop an antibody test that works. 6 days after promising we would get to 100,000 tests a day. I'm not an expert but those two things look to have been done in the wrong order, to the layman. Still hope we manage it nonetheless.
-
Dominic Raab at today's briefing dodged answering a question about increasing NHS workers pay - "there will be a moment when we look at formally recognising all those on the front line who have done so much to pull us through this very difficult period for our country." he said.
I predict it’ll be a pin badge or certificate with some fun cliparts added to make it look fancy.
-
Given all the fuss and threats from councils and the police about sunbathers and frisbee throwers in parks i don't understand why more of a stink isn't being raised about the number of call outs for house and street parties.
Twice as many calls for parties as incidents in parks, and its hard to imagine Manchester is exceptional. Much more of a mockery of the spirit and letter of the restrictions than many of the other incidents that the police have been enthusiastically shaming online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688
-
Given all the fuss and threats from councils and the police about sunbathers and frisbee throwers in parks i don't understand why more of a stink isn't being raised about the number of call outs for house and street parties.
Twice as many calls for parties as incidents in parks, and its hard to imagine Manchester is exceptional. Much more of a mockery of the spirit and letter of the restrictions than many of the other incidents that the police have been enthusiastically shaming online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688
There was an interesting statistical analysis of one of the stories about breaking the lockdown on More or Less this week (search for it on BBC sounds) that the numbers in one London park reported as excessive actually amounted to less than 5 per acre.
There certainly have been some selfish people thinking that they are more important than trying not to kill more people but I'd guess many of these reports are sourced by journalists who are mostly at home from Twitter rumours and second hand evidence. Most people I've seen are broadly playing by the rules, however I've obviously not been out much so what would I know?
I do think that if would probably have made policemen's lives easier if they had more power to punish people who are blatantly flouting the lockdown, their jobs must be incredibly difficult at the moment.
-
The Guardian today have an item on care homes, including information from one of the big UK care home providers. Worrying.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/we-havent-had-time-to-grieve-care-homes-struggle-as-covid-19-deaths-rise
-
Given all the fuss and threats from councils and the police about sunbathers and frisbee throwers in parks i don't understand why more of a stink isn't being raised about the number of call outs for house and street parties.
Twice as many calls for parties as incidents in parks, and its hard to imagine Manchester is exceptional. Much more of a mockery of the spirit and letter of the restrictions than many of the other incidents that the police have been enthusiastically shaming online.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688
Agreed, it has bothered me the way some obviously very low risk activities like sunbathing are getting shamed when houseparties are clearly a much more likely vector for spread. I hope at least the hosts will be charged.
Re public behaviour, our house overlooks a bit of grass with a view across the city, and I've been impressed with how few folk have taken the piss - there's been only one obvious group of lads since the lock down, and they moved on after half an hour.
-
An article from Byline Times looking at government policy on covid 19.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/09/leaked-home-office-call-reveals-uk-government-wants-economy-to-continue-running-as-we-will-all-get-covid-19-anyway/
-
An article from Byline Times looking at government policy on covid 19.
The who? The site had all sorts of fake news/bullshit claxons going off in my head... Happy to be wrong...
-
Presumably we're going down one of two roads - either
1) A gradual herd immunity approach, where we slow it down enough to build NHS resources and hopefully work out what drugs make you less likely to get really ill when you get it... or...
2) full-on reduction in numbers then huge amounts of testing and contact tracing with (enforced?) isolation of those who've been in contact with recent cases
If we're going for 2 then our lockdown is shit and should be way more rigorous (otherwise lockdown will have to be WAY longer). Our approach looks more like 1 than 2 right now, so presumably we should expect what the article seems outraged about. Am I missing something? :shrug:
Do we think that countries are coordinating behind the scenes on 1 vs 2? It would seem dumb to have half the world do 1, half the world do 2, and then have to cut the world in half in terms of allowed travel. If that happens I really hope we pick the same option as France and Spain ;D
-
Presumably we're going down one of two roads - either
1) A gradual herd immunity approach, where we slow it down enough to build NHS resources and hopefully work out what drugs make you less likely to get really ill when you get it... or...
2) full-on reduction in numbers then huge amounts of testing and contact tracing with (enforced?) isolation of those who've been in contact with recent cases
If we're going for 2 then our lockdown is shit and should be way more rigorous (otherwise lockdown will have to be WAY longer). Our approach looks more like 1 than 2 right now, so presumably we should expect what the article seems outraged about. Am I missing something? :shrug:
Do we think that countries are coordinating behind the scenes on 1 vs 2? It would seem dumb to have half the world do 1, half the world do 2, and then have to cut the world in half in terms of allowed travel. If that happens I really hope we pick the same option as France and Spain ;D
Reckon it’s 1.
2 seems implausible. We can build capacity, it’s been demonstrated that we can finance option 1, if the political will exists and we deal with the knockons later.
It’ll hurt but....
On the other hand, international travel might be slow to recover, if ever to previous norms.
-
Health Secretary just announcing that we *now* have a 3-point plan for PPE - proper guidance, improved distribution, and ongoing work to secure a future supply - he asks on live TV whether any companies might lend a hand.
Words (almost) fail me. They are only now starting planning for a pandemic that started weeks if not months ago. As raised earlier in the thread, could this plan not have been, well, planned already? And implemented? Might give him a call to see if he'll come and shut my stable door for me...
-
Health Secretary just announcing that we *now* have a 3-point plan for PPE - proper guidance, improved distribution, and ongoing work to secure a future supply - he asks on live TV whether any companies might lend a hand.
Words (almost) fail me. They are only now starting planning for a pandemic that started weeks if not months ago. As raised earlier in the thread, could this plan not have been, well, planned already? And implemented? Might give him a call to see if he'll come and shut my stable door for me...
I have read elsewhere about the procurement process, globally, degenerating into something bordering on piracy and bullying (with the principle bad actor being the US) and I’d wager a good deal of this equipment is manufactured overseas.
Both Canada and Germany have made, almost, warlike accusations (involving words like “consequences” and “repercussions”) against the US and fairly sure I read something about Spanish protests too.
So, there may be extenuating circumstances for recent attempts to rectify earlier oversights.
I agree, that this sort of thing should have been planned for and stockpiles established, long before it actually transpired. A national stockpile of medical/infectious disease PPE, hardly seems like it would have been prohibitively expensive.
The ventilators, seem more understandable. That is a more specific, less predictable need, no? Unless you always assume SARs as your baseline pandemic. We’ve been more concerned about Ebola recently though.
-
I agree, that this sort of thing should have been planned for and stockpiles established, long before it actually transpired. A national stockpile of medical/infectious disease PPE, hardly seems like it would have been prohibitively expensive.
Since you ask:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/27/advice-on-protective-gear-for-nhs-staff-was-rejected-owing-to-cost
-
Ffs.. Cummings again - the X stage plan.
Every part of this government’s response is a 3-5 stage plan.... sounds grand - seems to mean fuck all.
-
Ffs.. Cummings again - the X stage plan.
Every part of this government’s response is a 3-5 stage plan.... sounds grand - seems to mean fuck all.
Yup.
Just like everyone I ever met, who had a “five year plan”...
-
I agree, that this sort of thing should have been planned for and stockpiles established, long before it actually transpired. A national stockpile of medical/infectious disease PPE, hardly seems like it would have been prohibitively expensive.
Agreed. For me personally this is beyond debate. And as I said earlier, if we don't have a stockpile, then at the very least an instantly actionable plan for producing PPE domestically upon recognition of a pandemic. This clearly hasn't happened despite the warnings from Operation Cygnus. The fact they are making a song and dance about this plan now I find distasteful as well as farcical.
The ventilators, seem more understandable. That is a more specific, less predictable need, no? Unless you always assume SARs as your baseline pandemic. We’ve been more concerned about Ebola recently though.
Yes of course, that is much less predictable and I have much more sympathy on ventilators. Luckily we have our premier vacuum manufacturer on that one so should be fine. The baseline pandemic assumption for planning was influenza. Whether or not that would require extra ventilation capacity I don't know, but if so then my sympathy may start to wane. Whether assuming influenza as the baseline alone was the correct call is another question.
And why don't the media ask similar questions?! They are letting us down as much as HMG.
-
On the topic of the police handling of the lockdown it must be really hard to get this right, and a consistent approach across all forces in the country. But where the hell has Priti Patel been?! Conspicuous by her absence. I’d be fuming if I was a Chief constable and the Home Secretary just went AWOL during all this and left my officers to take the flack.
As for the 3 point PPE plan...only about 3 months too late. Absolutely criminal.
-
Health Secretary just announcing that we *now* have a 3-point plan for PPE - proper guidance, improved distribution, and ongoing work to secure a future supply - he asks on live TV whether any companies might lend a hand.
Words (almost) fail me. They are only now starting planning for a pandemic that started weeks if not months ago. As raised earlier in the thread, could this plan not have been, well, planned already? And implemented? Might give him a call to see if he'll come and shut my stable door for me...
I have read elsewhere about the procurement process, globally, degenerating into something bordering on piracy and bullying (with the principle bad actor being the US) and I’d wager a good deal of this equipment is manufactured overseas.
I would think a national capability to produce medical ppe will be part of most countries changes when even your close 'friends' cut you off.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/06/coronavirus-french-protective-mask-manufacturer-scraps-nhs-order-to-keep-masks-in-france
-
Giving them all 10k seems a bit stupid, suggest allowing tthem to claim for additional expenses would be fair though.
Oddly this is exactly what ipsa did, increasing the ~£28000 constituency office expenses allowance by a maximum of £10000. Going beyond the clickbait headline its even what the original piece linked says...
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-mp-expenses-working-home/false-claim-british-mps-award-themselves-extra-10000-in-expenses-idUSKCN21R2IX
-
But where the hell has Priti Patel been?! Conspicuous by her absence.
I should think it was rather obvious why she's been kept away from the media - she's a total fucking liability. She got the gig as home sec because Boris wanted to pack his cabinet full of Brexiteers. She didn't get the job because of her intellect, charm or her ability to motivate a team of civil servants. Or her integrity for that matter. Now that shit has gotten real, the one thing the government have gotten right is to keep her as far away from delivering a press briefing as they can manage.
-
I think the reason she is currently being kept off our screens is her inability to fake human empathy.
-
I should think it was rather obvious why she's been kept away from the media - she's a total fucking liability.
Sorry yes I should have made it clear that was a rhetorical question. I know exactly why she’s being kept away. The same reason she’s been hiding from the home affairs select committee hearing. But that’s Johnson’s problem for including her in his cabinet and doesn’t excuse the media for not calling out her absence.
-
And why don't the media ask similar questions?! They are letting us down as much as HMG.
When Hancock was interviewed on today programme this morning he was asked whether if he'd planned ppe better the 19 NHS staff who've died of CV 19 so far would have lived. It has to be said he struggled to answer that one.
-
An article from Byline Times looking at government policy on covid 19.
The who? The site had all sorts of fake news/bullshit claxons going off in my head... Happy to be wrong...
They are a small crowdfunded outfit, just over a year old, who are targetting independant investigations in areas overlooked by the UK press, in particular looking into extremist groups and obscurely funded political think tanks . They published online initially but now have a paper edition. A plus is they are one of the few UK media organisations who are signed up to IMPRESS regulation. It's more of a platform for like-minded journalists than a traditional newspaper, so there may be issues with editorial control and political breadth. Content seems to be centre left.
https://bylinetimes.com
https://bylinetimes.com/about/
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/byline-times-a-new-approach-to-journalism/
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/byline-team-peter-jukes-launching-new-website-and-print-newspaper/
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/byline-a-new-wave-in-crowdfunding-/s2/a565733/
-
When Hancock was interviewed on today programme this morning he was asked whether if he'd planned ppe better the 19 NHS staff who've died of CV 19 so far would have lived. It has to be said he struggled to answer that one.
And the non-committal answer he gave as to whether frontline NHS workers should continue to work without the correct PPE (“use their own judgement”) was fairly telling. I’m not sure that answer would stand up to investigation by the HSE if given by the head of any other organisation.
-
When Hancock was interviewed on today programme this morning he was asked whether if he'd planned ppe better the 19 NHS staff who've died of CV 19 so far would have lived. It has to be said he struggled to answer that one.
And the non-committal answer he gave as to whether frontline NHS workers should continue to work without the correct PPE (“use their own judgement”) was fairly telling. I’m not sure that answer would stand up to investigation by the HSE if given by the head of any other organisation.
Yes I wouldn't disagree with that at all, or indeed a select committee. However the BBC has been asking ministers the questions. I think it's a difficult balance at the moment between questions and denting confidence in government to the extent that people ignore their advice on staying at home.
-
'Test of resolve': Britons warned to stay at home as temperatures set to hit 26C
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/11/test-of-resolve-britons-warned-to-stay-at-home-as-temperatures-set-to-hit-26c?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Police deployed a “sky talk” drone in Walton-on-Thames to break up a group of 30 people not abiding to social distancing regulations. The group left without officers having to take further action.
If required, the drone will direct large groups of people congregating in outdoor spaces to leave the area by playing a pre-recorded message of: “Attention this a police message. You are gathering in breach of government guidelines to stay at home in response to the coronavirus. You are putting lives at risk. Please disperse immediately and return home.”
Blimey. Almost sci fi!
-
Additional to previous post, I wonder if some police forces will start purchasing HKs (Terminator ref) to keep people in check?
-
From todays BBC live world news feed:
"Throughout the pandemic, Sweden's response to the coronavirus has been an odd one out. Unlike most of Europe, it did not introduce a lockdown - cafes and restaurants remain open, and schools have not closed. Although the government advised against non-essential travel, it has largely been business as usual, albeit a bit quieter.
Now Prime Minister Stefan Löfven has admitted that Sweden was not properly prepared for the pandemic and that it is "obvious that country has not done enough". Restaurants not observing social distancing should be shut, he told Swedish broadcaster SVT.
In Sweden, 870 people have died from the virus - many more than neighbours Denmark (247) and Norway (113), where lockdowns were introduced in early March.:"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52252981
-
Suddenly everyone loves talking about Scandinavia! My social media of full of people with no connection to the region debating the merits of the different approaches. On the face of it, Sweden's approach has not really worked - even though it is (for now) doing better than the UK. There are going to be some interesting comparative studies to be done when we're all done.
For reference, Sweden has a little less than twice Denmark's population and almost four times as many deaths.
Edit: Norway's population is also a little under half of Sweden's and is thus doing significantly better than Denmark. Don't know what the explanation for that might be.
-
If required, the drone will direct large groups of people congregating in outdoor spaces to leave the area by playing a pre-recorded message of: “Attention this a police message. You are gathering in breach of government guidelines to stay at home in response to the coronavirus. You are putting lives at risk. Please disperse immediately and return home.”
Blimey. Almost sci fi!
Certainly sci-fi, the sort I was reading in the eighties and completely unimaginable here in the UK to my teenage mind
-
Saying "the right PPE was in the post" would not cut it.
I asked this question elsewhere and got a bad reaction (Twitter of course). What's the latest with this? I'm still finding it baffling that the current PPE situation isn't just a clear breach. :look:
-
This is quite a long read/ listen but I found it very interesting and simple to follow. If anyone with better math than be (99% of the population probably) has half an hour to spare and can be bothered to comment, I'd welcome your views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnXzGB170GI&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0KP0NBpVINZezs2PQui4YGYrpIBxWfdK6OfvF2yiT5ESBMkgHOvPy8WmA
-
Part 1 - China. The Chinese numbers are low because the Chinese got on top of it by enacting strict lockdowns that make ours look like partytime :dance1:. His points would only be valid if China had NOT enacted a lockdown.
Part 2 - his model. The second part effectively claims that China reached herd immunity, and that's what caused the decay (most people already infected/immune so R drops below 1). His model may fit the China data, but his model appears to use a population of 1 million, vs a population of 1.4 billion in reality. I have no idea why, my guess is that he manipulated all of his assumptions until he got the graph he wanted, then claimed that it didn't really matter what he set them to. I can't be bothered to try to replicate his model to check how it's affected by the paremeters. Given recent news articles about German testing in hard hit areas, it seems v unlikely that anywhere has hit herd immunity yet.
At this point I got bored of listening to him talk, because he says a lot of dumb shit and doesn't address the obvious retorts to them. If he were genuinely arguing that the declines are a result of herd immunity and not the lockdown he would address the obvious questions - since he doesn't I'll assume he's some con artist or idiot.
End note: it seems possible that you could create a scenario in which he's right about the virus declining due to natural effects, I guess you'd need a large % of the population to be immune naturally - i.e. you wouldn't get ill, wouldn't test positive, but also wouldn't show up on an antibody test. I don't know virology so I don't know if that last one is feasible. It's not what he's arguing anyway. Finally, I think his model SHOULDN'T fit the China data if the model is right, because when the lockdown kicks in and changes R, his model should deviate due to his model having an R that's not changed on the basis of the lockdown. So my guess is that his model is bollocks.
-
You don’t need to be a mathematician to know he’s talking shit with a convincing-sounding tone.
As Alex says, not mentioning lockdown as being a factor in China’s infection and fatality figures is enough to tell you not to bother watching any further.
Fuck sake, this is exactly the kind of shit that a friend of mine is watching and using to form his whack beliefs. Internet should be banned for anyone with an IQ less than 110 as it’s stupid people who enable the propagation of dangerous misinformation by believing it. (not aimed at anyone on here). Let them do yoga in the park but take away their internet connections.
-
Got it. Thanks. I had a sneaking suspicion he was missing a big part of the jigsaw, so thanks to both of you for setting that straight. I find numbers confusing half the time (or 25% if you prefer).
-
Rant wasn’t aimed at aimed you TC btw. Just had loads of debates in the past couple of weeks with a friend who thinks this is overblown
-
Rant wasn’t aimed at aimed you TC btw. Just had loads of debates in the past couple of weeks with a friend who thinks this is overblown
Oh, good. That means I don't have to tell you to go fuck yourself, I can just wish you a Happy Easter instead 😁
-
Has anyone else twigged that Boris Johnson came back from the dead on Easter Sunday?
Genius plan by Cummings.
-
You can contribute to his get well present.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/getwellboris
-
Has anyone else twigged that Boris Johnson came back from the dead on Easter Sunday?
Genius plan by Cummings.
Can't be Cummings - otherwise it would have been a three point resurrection.
-
Saying "the right PPE was in the post" would not cut it.
I asked this question elsewhere and got a bad reaction (Twitter of course). What's the latest with this? I'm still finding it baffling that the current PPE situation isn't just a clear breach. :look:
It seems that at least from the coverage on Radio 4 and the Guardian that PPE is now starting to make the odd headline, so I probably don't need to fill you in. One interesting thing I noted from an interview with the CEO of the NHS trusts on Radio 4 Today was that when this interview was "repackaged" into the soundbite headline for the regular "and now the main headlines again" later in the broadcast, the snippet they chose to use was that the NHS was a) short of gowns, b) China has been sending us boxes of masks mislabelled as gowns. Having heard the whole interview it seemed a very weird headline to take from it. The implication seemed to me to be that somehow our shortage of PPE was partly China's fault. As I raised earlier, if you want a resilient response to a pandemic you need to have a domestic stockpile as an initial buffer, plus a pre-planned process for quickly producing this stuff domestically to keep up supply. Buying stuff from abroad is not ideal for the very obvious reason that the demand is global. I note that this point about limited global supply has also been made by cabinet ministers in their briefings. I have yet to hear a journalist ask the obvious question of why we don't have this capacity in this country. Also no mention of the "PPE piracy" practiced by the USA in particular and mentioned by others earlier in the thread. My cynical view would be that it doesn't fit with the narrative of "free markets = always good". Maybe after this PPE manufacturers will get the same helping hand from government as say oil companies, or arms manufacturers.
If you want some extra food for thought, consider that *as far as I can glean from the internet* (happy to be corrected!) South Korea, population 50 million, has no known deaths of healthcare workers from Covid-19. Yes they took a different approach overall, but they were largely able to do that because their government had a plan - they arranged with test providers to produce kits in January, and fast-tracked the approvals. We have the health sec ringing round labs issuing pleas in mid-April to help dig him out of his over-promising on tests. From UK gov in January there seemed to be more interest in getting Big Ben to make a noise.
In terms of PPE, and again caveated *by the fact I read it on the internet* (i.e. could be wrong!), China had approximately 1500 healthcare workers test positive for Covid-19 in Wuhan. At one point they traced 41% of all new cases to transmission within hospitals. Subsequently there was an influx of 40,000+ extra healthcare workers to Wuhan, all given proper PPE and training from the lessons learned. None of these were recorded as testing positive for Covid-19 . That is the difference PPE can make and still a couple of months later we have NHS workers contracting Covid and dying. "Protect the NHS" indeed...
-
Also forget to mention, current UK guidance is that certain PPE is only required for healthcare workers doing "aerosol generating procedures". The wording seems weird - surely coughing (one of the main symptoms of Covid) is "aerosol generating"? However it is not a "procedure" in the medical sense. Rather just something people do. It looks unclear to my untrained eye.
-
It seems that at least from the coverage on Radio 4 and the Guardian that PPE is now starting to make the odd headline, so I probably don't need to fill you in.
The latest muck up: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/uk-missed-three-chances-to-join-eu-scheme-to-bulk-buy-ppe
-
Some interesting posts Nigel. Aerosol generating procedures refers to doing things like inserting tubes to airways, suctioning, and chest compressions in CPR among other things to my knowledge. But yes, potentially anyone can cough in your face, but that's only different to everyday life in that currently healthcare workers tend to be closer to other people than most at the moment. Services like mine have PPE but we don't need the full on surgical gowns and suits, three pairs of gloves at once etc that ICU have to deal with, I think the real issues are with distribution of that stuff. It's probably more of a problem in care homes in my experience in the last few days of having been to some. It's a significant government oversight, but the China stats I'd deeply mistrust, I wouldn't be surprised if they underreported deaths, and covered up all manner of information which might lead to criticism of their government or the re starting of their economy.
-
That's partly my point about the wording Toby i.e. use of the word "procedures" after "aerosol generating" seems to imply that you must be involved in intubation, compression etc. to justify certain PPE per the guidelines. By extension it seems to exclude coughing as sufficient justification, despite this being a prominent symptom. Surely the hospital is somewhat different to normal life in that healthcare workers and patients are in constant fairly close proximity? The chances of transmission are clearly much higher than my normal life for instance (all day at home, quiet walk / cycle, shop once every 10 days ish). I freely admit I'm out of my area here, so will happily defer if its seen as ay OK by those in the know. From chats with medics I get the general feeling that they perceive the guidance as having been downgraded to suit the available PPE, rather than the way it should be done (PPE to suit the risk of hazard). I know you said you have had concerns / confusion over changing guidance?
On care homes I know very little. My only direct experience is that our family took our 94 year old Nana out of one in early March (it was a temporary measure anyway) as we were worried by the fact that although they had stopped family visits they were still taking in residents straight out of hospital. It seems to be filtering through now that there is a problem with Covid in care homes, including deaths which are not counted in government figures. Its always interesting to hear more of your reports from the coalface. Given I've nothing actually useful to say RE care homes, how about a bit of politics - wouldn't distribution of PPE to care homes be easier if we had a National Care Service already?
RE China stats, I wouldn't be surprised if they under-reported deaths either, for the simple reason that our government is clearly doing so too. Anyway the stats I gave (if true) weren't intended to, and don't really seem to show China in a good light initially, it shows them struggling - 1500 healthcare workers confirmed infected, high transmission rate in hospital, before they sorted out how to respond. I hold no candle for the Chinese government but I am wary of this emerging line that China somehow covered up the emergence of the "Chinese Virus" (Trump!). No doubt to some extent they did try at first, but as Bonjoy said earlier in the thread the widespread pictures out of China of Wuhan in lockdown, full hospitals, and workers in hazmat suits appeared back in late January and told a pretty obvious story. The truth of China's figures may well come out in time but does it matter? We have our own figures here and elsewhere in Europe to worry about now. Even if they did under-report then we still had a headstart on our response. Blaming China looks like deflection from our own deficiencies.
-
Also forget to mention, current UK guidance is that certain PPE is only required for healthcare workers doing "aerosol generating procedures". The wording seems weird - surely coughing (one of the main symptoms of Covid) is "aerosol generating"? However it is not a "procedure" in the medical sense. Rather just something people do. It looks unclear to my untrained eye.
This is the bit I hadn't stumbled upon. Thanks.
-
Interestingly, my girlfriends Trust have decreed that CPR is not an aerosol generating procedure and have therefore instructed staff that full PPE is not required to carry it out. This seems to be at odds with the BMA position, along with common sense.
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I still see our UK lockdown response timing as inevitable, if partly because of the experts we chose to inform government. The behavioral science was OK but the models were not accurate enough for planning and we had too little input from medical experts who had fought virus outbreaks and who would have been pushing for harder faster action. It was clearly a shock to most of Europe when the virus took off so fast in Italy and after that to the UK government when it became apparent, as UK deaths took off, that we might not be 4 weeks behind Italy as their models said. The government quickly dropped herd immunity as an aim and accelerated its response very quickly after this hard data contradicted the models (even though they continued defending the 4 weeks gap publicly). It would have been brave for anyone, let alone Boris, to call the social mobility controls even a week earlier on the information the government team of experts provided. I'm confident the balance of pandemic response medical expert input compared to expert modelling input will never be as poor again.
The really bad UK government actions started when they buried the report of the 2016 pandemic response test, leaving us with infrastructure issues, too little capacity to respond with PPE stocks and to set up testing, and then in 2020 doing nothing about these areas when it was apparent this could become a serious international pandemic. Having an NHS hamstrung by austerity and a Public Heath and care system severely damaged by austerity didn't help.
-
Interestingly, my girlfriends Trust have decreed that CPR is not an aerosol generating procedure and have therefore instructed staff that full PPE is not required to carry it out. This seems to be at odds with the BMA position, along with common sense.
Seems to tally with the sort of thing I'd heard i.e. guidance made to fit available PPE, rather than PPE provided appropriate to task. In a similar vein, reports now of face-fit testing now being abandoned in some hospitals: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/nhs-hospitals-accused-of-risking-staff-lives-by-abandoning-ppe-fit-tests-coronavirus
Pretty much defeats the point of having an FFP3 mask.
-
The government quickly dropped herd immunity as an aim
Sure about this?
-
Interestingly, my girlfriends Trust have decreed that CPR is not an aerosol generating procedure and have therefore instructed staff that full PPE is not required to carry it out. This seems to be at odds with the BMA position, along with common sense.
That's not what my trust are saying either. If I were her I'd be raising that officially with managers.
-
That's partly my point about the wording Toby i.e. use of the word "procedures" after "aerosol generating" seems to imply that you must be involved in intubation, compression etc. to justify certain PPE per the guidelines. By extension it seems to exclude coughing as sufficient justification, despite this being a prominent symptom. Surely the hospital is somewhat different to normal life in that healthcare workers and patients are in constant fairly close proximity? The chances of transmission are clearly much higher than my normal life for instance (all day at home, quiet walk / cycle, shop once every 10 days ish). I freely admit I'm out of my area here, so will happily defer if its seen as ay OK by those in the know. From chats with medics I get the general feeling that they perceive the guidance as having been downgraded to suit the available PPE, rather than the way it should be done (PPE to suit the risk of hazard). I know you said you have had concerns / confusion over changing guidance?
On care homes I know very little. My only direct experience is that our family took our 94 year old Nana out of one in early March (it was a temporary measure anyway) as we were worried by the fact that although they had stopped family visits they were still taking in residents straight out of hospital. It seems to be filtering through now that there is a problem with Covid in care homes, including deaths which are not counted in government figures. Its always interesting to hear more of your reports from the coalface. Given I've nothing actually useful to say RE care homes, how about a bit of politics - wouldn't distribution of PPE to care homes be easier if we had a National Care Service already?
RE China stats, I wouldn't be surprised if they under-reported deaths either, for the simple reason that our government is clearly doing so too. Anyway the stats I gave (if true) weren't intended to, and don't really seem to show China in a good light initially, it shows them struggling - 1500 healthcare workers confirmed infected, high transmission rate in hospital, before they sorted out how to respond. I hold no candle for the Chinese government but I am wary of this emerging line that China somehow covered up the emergence of the "Chinese Virus" (Trump!). No doubt to some extent they did try at first, but as Bonjoy said earlier in the thread the widespread pictures out of China of Wuhan in lockdown, full hospitals, and workers in hazmat suits appeared back in late January and told a pretty obvious story. The truth of China's figures may well come out in time but does it matter? We have our own figures here and elsewhere in Europe to worry about now. Even if they did under-report then we still had a headstart on our response. Blaming China looks like deflection from our own deficiencies.
Nigel, two points, yes risk to healthcare workers is much, much higher than everyday life. For anyone else taking reasonable precautions, shopping is probably the greatest risk. Mine, and anyone else obliged to work with the public, is by far going to work. We pretty much have to suck that up. An ffp mask is overkill for most of what I do, and it'd be too hard to fit and dispose of it in the community. It's hard enough using the basic stuff properly. The way most punters use masks makes them probably worse than doing nothing by touching them, reusing them etc.
Re China I don't think it's mutually exclusive to roundly criticize their government and our own. China did behave appallingly, on this Trump is right, but he is horribly wrong to blame WHO as well. That's just to suit his own domestic agenda. Our government also didn't prepare well enough or react quickly enough. But they didn't try to cover the entire thing up, allowing it to escalate and become a global problem. If China had gone full lockdown immediately the world might and I emphasize might not be where we are.
-
An ffp mask is overkill for most of what I do, and it'd be too hard to fit and dispose of it in the community. It's hard enough using the basic stuff properly. The way most punters use masks makes them probably worse than doing nothing by touching them, reusing them etc.
I'm sure you're right about your job Toby, I'm not at all presuming to say what you should or should not be doing (I don't know). Neither am I saying everyone should be wearing masks in normal life. Just that all health and social care workers should have the appropriate kit, and enough it. And know how to use it. Govt is definitely starting to catch up on guidance front at least...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878750/T2_poster_Recommended_PPE_for_primary__outpatient__community_and_social_care_by_setting.pdf - your role probably comes under this doc?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-personal-protective-equipment-use-for-non-aerosol-generating-procedures - instructions for use
Mine, and anyone else obliged to work with the public, is by far going to work. We pretty much have to suck that up.
You should only have to suck up actually going to work. You *shouldn't* have to suck up doing it without proper protection. It sounds like you are happy with your arrangements, which is great, and reassuring. This has not been the case for other people though - 51 health and social care workers now dead - https://twitter.com/NursingNotesUK/status/1250338676665540608?s=20
Re China I don't think it's mutually exclusive to roundly criticize their government and our own. China did behave appallingly, on this Trump is right, but he is horribly wrong to blame WHO as well. That's just to suit his own domestic agenda. Our government also didn't prepare well enough or react quickly enough. But they didn't try to cover the entire thing up, allowing it to escalate and become a global problem. If China had gone full lockdown immediately the world might and I emphasize might not be where we are.
I totally agree that we can criticise both China and our govt. As long as its rational and we apply the same standards, or we risk becoming Trumpian ourselves. Its all very well to say that if China had fully locked down then this might not have become pandemic, and probably true. But rationally, they had some unexplained cases of pneumonia in mid-December. WHO there 31st Dec. They had their first death and clinically confirmed it as a novel virus in early January, by which time they had already shut the wet market. 23rd Jan they shut down Wuhan city, next day other cities in the province. With the benefit of hindsight there are obvious gaps there during which the lockdown could have been brought forward, I agree. Equally with the benefit of hindsight all world governments should have been calling on China to lockdown earlier and harder, which I don't think they were? Certainly my recall of a lot of the media coverage at the time was that it was critical of China's approach to human rights and personal liberty. Trump definitely got a hammering for stopping flights from China - as you say turns out he was right.
So from what we know at present; from unexplained cases of pneumonia to starting lockdown took about 6 weeks in China. Compare that to the UK response, noting that we already knew exactly what was coming - first case in late Jan (from abroad), transmission in UK confirmed end of Feb, lockdown sort of starts 12th March with Boris saying maybe don't go to the pub, 20th March pubs shut. Did we ban international travel? How many cases has the UK exported to other countries? Are we not contributing to the pandemic also, despite already knowing about its existence before the our first case?
If you believe the figures we have more confirmed cases of Covid-19 than China, and 4x as many deaths. The vast difference in population is well known. Yes we can be critical of China by all means, like I say I agree on that. But to effectively say that they should have sorted this out on behalf of the rest of the world looks a) unrealistic and b) applying standards which we clearly are not capable of achieving ourselves.
Looking at the current situation, going back in time to blame China does not solve the UK's immediate problems. That is the UK government's job which is why I prefer to be critical of them at present, particularly on planning.
PS to some extent China and the rest of Asia *did* "sort out" the previous pandemic scares earlier this century, and I am left wondering whether the western nations were indeed hoping this would happen again, instead of planning for the worst.
-
That's not what my trust are saying either. If I were her I'd be raising that officially with managers.
Its been raised, although not by her, and the BMA are involved, but the likelihood of them changing it seems slim to nil. Every Trust appears to have wildly different protocols in place where the sensible thing to do would be to follow the respiratory council advice across the board. It seems abundantly clear that the protocols are being dictated by the PPE supply and not the other way round, although that is anecdotal.
-
That's not what my trust are saying either. If I were her I'd be raising that officially with managers.
Its been raised, although not by her, and the BMA are involved, but the likelihood of them changing it seems slim to nil. Every Trust appears to have wildly different protocols in place where the sensible thing to do would be to follow the respiratory council advice across the board. It seems abundantly clear that the protocols are being dictated by the PPE supply and not the other way round, although that is anecdotal.
Although that is a shocking state of affairs, it doesn't surprise me. You have quantity x of PPE. Your demand is >x. You cannot get more PPE. The only solutions are to reduce the demand for PPE either by rationing its use or not treating patients. Not the kind of call anyone wants to have to make.
-
The recommendations of PPE for different scenarios will be a consideration if there is a subsequent court case about its inadequacy, won’t they?
-
That's not what my trust are saying either. If I were her I'd be raising that officially with managers.
Its been raised, although not by her, and the BMA are involved, but the likelihood of them changing it seems slim to nil. Every Trust appears to have wildly different protocols in place where the sensible thing to do would be to follow the respiratory council advice across the board. It seems abundantly clear that the protocols are being dictated by the PPE supply and not the other way round, although that is anecdotal.
Still anecdotal but similar story - my wife has been getting regular changes to PPE protocol from her trust, usually upping the amount required in each situation or requiring PPE usage in more situations than the previous update. It hasn't changed for a while now, but she was getting new guidance every few days. How much of that was driven by improving PPE availability and how much by the increased likelihood that patients will be infected is unclear. Initially they were only allowed to use PPE where the patient displayed Covid-19 symptoms. However, a number of patients at her surgery lied about symptoms at the triage stage in order to get to a GP appointment (as severe Covid-19 cases were being directed to hospital and mild cases were told to self isolate), so the doctor was unprotected when they announced they had symptoms.
-
That's not what my trust are saying either. If I were her I'd be raising that officially with managers.
Its been raised, although not by her, and the BMA are involved, but the likelihood of them changing it seems slim to nil. Every Trust appears to have wildly different protocols in place where the sensible thing to do would be to follow the respiratory council advice across the board. It seems abundantly clear that the protocols are being dictated by the PPE supply and not the other way round, although that is anecdotal.
Although that is a shocking state of affairs, it doesn't surprise me. You have quantity x of PPE. Your demand is >x. You cannot get more PPE. The only solutions are to reduce the demand for PPE either by rationing its use or not treating patients. Not the kind of call anyone wants to have to make.
Yep, clearly a bad decision tree! The argument seems to be that doing CPR on a covid patient is probably a waste of time anyway as they're extremely unlikely to survive an arrest, so little point exposing medical professionals to what is almost certainly an aerosol procedure. Disclaimer that I am notw a doctor and have likely misinterpreted everything I have been told!
-
Hancock said today old people returning to care homes will be tested first. Almost like they should have been doing that from the start and now the testing capacity is available
-
Who’d a thunk that eh?
What seems to be the core issue where the government has (being generous) dropped the ball is that of testing. Seeing how important it was in Korea (for example) and how it worked in China were all things we should have been ahead of (like Germany) instead of being reactive and catching up. Hindsight etc... but all paths seem to come back to testing.
-
He also said the number of tests being carried out has fallen over the last couple of days to fewer than 15k because *demand* has now fallen, hence why they can now start testing the old people.
Granted, I’m cynical of this government’s motives at the best of times but this statement just strikes me as pure unadulterated bullshit. *If* he’s on track to achieve 100k tests a day in 2 weeks time and there’s spare testing capacity in the system why on earth would you just allow slack days like this when instead you could keep up the pressure and test, test, test?! And *if* there’s spare capacity why would you not have a tiered system already in place to overspill to the next most vulnerable category so you didn’t just waste days like this?
Or is it a case of (a) there actually STILL isn’t the capacity? or (b) the capacity is being ‘stockpiled’ during the next few weeks so on the 1st May they can smash out 100,000 tests and Hancock can hit his target for a day?
-
It may well be that people simply do not expect to be able to be tested. So no-one is asking or taking up the service...
Ideally - every person with a sniffle or fever in the last 2 months should have been tested - then we'd have an idea where it was, instead of now just assuming that its everywhere.
Testing is also key to reducing the lockdown... managing future spikes in cases is all about knowing when those spikes are happening - not based on hospital admissions. By then you're 2-3 weeks late.
-
There was a great summary of the risks of 5G phone masts by the BBC science correspondant on the coronavirus podcast : they could give you it if a positive sufferer wiped their nose on the mast, then you wiped the snot off and put it in your mouth pretty soon afterwards, they would probably give you the virus. Otherwise not, obviously.
-
Testing is undoubtedly key. If you want to compare the garbage we get at our daily briefings with the sort of info the South Korean's have, check out the Korea Centres for Disease Control & Prevention, KCDC - daily update for today and every other day since Jan 3 if you click through: https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030
Note that they are only doing 15K tests a day at present too. Same as us. They have done 534K tests total to our 398K total. Population size 51 million (Korea) vs 67 million (UK). So although they have done more tests for a smaller population, actually I'm most surprised that the numbers are not *wildly* different. Looks on the face of it to support the thesis that our overall strategy straight out of the blocks was, well, the wrong one (for reducing deaths).
We are only in a position where we need to hit 100K tests a day because we didn't take the South Korea approach to begin with.
-
Heard an interesting thing on a cross-industry weekly wind Ops and Maintenance call yesterday. One of the marine operators is testing everyone for both presence of and, antibodies for COVID. They're able to buy kits for £14, with minimum orders in the thousands. When asked if they felt this was diverting crucial kits from NHS etc., they guy said they'd asked the supplier about this, and the supplied HAD NOT EVEN BEEN CONTACTED by the Government or any central procurement...
-
Heard an interesting thing on a cross-industry weekly wind Ops and Maintenance call yesterday. One of the marine operators is testing everyone for both presence of and, antibodies for COVID. They're able to buy kits for £14, with minimum orders in the thousands. When asked if they felt this was diverting crucial kits from NHS etc., they guy said they'd asked the supplier about this, and the supplied HAD NOT EVEN BEEN CONTACTED by the Government or any central procurement...
That seems completely pointless at this stage.
Antibodies do not indicate immunity, yet, at least.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/do-coronavirus-survivors-have-immunity-from-reinfection-maybe (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-14/do-coronavirus-survivors-have-immunity-from-reinfection-maybe)
-
Heard an interesting thing on a cross-industry weekly wind Ops and Maintenance call yesterday. One of the marine operators is testing everyone for both presence of and, antibodies for COVID. They're able to buy kits for £14, with minimum orders in the thousands. When asked if they felt this was diverting crucial kits from NHS etc., they guy said they'd asked the supplier about this, and the supplied HAD NOT EVEN BEEN CONTACTED by the Government or any central procurement...
If you listen to the daily briefings the scientific advisers say the antibody tests aren't accurate - they've tested the accuracy of multiple test on the market. That's why the UK gov haven't run with one yet. A quick search online seems to back this up. Your marine operator will be getting false negative/positives.
-
Testing is undoubtedly key. If you want to compare the garbage we get at our daily briefings with the sort of info the South Korean's have, check out the Korea Centres for Disease Control & Prevention, KCDC - daily update for today and every other day since Jan 3 if you click through: https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030
Thanks for this Nigel. So that is what a public information briefing looks like in Korea. wow.
-
Heard an interesting thing on a cross-industry weekly wind Ops and Maintenance call yesterday. One of the marine operators is testing everyone for both presence of and, antibodies for COVID. They're able to buy kits for £14, with minimum orders in the thousands. When asked if they felt this was diverting crucial kits from NHS etc., they guy said they'd asked the supplier about this, and the supplied HAD NOT EVEN BEEN CONTACTED by the Government or any central procurement...
If you listen to the daily briefings the scientific advisers say the antibody tests aren't accurate - they've tested the accuracy of multiple test on the market. That's why the UK gov haven't run with one yet. A quick search online seems to back this up. Your marine operator will be getting false negative/positives.
I did wonder that, but been so busy I've not had a chance to look it up. Interesting.
-
Thanks for this Nigel. So that is what a public information briefing looks like in Korea. wow.
I know!
Its like they get loads of information about Covid-19, and then make it public. Not convinced it will take off in the UK mind... still, its nice to see our daily graph of traffic levels.
As I'm being flippant already, found out today that Matt Hancock's degree is in, wait for it.....PPE. The irony.
-
As I'm being flippant already, found out today that Matt Hancock's degree is in, wait for it.....PPE. The irony.
Irony? Everyone knows that's what you do if you want to go into politics. I'm not saying he's a brilliant health minister although he probably has one of the hardest jobs in the country at the moment, but a degree in any sort of healthcare probably wouldn't help.
NB I think he's got an incredibly hard job, but probably not as hard as the poor guys working in supermarkets at the moment. As risky as the NHS half the time, noone applauds them, and they get loads of abuse from selfish people who don't like having to queue up outside.
-
It’s clear that the government really failed to ramp up testing, and that this has prevented a S Korea style approach. They are hardly alone here. In Europe, only one country - Germany - managed this.
There’s a fascinating, and haunting, article by Tim Hartford in the FT today about why we fail to prepare for things like Covid-19. The last line will stick with me for some time.
https://thakoni.com/tim-harford-why-we-fail-to-prepare-for-disasters/?amp
-
Thanks for this Nigel. So that is what a public information briefing looks like in Korea. wow.
I know!
Its like they get loads of information about Covid-19, and then make it public. Not convinced it will take off in the UK mind... still, its nice to see our daily graph of traffic levels.
As I'm being flippant already, found out today that Matt Hancock's degree is in, wait for it.....PPE. The irony.
Korea is the most advanced country in the world for information communication technology. Allied to a big brother surveillance tracking network using mobile phones, 'smart' city/town infrastructure and cctv. South Korea has the highest proportion of cashless transactions in the world. SK has the highest proportion of mobile phone use in the world and the whole country is covered by 4G or 5G - and everyone has to register their real name and address so that it's possible to for the government (should they need) to track the location of every citizen by their mobile device. South Korea had to deal with the MERS epidemic in 2015, and the SARS epidemic in 2003.
They also have the highest education level of any OECD country.
They've only recently learned how to react well during epidemics, MERS in 2015 was handled poorly. From the link below:
After the WHO excoriated Korea’s response, the country overhauled their response to respiratory infections, fast-tracking the production of test kits and equipping hospitals with infection control units and negative pressure rooms.
The Korean population, shaken by the incident, are also more likely to wash their hands, stay at home and get tested if requested to. “Testing like this has been very successful with dealing with HIV, for example, to prevent its spread and onward transmission,” says Mina. “There were large campaigns to test people to see if they know their status, and then to act appropriately.”
It's good to have high aspirations Nige but I think comparing ourselves to Korea is always setting us up for disappointment. Maybe aim for N.Korea to start with :)
It seem one thing we excel at is thinking we're shit at everything ;)
Info from here: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-south-koreas-success-in-controlling-disease-is-due-to-its-acceptance-of-surveillance-134068 (https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-south-koreas-success-in-controlling-disease-is-due-to-its-acceptance-of-surveillance-134068)
Finally - and maybe most essentially: South Korea sits at around number 50 in 'happiness' leagues with an average rating of 5.9 out of 10. UK is around number 15 with an average of 7.1. (Gallup World Poll 2016- 2018).
Before looking to other countries approaches as a panacea, worth asking yourself do you actually want to be like South Korea? Personally I don't - they work themselves like hamsters in wheels and their lives seem heavily controlled. It seems like a democratic version of China.
But it works well in once in one hundred year disasters so that's nice.
That's not to say we shouldn't cherry pick the best parts of SK's approach, and hopefully retain some semblance of liberty.
edit: Stu, it's more than just 'not ramping up testing'. We aren't S.Korea in lots of ways that just doing a lot more testing wouldn't change.
-
I think I agree with all of that Pete, although I'd be in favour of giving the police more scope to punish people who blatantly and wilfully contravene the lockdown rules, total mass surveillance has pretty big implications and I don't like to think how much power that might give an unscrupulous government to influence future elections.
I do think that the government is being foolish in pressing ahead with HS2 and ending the transition period in December. They seem to be deeply unnecessary distractions to dealing with health and economic crisis.
-
Hmm. Between SK level of detail and UK gov failing to share how many deaths in NI last night, there’s quite a bit of way to go. Rejecting the inadequacy of one does not automatically imply the extremity of the other.
-
Rejecting the inadequacy of one does not automatically imply the extremity of the other.
...
That's not to say we shouldn't cherry pick the best parts of SK's approach, and hopefully retain some semblance of liberty.
-
Testing is undoubtedly key. If you want to compare the garbage we get at our daily briefings with the sort of info the South Korean's have...
And it really is garbage. Graph 1 is transport usage which seems to me to be irrelevant other than telling us what good boys and girls we’ve been.
Graphs 2 & 3 are new or existing hospital cases, which don’t include the potentially huge number of cases in care homes due to lack of testing.
Graph 4 compares deaths with other countries, which is a false comparison given the above.
Even the director of PHE herself seems embarrassed and/or apologetic for repeatedly presenting these pointless graphs every day.
-
This article is quite interesting;
After coronavirus, Boris Johnson's Tories will be a very different party
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/after-coronavirus-boris-johnsons-tories-will-be-a-very-different-party?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
The idea that the government’s post-pandemic priorities might include lighting fires under the BBC, the civil service and the universities therefore seems even more destructive now than before. The idea that Britain should be a Brexit buccaneer, turning its back resolutely against Europe and throwing itself into the arms of Donald Trump seems even more irresponsible.
-
This article is quite interesting;
After coronavirus, Boris Johnson's Tories will be a very different party
The idea that the government’s post-pandemic priorities might include lighting fires under the BBC, the civil service and the universities therefore seems even more destructive now than before. The idea that Britain should be a Brexit buccaneer, turning its back resolutely against Europe and throwing itself into the arms of Donald Trump seems even more irresponsible.
Yes. And begs the question, how does Dominic Cummings fit into that? I would argue not well, and likely to lead to all sorts of tensions.
-
If you listen to the daily briefings the scientific advisers say the antibody tests aren't accurate - they've tested the accuracy of multiple test on the market. That's why the UK gov haven't run with one yet. A quick search online seems to back this up. Your marine operator will be getting false negative/positives.
This is correct. My wife has an antibody testing trial on in her hospital that she has signed up for. She had some mild symptoms, was denied a viral test so now hoping the antibody test will give us some idea of whether she had it.
(Youngest is classed as vulnerable person so knowing whether my wife has had it or not would very much help with managing the family!)
-
I've not followed this as closely as I should in the past week or so, but on the subject of testing I did hear one of the government advisors (was it Whitty?) saying that a major factor in the decision to not test widely was the inaccuracy of the test - particularly it's propensity to give false negatives. Might there be scandals awaiting to arise of countries that carried out tests on doctors with suspected symptoms and sent them back to work where they then infected many others? These countries like Germany who have tested lots of people - are they also doing aggressive contact tracing?
-
on the subject of testing I did hear one of the government advisors (was it Whitty?) saying that a major factor in the decision to not test widely was the inaccuracy of the test - particularly it's propensity to give false negatives.
Isn’t this the case with the antibody test, and not the swab test?
-
Yes Will, see further up thread although there's more concern over accuracy of the antibody tests I think.
Going back to Nigel and jonathanr championing South Korea's approach.
From the World Happiness Report 2019. (https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/changing-world-happiness/)
Yellow = 'Freedom to Make Life Choices'. Do you see the issue here..?
Fuck being South Korea. Norway, yes please.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KWOmsHwVsyCU8bV603U4mdPF1n8VbJngdcluDNQL_eFf7CgLepsmJb_-YIg_oTpHE74EFO_mrKIUnQvM6alIcehZh3okLdX46WmcIpvmxaxmh1FpBo60ZyQkB70XP_h_n8qtWnOjN_3WkGh8D1YVOKMWg8vOYPtbM4zEvQltgB_-fi5soKAL-nn8O7p3PPJleAA_GMQ3dmnvxlxM8O4XVOHGWxhoynrUfhyzD7GukT6__4cQPqmUOY14r1EmbF0P-S1H-JBtzwVGlI8EL-h7Nwmuqjuzapw1j72amSb7t0UwAfMJMoxOofLkLIidyv6BsueMNaHT7nreMGAAXCf17b3ihMCPxvON8wo62hgtOGiBzdSD_HG44KFkmFnd_K0CmTUNyAo5N8C9vb0nN5Xn7jk-PFlGmcoYlUMXrJe3HbqgNOSkpoMK_5kW8p68EmqMO_9OnB6cfHiJaIKEi8OogYg57ByKXwxpASATgXDIavqesC8ExK6JjIwm6PWQTooBFkxp1ZJ5yuR1Zo7r09AoLmV04v0jTL_kQ6spnnel1v9J55aHjYnN2Dl_Fy1qWJPcZosNLSZprnEAPLz13v_kSVTV3m0C634ZyZW8mD85gyXz-mdoiMc-yXVRgUCvVm4R2LS0tZlnNyq9du0G1irnGMPG6xG23ROoBFA0D5uzUcHaJ_oDXMaJ6StP6DyZ=w698-h939-no)
-
But like you said, the idea is not to become South Korea, but to try and cherry pick what works.
I’m quite worried in that respect that there are already widespread grumbles in the press about the proposed NHS app that might prevent widespread adoption. Usually these grumbles are from people who have no idea how it works and think the government will be tracking our locations
-
Yes I've been reading a report today saying to expect in May an IOS update for iphones or a google Play download for android phones, which will contain the tech to enable contact tracing via Bluetooth. Supposedly linked to an anonymised ID for each device.
Will you download it?
-
Thanks for this Nigel. So that is what a public information briefing looks like in Korea. wow.
I know!
Its like they get loads of information about Covid-19, and then make it public. Not convinced it will take off in the UK mind... still, its nice to see our daily graph of traffic levels.
As I'm being flippant already, found out today that Matt Hancock's degree is in, wait for it.....PPE. The irony.
Korea is the most advanced country in the world for information communication technology. Allied to a big brother surveillance tracking network using mobile phones, 'smart' city/town infrastructure and cctv. South Korea has the highest proportion of cashless transactions in the world. SK has the highest proportion of mobile phone use in the world and the whole country is covered by 4G or 5G - and everyone has to register their real name and address so that it's possible to for the government (should they need) to track the location of every citizen by their mobile device. South Korea had to deal with the MERS epidemic in 2015, and the SARS epidemic in 2003.
They also have the highest education level of any OECD country.
They've only recently learned how to react well during epidemics, MERS in 2015 was handled poorly. From the link below:
After the WHO excoriated Korea’s response, the country overhauled their response to respiratory infections, fast-tracking the production of test kits and equipping hospitals with infection control units and negative pressure rooms.
The Korean population, shaken by the incident, are also more likely to wash their hands, stay at home and get tested if requested to. “Testing like this has been very successful with dealing with HIV, for example, to prevent its spread and onward transmission,” says Mina. “There were large campaigns to test people to see if they know their status, and then to act appropriately.”
It's good to have high aspirations Nige but I think comparing ourselves to Korea is always setting us up for disappointment. Maybe aim for N.Korea to start with :)
It seem one thing we excel at is thinking we're shit at everything ;)
Info from here: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-south-koreas-success-in-controlling-disease-is-due-to-its-acceptance-of-surveillance-134068 (https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-south-koreas-success-in-controlling-disease-is-due-to-its-acceptance-of-surveillance-134068)
Finally - and maybe most essentially: South Korea sits at around number 50 in 'happiness' leagues with an average rating of 5.9 out of 10. UK is around number 15 with an average of 7.1. (Gallup World Poll 2016- 2018).
Before looking to other countries approaches as a panacea, worth asking yourself do you actually want to be like South Korea? Personally I don't - they work themselves like hamsters in wheels and their lives seem heavily controlled. It seems like a democratic version of China.
But it works well in once in one hundred year disasters so that's nice.
That's not to say we shouldn't cherry pick the best parts of SK's approach, and hopefully retain some semblance of liberty.
edit: Stu, it's more than just 'not ramping up testing'. We aren't S.Korea in lots of ways that just doing a lot more testing wouldn't change.
Actually Pete, I was thinking about this while I was going for a slightly longer than 30 mins walk in the sunshine yesterday, and broadly I totally agree with you. From a purely selfish point of view I like that we don't have some of the "big brother" stuff you describe. So as Stu also says I would concur absolutely that we should be cherry picking their "best bits".
A lot of their best bits are things we could do without infringing civil liberties one jot. E.g. back in January their government and private labs collaborated to develop and fast-track a covid-19 test, and set up free to use drive in testing centres. They formed teams of contact tracers in the community whose primary method is to conduct interviews with all confirmed cases (see FAQ on KCDC site). They currently stop all travellers at the border and either test them immediately (depending on symptoms / point of origin), or check their temperature and let them pass but *all* must be undergo 14 days quarantine of some type - click through to 31st March daily update here for a flow chart (bit faffy sorry) https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030 . I imagine (but don't know) that every interaction with a shop / public transport / official involves an automatic temperature test too as in China.
OK its uncomfortable and inconvenient, but then so is lockdown. None of the above paragraph is stuff that puts me in mind of 1984 to be honest. If we had done some of that in January we might be better placed now.
I'm sure they do have stuff that we wouldn't accept here, absolutely. Also in the FAQs on KCDC link is clear info on what else they look at and it is, without question, 1984 stuff. But playing devil's advocate for a second, their gov must have brought in a law to trace all this stuff at some point. If they do that here we may well be in the same position anyway. Not something I want but I perceive that we are somewhat at the whim of our legislators on this. If I go away and check 4G coverage, cashless transactions and CCTV per head in major UK cities, will it really look that different to SK? We are hardly a ruritarian society. Genuine question as I'd rather you did it than me ;) All I'm saying is maybe the UK will be tempted... we already know that GCHQ have form for collecting our data, and truth be told we voluntarily allow private companies such as Apple and Google to know our whereabouts. We are perhaps not as far away as you think. The debate about civil liberties is one I think will come to dominate in a few months time and will need careful consideration. So it is good you've brought it up - I'll have Norway too please!
Your point about them having had a brush with MERS recently is a good one, and does seem to be the reason they have such a well developed rapid response testing system. That said, I would still argue that pandemics are a foreseeable risk for the UK - I've already link to a UK gov document which shows clearly that it was the highest risk event we were planning for. If it was earthquakes, volcanoes, or tsunamis I could totally understand the UK gov running round like a headless chicken now as yes that would be unexpected. *Pan*-demics are, er, the clue's in the name....every country in the world should have a decent plan really non?
Maybe I'll have a look at Germany next, seeing as how you don't want to be South Korean ;D
-
Pete - I’ll definitely download the app when it turns up, providing it’s based on the Apple/Android implementation which looks excellent and as private as possible.
I’ll be encouraging as many others to do the same as well since the success of such an app will depend on widespread adoption.
-
I'd happily download the app and give up my "privacy" if it meant I had more "freedom".
-
Ditto me. I don’t think people realise how easy it would be to track us now anyway if the government wanted to so I can’t see an official app that does it for a good purpose being any worse.
-
Will you need a waterproof case for your phone?
-
But remember, "No return to normal without vaccine".
I have never heard of a fatal viral illness for which a vaccine has not been found. :wall:
I hate this government, we are led by the least of us.
-
There can be no return to normal, because normal was the problem in the first place
-
Anyone care to critique this given the general pro Netherlands vibe on this thread? Just came across it browsing. As ever I know how the data is interpreted is half the argument but this guy seems to be worth listening to.
https://mobile.twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1250723913023307776
-
Pete - I’ll definitely download the app when it turns up, providing it’s based on the Apple/Android implementation which looks excellent and as private as possible.
I’ll be encouraging as many others to do the same as well since the success of such an app will depend on widespread adoption.
Sounds like the gov would like a version that they can do what they want with, rather than the Apple/Google solution that maintains decentralisation... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/16/nhs-in-standoff-with-apple-and-google-over-coronavirus-tracing
-
Not sure what that Guardian article means exactly, it’s a bit vague what it means by “stand-off”. Either way, I back the phone companies in this particular fight. Weird world where Google is the one fighting for my privacy rights...
-
I have never heard of a fatal viral illness for which a vaccine has not been found. :wall:
Aids?
-
I have never heard of a fatal viral illness for which a vaccine has not been found. :wall:
Aids?
I think Tim was being facetious
-
Enviromental protections and lobbying
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/17/polluter-bailouts-and-lobbying-during-covid-19-pandemic
-
A collection of the latest UK shenanigans, ranging from the farcical to the downright dangerous...
https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec
Summary - asking people whose usual day job is to make diggers / F1 cars / hand-dryers for bogs to invent and produce new medical equipment in 5 minutes probably makes less sense than simply trying to arrange for more of proven products to be made. Obvious to everyone, apart from the people running the country unfortunately.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/nhs-staff-to-be-asked-to-treat-coronavirus-patients-without-gowns
Summary - problem: lack of gowns (necessary PPE as per guidance). Solution - change guidance. Admission that government thinks its fine to ask its people to work dangerously to try to mitigate the effects of its uselessness. But then we knew that already - we are the ones protecting the NHS by social distancing. They haven't met us halfway yet, and seem to be edging backwards...
-
Summary - problem: lack of gowns (necessary PPE as per guidance). Solution - change guidance.
For all the good that the NHS does, one of the huge downsides of it (and possibly any social healthcare system where there is a legal system that allows a person to sue for negligence) is that when they run out of money (or sometimes just the ability to source stuff properly) a go-to solution seems to be to re-write the guidelines so that the thing is no longer deemed necessary. There are examples of efficacious drugs that are regularly used in other countries for which you would struggle to get even on a private prescription in the UK because the guidelines have been fudged to say they are not effective, in order to save money. A further problem with this 1984-esque solution is that it teaches medics (thankfully not all of them) that guidelines should be favoured over gaining any understanding of the science.
-
Good to see some Tory MPs finally speaking up in support of the public’s ability to hold more than two thoughts in their head at one time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/18/ending-lockdown-uk-government-accused-of-underestimating-the-public?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Latest UK Government Advice
As we enter the next 3 weeks of lockdown here is a summary of the advice:
1. You MUST NOT leave the house for any reason, but if you have a reason, you can leave the house
2. Masks are useless at protecting you against the virus, but you may have to wear one because it can save lives, but they may not work, but they may be mandatory, but maybe not
3. Shops are closed, except those shops that are open
4. You must not go to work but you can get another job and go to work
5. You should not go to the Drs or to the hospital unless you have to go there, unless you are too poorly to go there
6. This virus can kill people, but don’t be scared of it. It can only kill those people who are vulnerable or those people who are not vulnerable people. It’s possible to contain and control it, sometimes, except that sometimes it actually leads to a global disaster
7. Gloves won't help, but they can still help so wear them sometimes or not
8. STAY HOME, but it's important to go out
9. There is no shortage of groceries in the supermarkets, but there are many things missing. Sometimes you won’t need loo rolls but you should buy some just in case you need some
10. The virus has no effect on children except those children it effects
11. Animals are not affected, but there is still a cat that tested positive in Belgium in February when no one had been tested, plus a few tigers here and there…
12. Stay 2 metres away from tigers (see point 11)
13. You will have many symptoms if your get the virus, but you can also get symptoms without getting the virus, get the virus without having any symptoms or be contagious without having symptoms, or be non contagious with symptoms...
14. To help protect yourself you should eat well and exercise, but eat whatever you have on hand as it's better not to go out shopping
15. It's important to get fresh air but don't go to parks but go for a walk. But don’t sit down, except if you are old, but not for too long or if you are pregnant or if you’re not old or pregnant but need to sit down. If you do sit down don’t eat your picnic
16. Don’t visit old people but you have to take care of the old people and bring them food and medication
17. If you are sick, you can go out when you are better but anyone else in your household can’t go out when you are better unless they need to go out
18. You can get restaurant food delivered to the house. These deliveries are safe. But groceries you bring back to your house have to be decontaminated outside for 3 hours including Pizza...
19. You can't see your older mother or grandmother, but they can take a taxi and meet an older taxi driver
20. You are safe if you maintain the safe social distance when out but you can’t go out with friends or strangers at the safe social distance
21. The virus remains active on different surfaces for two hours ... or four hours... six hours... I mean days, not hours... But it needs a damp environment. Or a cold environment that is warm and dry... in the air, as long as the air is not plastic
22. Schools are closed so you need to home educate your children, unless you can send them to school because you’re not at home. If you are at home you can home educate your children using various portals and virtual class rooms, unless you have poor internet, or more than one child and only one computer, or you are working from home. Baking cakes can be considered maths, science or art. If you are home educating you can include household chores to be education. If you are home educating you can start drinking at 10am
23. If you are not home educating children you can also start drinking at 10am
24. The number of corona related deaths will be announced daily but we don't know how many people are infected as they are only testing those who are almost dead to find out if that's what they will die of… the people who die of corona who aren’t counted won’t be counted
25. You should stay in locked down until the virus stops infecting people but it will only stop infecting people if we all get infected so it’s important we get infected and some don’t get infected
26. You can join your neighbours for a street party and turn your music up for an outside disco and your neighbours won’t call the police. People in another street are allowed to call the police about your music.
27. No business will go under due to Coronavirus except those businesses that will have already gone under.
Now I understand
-
😂 that seems to cover everything - reasonably 😃
-
Thank you. Just follow the rules please and we will all be fine.
-
The two times I've been to the shops in the past month and there's been no pink wafers. What am I supposed to tell my 2 year old? I am also grieving - they're divine.
-
Tell her you don't accept that there is a shortage of pink wafers, everybody has all the pink wafers they need and you are sorry if she feels she hasn't, but nonetheless you have ramped up your search for more pink wafers but the global pink wafer marketplace is busy right now and a supply will hopefully be arriving tomorrow. In the meantime change the guidance to plain digestives.
-
Just accept that there’s a current shortage but guarantee that you will meet your 100,000 pink wafer target in 2 weeks time.
-
Will. Tell her you are going to instigate a three stage pink wafer procurement process.
This will involve Aston Martin, JCB and Bernard Matthews to set up within 48 hours a new pink wafer production line. By the end of April you will be able to provide her with 100000 wafers a day. All will be overseen by the wafer task force led by David Davis.
-
There wouldn't be a shortage if some of you hadn't been so profligate. I'm looking at you, two year old hunt.
-
There wouldn't be a shortage if some of you hadn't been so profligate. I'm looking at you, two year old hunt.
There’s 84 tons of Pink Wafers, arriving from Turkey tomorrow.
Or carpets.
Not sure yet.
-
With apologies for bringing the tone down...just spent 10 minutes reading an article in the Sunday Times tomorrow headlined "38 days Britain sleepwalked toward disaster." Really damning stuff. A link (paywalled) is below; I tried to pass it through google news but no luck. Worth the effort if you have the knowledge. It left me open mouthed at times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh
-
Copy and paste, please :)
-
With apologies for bringing the tone down...just spent 10 minutes reading an article in the Sunday Times tomorrow headlined "38 days Britain sleepwalked toward disaster." Really damning stuff. A link (paywalled) is below; I tried to pass it through google news but no luck. Worth the effort if you have the knowledge. It left me open mouthed at times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh
Ten minutes? That's pretty quick! Yeah I just read it too, I intended to anyway having heard a BBC journalist say earlier that it was going to be published and is extremely damning. It's a total demolition of Johnson's entire performance as a PM, implying that he's lazy, not interested in details to the point of totally ignoring repeated advice that this was happening and being told what he needed to do. I wonder whether now's really the time to be publishing this. I can't help feeling it's obviously necessary to, but the decision not to wait until the crisis has abated is desperation from the paper at their escalating losses and rather irresponsible journalism.
-
Ok, catching up here. I've got some lead-based pink paint and I'm painting over the Rich Teas. It's fine. Totally fine.
Toby. Duh! If you've got a nuke you don't drop it when the guy's in the bunker. You wait until the moment of greatest vulnerability and stick it up him then. ::)
-
With apologies for bringing the tone down...just spent 10 minutes reading an article in the Sunday Times tomorrow headlined "38 days Britain sleepwalked toward disaster." Really damning stuff. A link (paywalled) is below; I tried to pass it through google news but no luck. Worth the effort if you have the knowledge. It left me open mouthed at times.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh
Try this:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251616775504113664.html
(still laughing from tc's list of instructions)
-
The Times story is Sky’s leader today.
Oddly enough the Beeb doesn’t seem to have noticed it at all.
Not that their leader about the Care home deaths is particularly pro-Government....
I don’t think I’ve seen many “pro” articles, anywhere, since I stopped reading the Telegraph.
-
It's a total demolition of Johnson's entire performance as a PM, implying that he's lazy, not interested in details...I wonder whether now's really the time to be publishing this.
The article doesn’t really add anything new to what anyone who’s paid attention to his career would already know, in terms of his work ethic. And yet his and the government’s approval ratings are still through the roof. I’m not convinced this article will change that. Not sure if it’s some kind of Trump-like devotion or Stockholm syndrome.
-
Worst thing is...he’s absolutely hiding again. It’s a shit storm out there, lockdown, schools, no PPE, he’s waiting til it dies down a bit, and then he can come out to ‘lead the country out of lockdown’ as the sun out it yesterday.
His provisional plan according the FT is too be back in a further 2 weeks to lead the country out coinciding with VE Day!
After that article he may have to face the music sooner.
-
It’s not the information - more the messenger/outlet that will sting.
Whilst the times and Sunday times are long past their best - it’s hard for the Tory membership and leadership to ignore...
A bit like having a rap over the knuckles from an important though elderly family member.
It’s not on the front page though...
When the numbers stabilise - and of we end up (as looks likely) being worse than Italy and Spain (that were being held up by all in media and government as an example to avoid) then there will be little or no places to hide.
-
...his and the government’s approval ratings are still through the roof. I’m not convinced this article will change that. Not sure if it’s some kind of Trump-like devotion or Stockholm syndrome.
Just to add, I also can’t help wondering if they’ve been incredibly fortunate with the timing of the recent sunny weather [inc 91% approval of lockdown extension]. Yes, some activities have been restricted but the displacement activities/alternatives are so much greater when it’s sunny outside, and people are generally less grumpy. If it had rained every day for the last 3weeks I’d imagine people would be at the end of their tether now!
-
Another link here: https://archive.is/20200418182037/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh
I agree with TT about the messenger being the relevant part of this. The Sunday Times polotical reporting, led by Tim Shipman, normally falls over itself fawning over Johnson. Perhaps its revealing that this is the work of the Insight investigative team and not Shipman. Worth noting that the editorial leader is also very critical of the government which suggests significant unease. Also, quick fact check: its not the front page splash but it is on the front page.
The main takeaway for me was not one of political incompetence, which as Ali says, anyone who has been paying attention already knew about. (The way austerity has impacted upon planning for events like this was particularly interesting.) instead, it was the way our chief scientists seem to have totally misinterpreted the data coming out of the far east, assuming it was a flu whereas Asian scientists were very clear this was a SARS like threat and acted accordingly. The light shed on the herd immunity strategy is particularly damning. Any subsequent inquiry will have to look at the scientists professional judgement and how it fell so far short, amounting to five weeks of inaction.
It may not change anything but its certainly the best bit of journalism I've read in the Times for ages and should be commended just for that.
-
I woke early this morning, aching from heavy labour yesterday and no chance of remaining comfortable in bed. So, from about 06:45, I’ve been drinking coffee and reading the papers.
The Times story and critical articles of the Government and Boris in particular, seemed to be universal, across the board.
Just watched Marr...
Totally different slant.
According to him, all the newspapers are pushing for an end to lockdown, the Government is wonderful and the only papers of importance are the Sun, the Mail and the Telegraph.
One of his guests, passed off the Times article as “20/20 hindsight” and brushed it off, to which Marr agreed.
All he seemed to care about, was when the Garden Centres would be opened.
(Yes, I know it wasn’t “that” simple/clear cut, but fuck it was totally uncritical and avoided anything controversial).
-
The UK as superman! A speech Boris made on Feb 3rd.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1251458390028664832
-
Busy (toddler - Lego etc..) but saw a tweet from some commentator suggesting Murdoch has had it with Boris and wants Gove in charge...
:D etc...
-
Just to add, I also can’t help wondering if they’ve been incredibly fortunate with the timing of the recent sunny weather [inc 91% approval of lockdown extension]. Yes, some activities have been restricted but the displacement activities/alternatives are so much greater when it’s sunny outside, and people are generally less grumpy. If it had rained every day for the last 3weeks I’d imagine people would be at the end of their tether now!
By they you mean we've been fortunate. Right? Because it's nice that it's sunny isn't it? Or is this pandemic all a political event, and you'd rather it rained and were personally unhappy as long as it made the government look bad so you could criticise them.
According to him, all the newspapers are pushing for an end to lockdown, the Government is wonderful and the only papers of importance are the Sun, the Mail and the Telegraph.
Just to point out that those three papers account for by far the majority of newspapers read in the UK. Including Sunday versions they account for 6 of the top 9 by sales. So they are quite important.
-
Busy (toddler - Lego etc..) but saw a tweet from some commentator suggesting Murdoch has had it with Boris and wants Gove in charge...
:D etc...
Hmmm...
Sky changed their online front page in the last few minutes, bumping The Times article to n⁰2:
(https://i.ibb.co/tp993vR/494-FECF7-FC9-F-4-C78-8-D63-53-FA92-A1-BC70.png)
Pete, if you’re in the mood forlooking things up...
How much of the total “News” consumption do those papers account for?
I was under the impression that “Newspapers” were approaching defunct?
I don’t really expect you look it up, I actually thought you might already know.
I have to go back to to work, so can’t look it up.
-
Sure, however for 'newspapers of importance' as was said, they're actually very important. Readership stats for Sun, Mail and Telegraph (inc Sunday versions) occupy 6 of the top 9 spots. The Guardian is bottom or close to. So why *wouldn't* a national broadcaster give attention to them? It would be more noteworthy if they didn't! Not got any axe to grind here btw.
-
By they you mean we've been fortunate. Right? Because it's nice that it's sunny isn't it?
Of course we’ve been fortunate. And I’m positing that as a result they’ve been fortunate in maintaining public opinion despite what, by all accounts, is a fucking disastrous handling of the pandemic led by a man who likes the idea of being PM but not the workload that goes along with it.
Or is this pandemic all a political event, and you'd rather it rained and were personally unhappy as long as it made the government look bad so you could criticise them.
I’d rather this government were just vaguely competent so I didn’t feel the need to criticise.
-
A month ago I thought they were doing a competent job (and begrudgingly posted as much iirc) but I’m not of that view now.
If it wasn’t about an extra 10-20k people perishing we’d all be omnishambling it.
-
I'd rather it had rained for 3 weeks tbh
-
100% what Alex said!
-
City dwellers versus country dwellers. I’ve walked a different footpath almost one day in every three! Loving this sun.
..
I was going to post something on this thread about noticing that the political debate around corona is starting to revert to the mean, and how it’s beginning to be the usual voices saying the usual things.
I’m trying to think who might have tory sympathies on UKB, maybe GME or shark (honestly don’t know)? I’d take more notice of criticism of the government’s handling of this pandemic if the voices weren’t those of people strongly opposed to a tory government.
So that Times article is useful. Political opinions on UKB come across to me as more venting than balanced.
-
I wonder whether now's really the time to be publishing this. I can't help feeling it's obviously necessary to, but the decision not to wait until the crisis has abated is desperation from the paper at their escalating losses and rather irresponsible journalism.
I don't think this is the time either - a month ago would have been better. But at least *someone* has done some proper journalism. The correct word is "investigative", not "irresponsible"!
Just to relink so more people might see it - https://archive.is/20200418182037/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh
Anyone who has followed this thread from the start would already have an idea about most of the contents, all of the government's myriad failings were and are obvious, not that you would necessarily have known from the supine media we have in the UK. So to me at least the contents are not a bombshell, but even so its damning seeing it all collated as a timeline of avoidable disaster after disaster. And in a mainstream media outlet normally supportive of the Tories.
The simple fact is that the government have clearly let their citizens down, badly. And they know it. Their only working strategy at the moment is to ask the citizens of the UK to bail them out (again!) by making personal sacrifices. Which to their credit they (we!) are doing.
-
I was going to post something on this thread about noticing that the political debate around corona is starting to revert to the mean, and how it’s beginning to be the usual voices saying the usual things.
I’m trying to think who might have tory sympathies on UKB, maybe GME or shark (honestly don’t know)? I’d take more notice of criticism of the government’s handling of this pandemic if the voices weren’t those of people strongly opposed to a tory government.
So that Times article is useful. Political opinions on UKB come across to me as more venting than balanced.
No doubt you are right about the UKB political demographic Pete, but the facts don't take sides. Running the NHS at 95+% capacity, running down emergency stockpiles, ignoring findings from pandemic dry-runs, ignoring WHO warnings, PM not attending COBRA meetings, ignoring warnings from NHS staff and putting them in harm's way - none of those are party political point scoring. Yes the tories happen to be in power, so yes its largely their fault. If labour had been in power, then personally I'd be happy to give them an equally hard time. The ultimate fact is 15,000+ dead and rising, a lot of which are unnecessary deaths when compared with many (most) other countries. Let's call it a systemic UK failing if you like, but its still a failing.
-
City dwellers versus country dwellers. I’ve walked a different footpath almost one day in every three! Loving this sun.
..
I was going to post something on this thread about noticing that the political debate around corona is starting to revert to the mean, and how it’s beginning to be the usual voices saying the usual things.
I’m trying to think who might have tory sympathies on UKB, maybe GME or shark (honestly don’t know)? I’d take more notice of criticism of the government’s handling of this pandemic if the voices weren’t those of people strongly opposed to a tory government.
So that Times article is useful. Political opinions on UKB come across to me as more venting than balanced.
Why do we need Tory or Labour “sympathies”?
I have a lot of “sympathy” for a great deal of “Tory” philosophy (just as I do for plenty of “Labour” philosophy).
I don’t have as much from the ascension of Cammeron onwards and hindsight gives me a (broadly) negative view of Thatcher, but I still feel Major was ok (much as I think Brown was not far off the mark).
I’m sick of the current, fatuous, sound bite, shower of shit and only need to defer to the opinions of almost everyone that ever employed or taught or worked with Boris (prior to his elevation) to firmly believe him to be the wrong person for the current task.
To be fair, not liking this current crop, is not a particularly “Labour” or even “Left wing” thing, plenty of dissent from within the ruling party.
-
Out at the moment but I don’t agree with using 15,000 deaths (it’s actually closer to 20,000+, as the next ONS figures will show) as proof of anything just yet except - we’re in the middle of experiencing a global pandemic. Clearly we aren’t Norway. How badly we come out the other side remains to be seen.
I’m more interested in what makes people get infected and what makes them die - density, underlying poor health (UK is terrible for this), health service capacity, age demographic, poverty, political view (libertarians going out more?), and a thousand other variables that invite you to be a bigger target for dying of covid.
I’m less interested in which government is in charge but fully agree it plays a large role in the exact choice of lockdown, condition of health service (however it’s noteworthy the NHS capacity has not been exceeded- this is a success right?). However people are also sovereign and choose their own interpretation of control measures - difference between people on here. I get the impression there’s a hell of a lot of individual choices all interlinked involved in covid death rates, not an overarching government ‘fault’.
-
Taking on the "Tory sympathy / philosophy" point, their response has been a failure even on their own standards.
Presumably they opted initially for herd immunity so they could avoid shutting down the economy. Due to their own litany of fuck-ups they are now having to lockdown almost completely, and with no end in sight. If they had properly funded the NHS over the last decade, acted on Operation Cygnus, and instigated test and trace in January then we might have deaths in triple figures and all be back at work.
-
Out at the moment but I don’t agree with using 15,000 deaths (it’s actually closer to 20,000+, as the next ONS figures will show) as proof of anything just yet except - we’re in the middle of experiencing a global pandemic. Clearly we aren’t Norway. How badly we come out the other side remains to be seen.
I’m more interested in what makes people get infected and what makes them die - density, underlying poor health (UK is terrible for this), health service capacity, age demographic, poverty, political view (libertarians going out more?), and a thousand other variables that invite you to be a bigger target for dying of covid.
I’m less interested in which government is in charge but fully agree it plays a large role in the exact choice of lockdown. However people are also sovereign and choose their own interpretation of control measures - difference between people on here. I get the impression there’s a hell of a lot of individual choices all interlinked involved in covid death rates....
I was with you till the catastrophic serial incompetence of our government response - which should have been informed by our neighbours' battles to learn from - being batted away as
…. not an overarching government ‘fault’.
There is a myriad of factors at play, of course, but a national fiasco forms a major part.
-
it’s noteworthy the NHS capacity has not been exceeded- this is a success right?).
Yes. An overwhelmed service would have seen a huge rise in mortality rates. The government action to tell the NHS to spend what they need, and to move in new emergency facility, like Nightingale, has been good. Yet this is a solution to a problem that mostly should not have happened. We, Italy and Spain are fighting for the top spots in European deaths (depending on care home deaths... its very likely we will be top on hospital deaths). They had 2 weeks less warning than us and were hit under high flu strain.
The UK government errors are serious and it's not party political to point this out. Germany has most obviously shown what can be done with a better prepared health system with less government mistakes; notably health systems not hamstrung by austerity, stronger and earlier messaging on social distancing, more tests and proper logistical prep on PPE.
-
MrJR, I say that because you can look to other countries with different control measures and they’re experiencing different death rates that don’t necessarily tally with the narrative being put forward that our figures are all a UK government fuck up. I find it hard to see how the gov control measures can be described as a cock up when compared with everyone else’s? What exactly is it that you think we haven’t put in place during this pandemic that we should have and which would massively alter our death rate - when looked at against other countries?
Seeing as deaths from covid are what matter, if you think the gov are doing something wrong then ask does it greatly alter the ultimate death rate?
Testing - would it have altered the death rate up to now?
PPE - serious issue, not being flippant, but has it significant affected the death rate? Tragic deaths of NHS workers. But not a blip on the 20,000 plus who have died so far.
Social distancing - what should be different that would greatly alter our death rate? Lockdown a week or two earlier? Most think this would have been unworkable.
Messaging - would this have greatly altered our death rate?
-
I’d take more notice of criticism of the government’s handling of this pandemic if the voices weren’t those of people strongly opposed to a tory government.
I'd do what I normally do, which is look at the argument.
-
oops, cross post Pete.
To the one above..
UK gov approach has consistently deviated from WHO advice. UK doesn't have to follow it, but given that it comprises:
test
contact trace
quarantine and repeat
and that countries around the world following this are experiencing successful outcomes, we really need to be showing good results from a different approach. Currently on track to be the worst outcomes in Europe, so it looks weak.
The shambolic approach from the off is self evident, you don't need a political flag to see we have been slow to react, disorganised and under prepared in a range of different ways.
As to whether political enemies make mileage of political incompetence, well that's not worth debating. Whether the national response is competent is, because that's the only way to restart the economy.
-
Generally agree with you. But I’m still curious what people who are calling this government’s crack-handed what we could be doing much better *at this point in time with the position we started at*, that we aren’t. I think there’s a lot of ‘told you so’ going on with hindsight. Look back to some of your posts three weeks ago. Seems to me that the point at which we would have altered the course of the virus seems was early on. We’re not unique in not racing out do the blocks early on. Not that that’s cause to celebrate anything of course.
-
I think there’s a lot of ‘told you so’ going on with hindsight. Look back to some of your posts three weeks ago.
Sure there is, in part because that's what people do, but also when people feel they are now grasping the situation better - and it's cause for dismay- they are going to start speaking out.
I think there needs to be balance between keeping focused on making things better and leaving the partisan stuff for the results of the public enquiry, and not giving incompetence a free pass. Tricky, but the gov need to get their act together to protect the front line workers (including social care in the front line) and get a proper testing regime set up so the virus can be isolated as much as possible to allow people back to work.
Regarding PPE, it's not just repugnant to expose health workers unnecessarily, it's bad management because it increases the transmission of the virus. I'd take the same view for soldiers sent to fight with inadequate kit and weapons. Why isn't the political will there to repurpose existing manufacturing under emergency legislation pdq?
-
I think there’s a lot of ‘told you so’ going on with hindsight. Look back to some of your posts three weeks ago.
Sure there is, in part because that's what people do, but also when people feel they are now grasping the situation better - and it's cause for dismay- they are going to start speaking out.
I think there needs to be balance between keeping focused on making things better and leaving the partisan stuff for the results of the public enquiry, and not giving incompetence a free pass. Tricky, but the gov need to get their act together to protect the front line workers (including social care in the front line) and get a proper testing regime set up so the virus can be isolated as much as possible to allow people back to work.
Regarding PPE, it's not just repugnant to expose health workers unnecessarily, it's bad management because it increases the transmission of the virus. I'd take the same view for soldiers sent to fight with inadequate kit and weapons. Why isn't the political will there to repurpose existing manufacturing under emergency legislation pdq?
Regarding that last paragraph.
Have you been under a rock the last few decades?
I think the current lockdown isbroadly correct.
I don’t think anything harsher would work (not “work to control the virus” but “work in the context of people obeying it”).
I think they were late acting, by about a week and had better intelligence than the general public. I suspect they’re actually, genuinely, too arrogant to listen to “experts” or, at least, think people like Cummings are on a par with actual academics and scientists.
Otherwise, ish, mostly and with reservations, I agree with Pete.
Fight the fire, debrief in the debrief.
-
I'm not convinced by the "back in January none of you wanted anything different done" argument Pete. The most obvious rebuttal is that I am not privy to cobra meetings and sensitive govt info which the UK govt clearly are! I would accept that up until fairly recently I thought the govt was playing a shit hand fairly well. The last few weeks have changed my view on this. It's not party political to look at where mistakes have been made and see whether that was avoidable.
Regarding your "we are not unique in being substandard", you're right, that is nothing to celebrate. This government makes significant mileage out of British exceptionalism. The examples are numerous. There is absolutely no reason why our planning for this couldn't have been world leading, indeed the piece in the ST makes that point explicitly, saying that until 2010 we were in a great position. If the government wants to talk the talk about the UK being world leading, it needs to walk the walk too. It manifestly isn't.
-
Germany... ...more tests....
Ironically from what i've read this appears to have been achieved by greater general private sector lab involvement pre-crisis and not having tests centrally managed by a PHE equivalent.
-
Regarding PPE, it's not just repugnant to expose health workers unnecessarily, it's bad management because it increases the transmission of the virus. I'd take the same view for soldiers sent to fight with inadequate kit and weapons. Why isn't the political will there to repurpose existing manufacturing under emergency legislation pdq?
Regarding that last paragraph.
Have you been under a rock the last few decades?
Pretty rude. Whatever.
Which companies have been taken over by HM gov for the production of PPE? Genuine question- I thought it was all on a voluntary basis? Does not seem adequate to demand, does it?
-
Regarding PPE, it's not just repugnant to expose health workers unnecessarily, it's bad management because it increases the transmission of the virus. I'd take the same view for soldiers sent to fight with inadequate kit and weapons. Why isn't the political will there to repurpose existing manufacturing under emergency legislation pdq?
Regarding that last paragraph.
Have you been under a rock the last few decades?
Pretty rude. Whatever.
Which companies have been taken over by HM gov for the production of PPE? Genuine question- I thought it was all on a voluntary basis? Does not seem adequate to demand, does it?
It was a joke, dude!
Just like most military issue kit since Napoleon was knocking on the gate.
-
Ah okay. I get that there is a lot of repurposing going on, but it does not appear to be solving supply issues. It needed more urgency, earlier.
-
I'm not convinced by the "back in January none of you wanted anything different done" argument Pete.
Back near the end of January supposedly well informed luminaries such as the editor of the lancet were tweeting of moderate transmissibility, low pathogenicity and the need to avoid fostering panic with exagerrated language. There really wasn't a settled scientific consensus at that point for the government to base decisive action on, was there? There are certainly long term strategic decisions that could have been different, such as PPE stores and national manufacturing capacity, and private sector involvement in testing, but i'm sure we would have heard howls of protest about wasting money preparing for something that might never happen and there being higher priorities if money had actually been allocated in advance. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
-
I'm not convinced by the "back in January none of you wanted anything different done" argument Pete.
Back near the end of January supposedly well informed luminaries such as the editor of the lancet were tweeting of moderate transmissibility, low pathogenicity and the need to avoid fostering panic with exagerrated language. There really wasn't a settled scientific consensus at that point for the government to base decisive action on, was there? There are certainly long term strategic decisions that could have been different, such as PPE stores and national manufacturing capacity, and private sector involvement in testing, but i'm sure we would have heard howls of protest about wasting money preparing for something that might never happen and there being higher priorities if money had actually been allocated in advance. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I know the tweet you're referring to and would point out that he changed his mind extremely quickly, considerably quicker than the government experts by the looks of things. Appreciate that there is no such thing as consensus, and if we had delayed a week I would be the first to agree with you. Five weeks, however, is an order of magnitude different. I dont accept, for example, that the science was unclear at the point of the Cheltenham Festival or liverpool v Atletico going ahead. Somewhere between the end of Jan and the start of March opportunities were clearly missed.
The trouble with your argument that "long term strategic decisions are unpopular" and "hindsight is wonderful" is that it basically has the effect of absolving the government from all responsibility. Large numbers of people are employed by the government for pandemic preparedness. Running exercises like Cygnus are designed to mitigate against this exact scenario we see now. It is the job of government to make long term decisions. Not doing so exposes you to criticism later. They know the game! The fact that they dropped the ball on this is not a case of hindsight is cheap in my view.
-
I'm not convinced by the "back in January none of you wanted anything different done" argument Pete.
Back near the end of January supposedly well informed luminaries such as the editor of the lancet were tweeting of moderate transmissibility, low pathogenicity and the need to avoid fostering panic with exagerrated language. There really wasn't a settled scientific consensus at that point for the government to base decisive action on, was there?
This is his tweet, from January 23rd:
https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1220606842449072128
The detail from China came on Jan 24, he changed tack pretty quickly. January 29
2019-nCoV: It must now surely be time to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Not to do so will cast doubt on the credibility of the international health system.
https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1220606842449072128
Goldsmith had a go at him on Twitter about his Jan 23rd tweet, which wilfully misrepresents the timeline and ignores that Horton has been banging the drum for action since last week of January, it's easy enough to find richardhorton1:
https://twitter.com/zacgoldsmith/status/1243315992459182082?lang=en
I'd have to disagree with you about government lacking clear knowledge Chris, since the knowledge about community transmission and pandemic potential has been available since late Jan, over 12 weeks ago.
-
I think there’s a lot of ‘told you so’ going on with hindsight. Look back to some of your posts three weeks ago.
Sure there is, in part because that's what people do, but also when people feel they are now grasping the situation better - and it's cause for dismay- they are going to start speaking out.
I think there needs to be balance between keeping focused on making things better and leaving the partisan stuff for the results of the public enquiry, and not giving incompetence a free pass. Tricky, but the gov need to get their act together to protect the front line workers (including social care in the front line) and get a proper testing regime set up so the virus can be isolated as much as possible to allow people back to work.
Regarding PPE, it's not just repugnant to expose health workers unnecessarily, it's bad management because it increases the transmission of the virus. I'd take the same view for soldiers sent to fight with inadequate kit and weapons. Why isn't the political will there to repurpose existing manufacturing under emergency legislation pdq?
Regarding that last paragraph.
Have you been under a rock the last few decades?
I think the current lockdown isbroadly correct.
I don’t think anything harsher would work (not “work to control the virus” but “work in the context of people obeying it”).
I think they were late acting, by about a week and had better intelligence than the general public. I suspect they’re actually, genuinely, too arrogant to listen to “experts” or, at least, think people like Cummings are on a par with actual academics and scientists.
Otherwise, ish, mostly and with reservations, I agree with Pete.
Fight the fire, debrief in the debrief.
I agree. I don't cheerlead for the current government but would happily vote for a more competent administration whether that was conservative, labour or anything else. However, I think that the time to try to tear down the government's credibility with the general public is after the worst of it has passed, Nigel I understand your feelings but this shit gives licence to the shit thick people who are champing at the bit to break their lockdown. I'd say a majority of the few t*ssers I've seen parked out in the peak are wealthy (judging by their SUVs) upper middle class older people who probably vote conservative on reflex, probably read the Sunday Times and think this sort of thing means go out and play, and I'd really rather they stayed at home, so everyone in the NHS could stop being scared every time we go to work.
The government clearly seriously neglected any proper preparation, although since then they've definitely got their act into gear. It's no use trying to say if we had a different administration of whatever colour it'd have been much better, it clearly wouldn't, the UK is extremely densely populated with many international airports, a large number of international students, and many other factors that made the widespread import of an infectious virus inevitable.
Having said all that, why they're still allowing international flights now seems foolish.
-
I thought this was a good piece in the guardian today.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/18/how-did-britain-get-its-response-to-coronavirus-so-wrong
It does make reasonable points about the lack of strategic planning and also mystifying changes in strategy (eg from contact tracing to ths delay phase - was this driven by knowledge of the lack of testing capacity or something else?) but also that the voice from the scientific community was possibly not loud and united enough to be properly taken notice of before mid-feb.
It also makes the same point about casting blame with the benefit of hindsight when those blamed were making unprecedented 50-50 decisions based on sources with differing viewpoints. Given we weren't the only country to follow a laissez-faire approach (Sweden) there has to have been a reasonable basis to take that decision. I'm sure there is much to learn and decisions could have been taken better but I also think the voices on here casting blame at individuals and talking about negligence already are using 20-20 hindsight probably unfairly.
-
Something else that came into mind while out earlier. Am I right in thinking UK and France are the two countries with the busiest transport hubs in Europe? In the UK's case the London airports and Manchester, plus Dover port and the London railway stations. In France's case CDG and Orly airports, the Calais port and Gard de Nord station. These are some of the busiest in Europe - Heathrow and CDG especially.
As the track of this virus depends entirely on new human-human interactions, could the UK and France especially have been starting with a handicap compared to other European countries, just from the fact of having higher throughput of new virus carriers at the beginning of any outbreak?
(I'm ignoring Italy for the moment because from my limited understanding they seemed to have a super-spreading event early in the pandemic and were unfortunate to be first in Europe to have to learn how to deal. Their handicap perhaps was being first.)
I'm not trying to make a case that the gov are or aren't doing well (as I think it's mostly still too early to say) - I'm interested in trying to understand what factors cause a virus outcome to be different in two different countries, because I don't see how all of the differences in death rates between countries can come back to policy and execution given all countries are doing broadly similar things.
edit: The countries with top 10 busiest airports UK 144 million (that's just between Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester). France 97.2 million CDG, Orly)
Germany 102 million (Frankfurt).
If you add in UK's other airports outside top 10: Luton, Stanstead etc. Then the UK is by the busiest in Europe for air travel.
A map of covid-19 cases busiest airports:
(https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Europe-Busiest-Airports.png)
https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Europe-Busiest-Airports.png (https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Europe-Busiest-Airports.png)
-
Been wanting to post but just back from a tranquil but somehow nerve jangling trip to Tesco...
Pete - yes a few people on here (myself included) thought they were doing an Ok job at the beginning (with some suspicions by some) but I’ve since revised what I think. Personally that’s because I think at those early stages we had some key info kept from us. It also seems clearer that there wasn’t as much leadership and strategy as we were led to believe early on.
Re early testing and would it have helped? We had early testing but stopped it when transmission in the community started to happen. If we had carried on - we would have a good idea where there might be hotspots / issues - where hospitals might need extra facilities. For example there are a large number of cases in Sheffield - but that’s because sheff tester more people than other equivalent cities. It may also have allowed us to make data backed decisions about locking down certain towns/cities - such as London and Birmingham earlier. But because we didn’t know how it had spread (because we hadn’t tested enough) we (a) didn’t know and (b) therefore couldn’t make that call.
Testing in my view will be at the centre of how we may well have messed up here.
The social isolating non lockdown call in early March was a shambles. Ffs - from late February I was using hand sanitiser at work and being very careful with shared equipment (computers in lecture rooms and labs for example). We had a week where companies didn’t know whether or not to close - and finally the govt realised we needed to lock down.
But there are positives - the lockdown/social distancing seems to be working - without it being that heavy handed (I still wish it were clearer through!).
That our NHS has not been yet overwhelmed is a bullet dodged - a big positive. With the caveat that most other treatments - operations etc.. have been neglected which may have some knock ons later.
-
A bullet dodged implies luck TT. I don't ascribe the NHS having extra capacity to luck.
Would you not agree that a better metaphor is that it was a bullet that we were fully expecting to come at us and hit us, and the reason it didn't kill us was because we'd armoured up in time to deal with it?
-
A bullet dodged implies luck TT. I don't ascribe the NHS having extra capacity to luck.
Would you not agree that a better metaphor is that it was a bullet that we were fully expecting to come at us and hit us, and the reason it didn't kill us was because we'd armoured up in time to deal with it?
Wrong metaphor really Pete. Sorry.
A near miss - where we just managed to wrestle the steering wheel in time to swerve out of the way might be better.
My neighbour who runs a bar was telling me today that the govts 10k cash advance and the furlough procedure means he’ll be alright as long as lockdown doesn’t go on much longer than 6 months... so that’s a positive for the govt too - that I forgot to add.
-
Ah okay. I get that there is a lot of repurposing going on, but it does not appear to be solving supply issues. It needed more urgency, earlier.
Given the quotes from private sector clothing suppliers, laboratories and engineering companies about PHE not returning calls, lack of urgency and a general unwillingness to work with the private sector, procurement is surely in for a massive reorganisation in the fall-out at the end of this (if not sooner)
-
A bullet dodged implies luck TT. I don't ascribe the NHS having extra capacity to luck.
Would you not agree that a better metaphor is that it was a bullet that we were fully expecting to come at us and hit us, and the reason it didn't kill us was because we'd armoured up in time to deal with it?
Wrong metaphor really Pete. Sorry.
A near miss - where we just managed to wrestle the steering wheel in time to swerve out of the way might be better.
My neighbour who runs a bar was telling me today that the govts 10k cash advance and the furlough procedure means he’ll be alright as long as lockdown doesn’t go on much longer than 6 months... so that’s a positive for the govt too - that I forgot to add.
I would agree with your mate’s assessment, but knock it down to five months.
My worry is how far down the line we need to move before climbing gyms will open.
There is an effort, Europe wide, to come up with a set of protocols for climbing walls, but I feel dubious at the moment.
It’s a work in progress, but...
-
My neighbour who runs a bar was telling me today that the govts 10k cash advance and the furlough procedure means he’ll be alright as long as lockdown doesn’t go on much longer than 6 months... so that’s a positive for the govt too - that I forgot to add.
+1 for approving Sunak's decisiveness in acting here. I don't care too much about the crew's political persuasions if I'm on the boat and they're steering us off the rocks.
-
@OMM - he said it was enough to cover the rent - to close to the end of the year. Most other things he could dial down to minimal... (utlilities/suppliers/till leases etc..).
He said he spent 4 hours last night getting the furlough stuff ready for his staff (its a small bar - maybe half a dozen) which he said was hard - and as he put it - he used to be an accountant, so had good records and knew what he was doing...
-
I think the metaphor is exactly right. When things got as close as they did there is no way the government advance planning was OK.. it's just impossible to judge that well. That some hospitals were not overwhelmed was luck and was as much about good hospital planning as government advice.
The mistakes were made and they continue to this day: in todays briefing the narrative about Boris missing all those COBRA meetings is just BS (sure its normal he misses the odd one due to other crisis issues but not so many in a row). The Deputy Head of Public Health continues to claim we were one of the best prepared and admired in the world ... not if we compare to Europe let alone aspire to some of the East Asian success.
I'd also praise the speed of introduction of UK finance protections for individuals and business but if we had been more 'on it' we wouldn't have needed such a long lockdown or such risk to health workers or care homes left so exposed. Denmark started growing after us and are relaxing earlier... much fewer deaths and much less economic damage.
The more I see the claimed equivalent exceptional 'lax behaviour' in Europe the more it seems to be due to either those being hit hard first at a difficult time, alongside flu (Italy and Spain) or more honest in numbers (France and Belgium) or social distancing was happening but more quietly (Netherlands and even Sweden). The UK looks even worse in this context as we are daily heading to equal the largest number of hospital deaths in Europe, despite the advantage of avoiding any hospitals being overwhelmed (where mortality step changes).
-
There are certainly long term strategic decisions that could have been different, such as PPE stores and national manufacturing capacity, and private sector involvement in testing, but i'm sure we would have heard howls of protest about wasting money preparing for something that might never happen and there being higher priorities if money had actually been allocated in advance. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Been out for a nice walk in the spring sunshine so just coming back to this. To summarise the general vibe there are some saying broadly what chrisj is above - that hindsight is wonderful thing. I mean yes, of course it is, but do we not elect governments to do, errr, foresight? I have to say that the gulf between what *should* have happened and was *has* happened is too wide to overlook.
I've already made these points several times on this thread but they bear repeating. Firstly, a pandemic of some kind *was* foreseen - and noted as the biggest risk *by far* to the UK. The argument that no-one thought this might happen is nonsense I'm afraid. OK maybe the man in street didn't know, but government? Get real. Secondly, there *was* a plan to do deal with it. Thirdly - the plan was tested in an exercise in 2016 and found wanting in several areas. Fourthly - that was ignored. Fifthly - whatever plan we had was ignored anyway at the start due to the bizarre fact that members of UK gov were cleverer epidemiologists than the WHO / too busy with Brexit / not watching the same news programs as literally the rest of the world / just plain useless (take your pick).
Chris, would there have been howls of protest at money going out on a strategic PPE reserve, national manufacturing capacity, testing labs? Probably not, I'm sure they could have hidden it. Or why not just brazen it out? As I mentioned earlier in thread they do that with the money they piss up the wall on Trident because the UK public has been indoctrinated to want nuclear weapons. Just say that the PPE is for a chemical attack and they're laughing. They didn't. They wilfully ignored their own pandemic plan, and also the results of the subsequent test of that plan. That is a dereliction of duty, full stop.
To take one thing only - Hancock announced his PPE plan on 10th April. Does that really seem right to anyone? Really? If you read this thread there were people calling out the government on this back in March. If anyone is operating with the benefit of hindsight here its the government. And its not good enough.
-
Can anyone provide a credible defence for only releasing hospital death figures? Surely UK gov has better information than the ONS April 3 figure of 217?
From the guardian:
. “Without testing, it is very difficult to give an absolute figure,” Martin Green, the chief executive of Care England, said. “However, if we look at some of the death rates since 1 April and compare them with previous years’ rates, we estimate a figure of about 7,500 people may have died as a result of Covid-19.”
There is a duty to properly update the public imo, including temporary figures if that’s all that is available.
-
Something else that came into mind while out earlier. Am I right in thinking UK and France are the two countries with the busiest transport hubs in Europe?
..........
As the track of this virus depends entirely on new human-human interactions, could the UK and France especially have been starting with a handicap compared to other European countries, just from the fact of having higher throughput of new virus carriers at the beginning of any outbreak?
........
If you add in UK's other airports outside top 10: Luton, Stanstead etc. Then the UK is by the busiest in Europe for air travel.
Pete, I do appreciate your contrary positions, but on some of them I wonder how tongue in cheek they are! Yes, of course you are right, the UK has the busiest airports in Europe.
My question to you - is that an overnight thing? Did it happen in January / February 2020? Do you honestly think the UK government was unaware of this well established fact? Why do you think they want a third runway at Heathrow?!
Obviously they were aware. As such they should have planned for it in the case of pandemics. Some suggestions - temperature checks of all incoming passengers, enforced quarantine for passengers from some areas, voluntary from others, ban flights from others, stricter measures for transfers etc. There will be others but if I can think of that in ten seconds then I would expect our government to have had thought *ahead* about it.
FYI there are currently absolutely zero coronavirus measures at UK borders. Still. Even knowing what we know. So in a way by highlighting this you have pretty much undermined your own attempted defence of the government. They have not only dropped the ball they have now completely lost it.
-
However, I think that the time to try to tear down the government's credibility with the general public is after the worst of it has passed, Nigel I understand your feelings but this shit gives licence to the shit thick people who are champing at the bit to break their lockdown.
Toby, what do you think will happen when the worst has passed? Well it'll be a years long inquiry to kick it into the long grass and a tidy diversion (er, Brexit?), events will move on, plus there will no doubt be a honeymoon period of life getting back to normal, and the government's credibility will be unaffected despite everything. So respectfully I couldn't disagree more - the time to highlight this stuff is, exactly, ASAP.
The government clearly seriously neglected any proper preparation, although since then they've definitely got their act into gear. It's no use trying to say if we had a different administration of whatever colour it'd have been much better, it clearly wouldn't, the UK is extremely densely populated with many international airports, a large number of international students, and many other factors that made the widespread import of an infectious virus inevitable.
Having said all that, why they're still allowing international flights now seems foolish.
As I mentioned in my reply to Pete, none of this was inevitable if they used their brains. The UK having international airports and large numbers of foreign students is not a secret to anyone. Yes, a difficult problem, but insoluble? No. Have they got their act together now? You seem to suggest so at first and yet even by the end of the same paragraph you accept that no, actually, they haven't!
-
Nige, will reply tomorrow but pointing out the UK has the busiest travel hubs in Europe is not ‘defending the government’ it’s pointing out a bleeding obvious but and relevant point which is overlooked by people who appear to think the UK can control a pandemic virus at its borders.
You have some valid points and some complete unfair points. Which I’ll reply tomorrow.
-
When Sunak came up with his scheme for supposedly saving businesses, I was wondering why he didn't just say that during the COVID crisis, the clock would stop on rents and debt servicing (apart from the government servicing government debt obviously). Wouldn't that have saved businesses? Isn't rent and debt servicing what causes firms to go bust? I know nothing about this and I'm keen to hear from anyone who does.
In general, my impression is that this government hasn't merely reaped (for us) the consequences of running down the NHS and failing to take the lessons of the 2016 Cygnus drill failure. Rather the government is conducting an ongoing fiasco of mis-governance.
-
However, I think that the time to try to tear down the government's credibility with the general public is after the worst of it has passed, Nigel I understand your feelings but this shit gives licence to the shit thick people who are champing at the bit to break their lockdown.
I too disagree with this and I think this Twitter thread is pertinent.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1251822241312059394?s=19
But there is a more basic point
The "lesson" that is "learned" from many inquiries is that there should have been more open and better decision-making *at the time*
We are still now *at the time* for key decisions to be made"
It needs pointing out now.
-
You have some valid points and some complete unfair points. Which I’ll reply tomorrow.
I don't doubt that both are true! Apologies if have been unduly unfair, in which case I'll hold my hands up.
-
Interesting thread Paul, thanks. I liked mdlachlan’s satire on the argument that criticism should be left till later
We’re losing 3-0 at half time. The time to decide how we need to reorganise the defence will be after the match. Anyone who suggests otherwise cannot call themselves a fan of the club.
This tweet about PPE stopped me in my tracks:
Dan Bloom@danbloom1 13h
Michael Gove wouldn't say this morning if UK sent 220,000-odd items of PPE to China. This one is quite simple - it is on record from Downing Street at the time and the figure we had was actually 650,000, we wrote a story about it.
Here it is:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/uk-sends-650000-gloves-wipes-21566192.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true
-
the time to highlight this stuff is, exactly, ASAP.
...
Have they got their act together now? You seem to suggest so at first and yet even by the end of the same paragraph you accept that no, actually, they haven't!
Nigel, first point, that's all very well for you to say as you are obviously strongly opposed to right of centre conservative government, but frankly I would really like this shit to die down a bit so my, and much more so many other people's jobs aren't scary and unpleasant, although at least we have secure jobs I'll admit.
Secondly, it's perfectly possible to think both. Some things the government have done as well as might be expected in the circumstances, in others they have been sorely wanting.
-
Yes you are right on the first point. Where I think we diverge is that I don't think that the press reporting facts is necessarily going to encourage the nation to give up on the lockdown. It is largely very well observed for more reasons than the credibility of the government. In addition we have a free press so if these things are discovered by journalists, then by what process should they be suppressed?
I actually agree with your second point, and I credit the government financial response as decent and timely, and the arrangements of extra hospital bed space as good also. I don't agree that we are close to having our act together on ppe and testing.
-
Singapore is a denser hub for international travel than the UK is and yet they coped with COVID better than most.
-
The UK has an elite band who have been doing great stuff at the cutting edge of COVID testing. Whole virus genome sequencing to follow emerging evolution of the virus etc has been of an internationally significant standard here.
What the UK has been diabolical at has been widespread bog-standard RT-PCR testing for contact tracing etc as done in Korea, Singapore etc. I'm sure the UK has as high a density of real-time PCR machines (and people to use them) as those countries, so there really is no excuse. What they apparently did in those countries was to just ask every facility to get on with testing ASAP and then back validated. By contrast our lab in The University of Sheffield had our machines requisitioned in mid-March and we were asked to submit CVs and references if we wanted to help. We have then had weekly emails thanking us for our patience.
I had presumed that the situation was because they had plenty of better people than me. However I then heard from someone who is the ultimate candidate for doing this. She was doing clinical PCR testing up until last year when she returned to research science (and also is super competent in every way). She said that she hadn't even been able to get as far as submitting references etc because they told her they were too inundated with applicants.
To try and imagine the situation, imagine whatever job you do whether it is a plumber or an accountant or whatever. Imagine if everyone in the country who does that was told to stop and submit applications to Reed Talent Solutions for them to reassemble a national cohort of plumbers or accountants or whatever. Well that's the testing situation in the UK.
-
Where I think we diverge is that I don't think that the press reporting facts is necessarily going to encourage the nation to give up on the lockdown. It is largely very well observed for more reasons than the credibility of the government. In addition we have a free press so if these things are discovered by journalists, then by what process should they be suppressed?
Not suppressed just perhaps reported after the worst of the event. I agree that most reasonably intelligent younger people wouldn't change their behaviour based on this, but people of for example my parents generation might well. (65+) As I said earlier quite a few of the people I've seen taking the piss are more this demographic.
I agree that ppe and testing has been awfully organised.
-
...most reasonably intelligent younger people wouldn't change their behaviour based on this, but people of for example my parents generation might well. (65+) As I said earlier quite a few of the people I've seen taking the piss are more this demographic.
Not a massively important point in the grand scheme of things but this is just anecdotal Toby. My experience has been seeing people of all demographics out throughout the lockdown - young couples, young families with kids, groups of lads, elderly folk out, generally all sorts. Including groups congregating or out for walks who are quite clearly multiple generations of the same family. And on my ride yesterday North Yorkshire was as busy as ever, with all the usual pull ins and remote car parks packed. Families out having picnics by streams etc etc.
-
I struggle to imagine how families having picnics by streams is responsible for spreading COVID19 (not that I'd do that myself).
A local care home here has 17 residents, they normally got a big Tescos delivery to provide the food. At the start of this they were told that instead they were just getting three of each food item. They were told to send every one of their staff to queue up at the supermarket every day do as to gather enough food for the residents. That is the type of this government's fuckwittery that has killed thousands.
-
This, is a fire which needs fighting:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/19/hospital-leaders-hit-out-government-ppe-shortage-row-escalates-nhs?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1587363068 (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/19/hospital-leaders-hit-out-government-ppe-shortage-row-escalates-nhs?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1587363068)
Hancock down playing and using “a large number” to try and baffle the house (a number which only seems large, but in fact represents a mere drop in the ocean of need) is pretty irksome.
“ On Friday Hancock told MPs on the Commons health and social care select committee that 55,000 more gowns were due that day. They arrived as expected and were distributed to hospitals over the weekend. However, NHS officials pointed out that, with hospital staff in England using 150,000 gowns a day, they constituted barely eight hours’ supply.”
🤦🏻♂️
-
Not suppressed just perhaps reported after the worst of the event.
OK, but who decides? Journalists self-censoring? Editors? The Ministry of Propaganda? Starts to look a bit like the stuff the Chinese have been getting criticised for. I remain unconvinced.
You could argue the opposite - that anyone who has lost faith in the government to keep its citizens / healthcare workers safe would actually have a greater incentive to observe the lockdown to make up the shortfall.
-
I struggle to imagine how families having picnics by streams is responsible for spreading COVID19
I wasn’t arguing that, just pointing out that people flouting ‘the rules’ aren’t overwhelmingly wealthy pensioners. But the argument as to whether it’s ok to picnic in the countryside is the same as has been done to death on the ‘Climbing during CV-19’ thread. And from my experiences yesterday it doesn’t seem the lockdown is being observed in the same way as it was a few weeks ago generally.
-
I find it quite unsettling hearing that people’s behaviour is slipping. A month ago it could’ve been passed off as ignorance or denial amongst other things but we’ve seen the deaths climb. Didn’t we have the highest number of new cases of any country, globally, yesterday? It’s all so dehumanising when there is death on this scale. I am in disbelief that some people are clearly not petrified now after we’ve seen the damage this virus can do.
-
Yup. I suspect it’s because within many people’s bubble of home isolation there are no signs of things getting worse - so people relax.
In my bubble (our street family and friends) - I know no-one now in isolation -(a few certainly had it for the first 2-3 weeks) which is a good thing. But if this is happening to many people then folk will relax.
Yesterday I could hear visitors voices in gardens of the roads adjacent to ours (inc children - where none live) suggesting something discrete fam bbq’s etx...
-
I am in disbelief that some people are clearly not petrified now after we’ve seen the damage this virus can do.
I'm scared for old people and those with pre-existing conditions, but far from petrified. Even if you talk about wiping out vast swathes of the older demographic, that's something I find sad rather than petrifying. Maybe that's just semantics though? Sure I'd feel differently if I or other young close relatives had major pre-existing conditions, although then I'd be afraid irrespective of how well people are behaving. (Yes, I'm aware you might die if young and no conditions, but the prob is pretty low, and it's not like I'm petrified of dying from other non-zero chance causes).
More for the other thread, but I also don't think that families having picnics or going out for walks is a major transmission risk, though mixing of households and not distancing does seem like a significant transmission risk, so seems dumb to me.
Boris Johnson is not back at work yet but, as we have reported already (see 7.26am), it is already clear that he is starting to exert a firm grip on the government’s handling of coronavirus. On Saturday the Daily Telegraph ran quoting an unnamed cabinet minister saying pressure for the lockdown was coming from the public, not from ministers. It said:
A third cabinet source said: “There’s no exit plan at the moment because they don’t want to do anything without the boss’s say so. “Not a huge amount is going on in these cabinet meetings.”
The source added: “They are waiting for the public to change their minds.
“We didn’t want to go down this route in the first place – public and media pressure pushed the lockdown, we went with the science.
“The lockdown will only start coming loose when the public wants it to – not ministers.”
Bold is mine..
So if you want to do x just do it and shout loudly and the gov will let you do it.
-
If anyone thought the NPCC guidance helped clarify matters, the Goverment are here to make sure that clarity doesn't last long:
"Breaking the rules is breaking the law" :worms:
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1251552130546241537?s=20
-
Boris Johnson is not back at work yet but, as we have reported already (see 7.26am), it is already clear that he is starting to exert a firm grip on the government’s handling of coronavirus. On Saturday the Daily Telegraph ran quoting an unnamed cabinet minister saying pressure for the lockdown was coming from the public, not from ministers. It said:
A third cabinet source said: “There’s no exit plan at the moment because they don’t want to do anything without the boss’s say so. “Not a huge amount is going on in these cabinet meetings.”
The source added: “They are waiting for the public to change their minds.
“We didn’t want to go down this route in the first place – public and media pressure pushed the lockdown, we went with the science.
“The lockdown will only start coming loose when the public wants it to – not ministers.”
Bold is mine..
So if you want to do x just do it and shout loudly and the gov will let you do it.
Apologies for the tangent abarro81, but the first bold is mine: "...it is already clear that he is starting to exert a firm grip on the government’s handling of coronavirus". I hope the cheque from Tory HQ is in the post to The Guardian for that little nugget of editorial! Or maybe I have misread and its just a pretty blatant satire on the content of the next paragraph (summed up by your bold)?
-
I am in disbelief that some people are clearly not petrified now after we’ve seen the damage this virus can do.
I'm scared for old people and those with pre-existing conditions, but far from petrified. Even if you talk about wiping out vast swathes of the older demographic, that's something I find sad rather than petrifying. Maybe that's just semantics though? Sure I'd feel differently if I or other young close relatives had major pre-existing conditions, although then I'd be afraid irrespective of how well people are behaving. (Yes, I'm aware you might die if young and no conditions, but the prob is pretty low, and it's not like I'm petrified of dying from other non-zero chance causes).
More for the other thread, but I also don't think that families having picnics or going out for walks is a major transmission risk, though mixing of households and not distancing does seem like a significant transmission risk, so seems dumb to me.
Boris Johnson is not back at work yet but, as we have reported already (see 7.26am), it is already clear that he is starting to exert a firm grip on the government’s handling of coronavirus. On Saturday the Daily Telegraph ran quoting an unnamed cabinet minister saying pressure for the lockdown was coming from the public, not from ministers. It said:
A third cabinet source said: “There’s no exit plan at the moment because they don’t want to do anything without the boss’s say so. “Not a huge amount is going on in these cabinet meetings.”
The source added: “They are waiting for the public to change their minds.
“We didn’t want to go down this route in the first place – public and media pressure pushed the lockdown, we went with the science.
“The lockdown will only start coming loose when the public wants it to – not ministers.”
Bold is mine..
So if you want to do x just do it and shout loudly and the gov will let you do it.
Agreed and agreed. Thought I sent this one into the other thread. Think I might’ve been my own victim of a touch of hyperbole there too.
-
I find it quite unsettling hearing that people’s behaviour is slipping. A month ago it could’ve been passed off as ignorance or denial amongst other things but we’ve seen the deaths climb. Didn’t we have the highest number of new cases of any country, globally, yesterday? It’s all so dehumanising when there is death on this scale. I am in disbelief that some people are clearly not petrified now after we’ve seen the damage this virus can do.
I know, and Nigel I'm sure that robust criticism of the government won't make you go out in the hills, but some people are waiting for any excuse, and I agree with the above post that I find it pretty worrying how some people seem to think that they've been inside a couple of weeks and now they're going out as they're bored of whatever. These people just don't seem to understand that it's a pooled risk, not individual, the actions of one picnicker or whatever is not of great importance, but if 50%of the population do that, we're fucked. That's why it shouldn't be happening.
-
These people just don't seem to understand that it's a pooled risk, not individual, the actions of one picnicker or whatever is not of great importance, but if 50%of the population do that, we're fucked. That's why it shouldn't be happening.
Only if picnicking is notably more dangerous for transmission than road biking, MTBing, walking and running that we're all already doing.
-
The relative dangers of ham sandwich consumption vs tabatas aren't really the issue here though, are they?
With exercise, people will not congregate because they are moving. There is clarity of message in allowing exercise sessions. With outdoor relaxation, categories of allowable activities are not so clear. It's a lot harder to police and a lot easier to ignore the principle of social distancing.
-
There is clarity of message in allowing exercise sessions.
:lol: That's a joke right? Did you miss the 40+ pages on the other thread and hundreds of posts on UKC, surfing websites etc, plus the news articles about the police moving people on for yoga?
It's a lot harder to police and a lot easier to ignore the principle of social distancing.
I'm not sure what makes it harder to police stationary gatherings than moving gatherings? I also find it a lot easier to avoid stationary people in the park when our running than walkers, runners and bikers, all of whom are moving in various different directions and liable to adjust course at short notice.
If you want to make it easy to police, that's why you say no travel by car, or no leaving your house.
-
I think the picnic clamp down is just about looking like they mean business. It is a bit like how railings were cut down at the start of WWII although the metal wasn't actually used.
Thank goodness they are now re-opening city parks though that had been closed.
I'd much rather they focussed more on the meaningful action (eg shielding the vulnerable adequately with food deliveries, providing PPE, testing etc) and less on the pantomime.
In Korea they haven't had any health care workers die of COVID19. The two COVID ward doctors I know are both currently off sick with COVID19. I know one of them took one look at the provided PPE and set up an annex at home to ensure he didn't spread it to his family. It was obvious he would catch it.
-
I'd much rather they focussed more on the meaningful action (eg shielding the vulnerable adequately with food deliveries, providing PPE, testing etc) and less on the pantomime.
I also think you'd get better adherence to distancing if the relentlessness of the message were on distancing rather than following the (somewhat arbitrary) rules. I think there can be a tendency for people to think "I'm doing something within the rules so it's pretty much ok", rather than "the rules are that I stay 2m away from other people no matter what I'm doing, and that's key". I appreciate that this is there in the messaging, but it gets lost in the message of "Stay at home. Except for when you're not staying at home." Social distancing in the supermarket certainly seems to be slightly cursory vs how it could be - queues are well marked out to ensure it, but browsing isn't, there are no 1-way systems in the ones I go to etc.
-
I'd much rather they focussed more on the meaningful action (eg shielding the vulnerable adequately with food deliveries, providing PPE, testing etc) and less on the pantomime.
I also think you'd get better adherence to distancing if the relentlessness of the message were on distancing rather than following the (somewhat arbitrary) rules. I think there can be a tendency for people to think "I'm doing something within the rules so it's pretty much ok", rather than "the rules are that I stay 2m away from other people no matter what I'm doing, and that's key". I appreciate that this is there in the messaging, but it gets lost in the message of "Stay at home. Except for when you're not staying at home." Social distancing in the supermarket certainly seems to be slightly cursory vs how it could be - queues are well marked out to ensure it, but browsing isn't, there are no 1-way systems in the ones I go to etc.
I agree. Simple relentless messaging works, and is one thing the government has done effectively in the past: election.
Many shops do have one way browsing which is largely followed although I did try to politely remind someone of this a week or so ago, and received a mouthful of mild abuse for it. Generally people play ball though.
Re testing, my trust says explicitly in the testing plans "It must be noted that the focus isn't actually on staff testing". Hmmm.
-
Not suppressed just perhaps reported after the worst of the event. I agree that most reasonably intelligent younger people wouldn't change their behaviour based on this, but people of for example my parents generation might well. (65+) As I said earlier quite a few of the people I've seen taking the piss are more this demographic.
I agree that ppe and testing has been awfully organised.
Coming back to this one, I happened to hear the world at one on radio 4 earlier. I suspect you don't need to worry basically! At least not with the BBC, which a good number of your "problem demographic" of 65+yr olds will get all their news from. Most of the talking heads plus the presenter were, despite mentioning some of the "issues", doing all they could to assure us the ship of state was being steered correctly. The absolute nadir was a frankly astonishing government press release in the middle of the programme, delivered by Laura Kuenessberg. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hdjz starts at 23:45mins if you want to be reassured that although "we were a couple of weeks behind on PPE and testing" (!!!) everything is basically hunky-dory.
-
Not normally a fan of her articles but this is a tidy summary of the PM's performance from Polly Toynbee https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/20/boris-johnson-sunday-times-prime-minister-coronavirus
It seems clear that he was missing in action for most of the start of this year. I have a vague recollection that he did appear briefly for a week or two at one point but now he's gone again. Understandable given he personally went all in on the herd immunity strategy, but are we expecting him back? As the rest of the cabinet seem to be either making a complete pig's ear of things or have gone awol themselves (Liz Truss? Minister for International Trade + Women and Equalities; should she not have something to say publicly about sourcing PPE / domestic abuse?). Parliament sits again tomorrow after their 3 weeks off so hopefully we will get some scrutiny as a lot of the media seem to be gazing at their navels.
Does anyone know if we will be testing and tracing soon? If not what is the strategy from here on in? Will we get to 100K tests by end of month (19K yesterday), and more importantly is it enough? If not how many do we need and when will get to that? When will care home deaths be included in the figures? What are the 750,000 NHS volunteers doing, if anything? Why can't we make medical gowns in the UK? Why do we have no covid-19 procedures at our borders? Why aren't banks lending to companies? The list goes on...
-
When will care home deaths be included in the figures?
Interesting to see the press briefing graph comparing with other countries in the last three or four days has started to include deaths in 'hospitals only' separately from 'all settings'. And the publication of figures from 'all settings' appears to lag behind hospital figures by 17 days.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880261/COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides_-_20_04_2020.pdf
-
Is this not going to be based on the ONS data releases? 17 day lag on 20/4 takes you back to 3/4, which is when the last ONS release took you up to. In part, this delay will be driven by the time it takes to register a death, but also by the time it takes to collate all the data and produce the release. The latest ONS release came out today (not had chance to look in detail yet), so I'd expect that the lag will drop by 6 days in today's graph if that's the case.
I think this has been linked before (by Stu possibly?), but any key messages from the latest release will probably end up on David Spiegelhalter's Twitter feed reasonably soon - one of the best communicators on risk that I've come across.
https://twitter.com/d_spiegel
-
Yes, it just seems such a pointless graph to keep displaying when the official total figures have such a long lag and there isn’t surety around what the other countries’ figures include.
Seems the headline message from ONS is more than 15% of deaths occurring outside of hospitals, which is even more than a lot of people have been predicting.
-
Interesting to see the press briefing graph comparing with other countries in the last three or four days has started to include deaths in 'hospitals only' separately from 'all settings'. And the publication of figures from 'all settings' appears to lag behind hospital figures by 17 days.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880261/COVID-19_Press_Conference_Slides_-_20_04_2020.pdf
Yes, it just seems such a pointless graph to keep displaying....
It may seem a somewhat trite point for me to make, but even if all our total deaths (all settings) were included properly, any graph is pointless if you can't see what the fuck is going on! Who designed this? Have they heard of the colour "green"? "All settings" is hidden in a morass of lines in what, black? The reason I mention it is that this is meant to be a *clear* visual representation of the data for the consumption of the general public. To my eye it looks designed to obfuscate.
-
I think the blue/orange/grey palette with different shades of the given colours is more colourblind-friendly isn't it? IIRC green isn't a great colour for that, might be wrong though
-
I'm sure you've nailed it, didn't think of that. Sounds like they do know what they're doing after all. Still, despite the science, it looks unclear to me.
-
<iframe height="418px" width="100%" src="https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc799/fig1/line/index.html"></iframe>
<iframe height="831px" width="100%" src="https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc799/fig2/wrapper/index.html"></iframe>
<iframe height="831px" width="100%" src="https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc799/fig3/wrapper/index.html"></iframe>
(https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020/654d226b)
(https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020/f4de7ad4)
(https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020/ca544180)
(https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending10april2020/47d7fae0)
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/latest)
Apologies, can't find a way (aka don't know how) to display charts that don't have an image link.
-
Todays gonna be a bad day - 870+ waiting for the NI death totals only...
-
Todays gonna be a bad day - 870+ waiting for the NI death totals only...
Weekend catch up?
-
Todays gonna be a bad day - 870+ waiting for the NI death totals only...
Weekend catch up?
Yeah - probably. I’m probably labelled as a doom monger on here - but I think it’s so widespread geographically in the UK - it’s going to be like Italy and burble on in the mid hundreds for a few weeks...
If you have just one or two clusters - they may follow the rise and fall nicely. But when you have 20 or 30 concentrations - they will all be phased differently and it’ll rumble on for a while. The states will be like that...
-
On the plus side, when you look at the graph for deaths by date of death, 8th April looks likely to have been the peak and that doesn't look set to change (for hospital deaths in England).
(https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/ - front sheet of the all deaths Excel)
-
So it turns out that we didn’t miss out on ventilator buying because of some ‘missed emails’ or whatever excuse Gove came up with https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/uk-refusal-of-eu-ventilator-offer-was-political-decision
Those pesky select committees asking questions and getting straight answers. I assume Cummings will have to do another blog on the govt site to refute this now.
-
So it turns out that we didn’t miss out on ventilator buying because of some ‘missed emails’ or whatever excuse Gove came up with
Apparently the FCO official who made that statement is now writing to the select committee to clarify that in fact it wasn’t a political decision (I can only imagine he got a bollocking from HMG and told not to tell the truth in future). The mendacity of this government astounds me.
-
Oh wow that article has changed drastically in the half hour since I posted it! The EC spokesperson seems to go with the initial story.
-
This one is something special:
Government misses out on 16m facemasks for NHS in four weeks (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/21/government-misses-out-on-14m-facemasks-for-nhs-in-four-weeks)
The equipment is available, but getting sold and exported to other countries because offers are being ignored. This administration looks increasingly unfit for office.
-
This one is something special:
Government misses out on 16m facemasks for NHS in four weeks (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/21/government-misses-out-on-14m-facemasks-for-nhs-in-four-weeks)
The equipment is available, but getting sold and exported to other countries because offers are being ignored. This administration looks increasingly unfit for office.
Its astonishing.
In the cloud cuckoo land of my head, the government had weeks ago done a rapid ramping up (sorry) of people on phones actually *chasing* companies i.e. cold calling them demanding their current PPE supplies, and placing forward orders. That's what I would have done, if for no other reason than to selfishly cover my arse for the fact our stockpile was criminally depleted. In fact they are ignoring offers of help, effectively taking the phone off the hook, even now in LATE APRIL. What are we up to now? 100 healthcare workers dead of Covid 19? I shouldn't need to mention that of course it should be zero dead. Absolutely zero.
They are *criminally* incompetent, and I use that term advisedly.
-
It seems you're not the only one consumed with rage by their performance:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/boris-johnson-lockdown-government-coronavirus-response
-
It seems you're not the only one consumed with rage by their performance
I don't think its just me and him either.
-
On this topic, this thread is interesting.
https://twitter.com/botzarelli/status/1252231981019979776?s=19
Please don't read if you're just here for some good old Tory bashing.
-
This is an excellent article
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/truth-about-virus-is-better-for-us-than-hope-gnnfhsdg5?shareToken=16c42362284d3672fc59f8b97c69e706
-
It seems you're not the only one consumed with rage by their performance
I don't think its just me and him either.
I think its worth noting that the article in the new statesman roundly criticized the opposition's performance earlier in the year by being largely absent.
I think that politicians of all parties were probably equally complacent. Obviously you can't blame the opposition for the decisions of government, but I don't think anyone took it seriously enough, including the health service.
-
I think its worth noting that the article in the new statesman roundly criticized the opposition's performance earlier in the year by being largely absent.
I think that politicians of all parties were probably equally complacent.
I see Labour’s absence earlier in the year as a case of very unfortunate timing. Corbyn clearly had his eyes on the door and was more concerned with protecting his legacy with his ‘told you so’ interview. That’s not to defend his performance, but he was on his way out anyway and just feebly going through the motions. None of the leader or deputy leadership candidates could start wading into the debate for fear of looking like they were taking the result for granted (I’m thinking specifically of Starmer here). And wouldn’t have been getting privy council briefings at that time anyway, so wouldn’t have known the details.
The SNP and Lib Dems should arguably have stepped up to replace the main opposition position during that time.
But since Starmer took over I think they have very quickly adopted a strong probing but responsible and often supportive opposition stance.
-
On this topic, this thread is interesting.
https://twitter.com/botzarelli/status/1252231981019979776?s=19
Please don't read if you're just here for some good old Tory bashing.
OK Will, I'll bite...
To summarise the twitter thread - man who works for vaccine company says PPE procurement is a much more nuanced problem due to various logistical factors which have previously been undiscussed, and as such people should cut government some slack - would you say that is a fair summary? *
I don't regard it as "Tory bashing" to highlight that the lack of PPE provision by the government has led to possibly around 100 healthcare worker's unnecessary deaths. But to avoid the accusation I will try not to make any political points. I will state the fact, with no editorial, that the author of that thread also happens to be the chairman of Leeds NW Conservative Association https://www.leedsnorthwestconservatives.org.uk/people/angelo-basu. People will make of that what they will.
I would go through the points he makes one by one but life is too short. Suffice to say that overall, with political will and planning, none of them should be an issue in late April.
* If I was being unfair I would have said it looks like a professionally scripted litany of excuses as to why the government is blameless and people should just stop mentioning PPE, but I didn't say that did I?
-
It is obviously very tricky to organise when a response has to be set up on a big scale at a point when the whole world is after the same thing. Clearly.
That is not sufficient excuse for not getting in touch with and organising UK businesses for procurement. That is a lack of organisation. Nor is it sufficient excuse for not hearing the starting gun in February.
Nothing to do with political parties, it's administrative failure.
-
Latest expose:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/revealed-private-firm-running-uk-ppe-stockpile-was-sold-in-middle-of-pandemic
-
I think that all of what Nigel wrote could well be true. I posted the link because it adds some nuance here which hasn't yet been discussed. It's certainly not a free pass for the government. Whatever might have happened to supply chains in the last few months, there's an argument to be made that this was foreseen but not prepared for. That to me is the biggest charge.
The only comment I'd make on JR's post is that we have no idea how the NHS' procurement teams are resourced at the moment. Personally I don't know if the department of health and social care has any centralised procurement facility or whether it's all farmed out to the trusts. It might be that they've been working flat out but the peak in demand has just been too big (and always would be too big, hence the best solution being some quiet building up of stocks).
-
There's a very good thread from Lewis Goodall illustrating some of the things that have gone wrong with PPE procurement....
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1252701841135226880?s=21
-
One of the best journalists around atm for my money.
-
A doctor sends a warning
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/without-a-plan-its-not-going-to-stop-care-homes-fear-worst-yet-to-come-covid-19
-
I think it has been pretty obvious from the start that without a radical rethink the care home sector was going to be a calamity.
The more I read the more I suspect the healthcare system is so fragmented now that a properly coordinated response is no longer possible.
-
Caught a snippet of Kier Starmer at PMQ's today - from what I heard his questioning seemed totally on point and nailed the government on their numerous failures. Also caught wind of Rachael Reeves sending a list of ignored UK PPE firms to her opposite number Michael Gove. An encouraging start. Hopefully this will continue now parliament is back. The daily 5PM government unchallenged propaganda session was starting to wear a bit thin.
-
Personally I don't know if the department of health and social care has any centralised procurement facility or whether it's all farmed out to the trusts. It might be that they've been working flat out but the peak in demand has just been too big (and always would be too big, hence the best solution being some quiet building up of stocks).
I can tell you how NHS procurement is organised: it's not. This is not a direct governmental issue, and it is many years if not decades old. They are absolutely fucking appalling at buying anything, from X ray and MRI scanners to laptops, mobile phones, software, and it seems PPE. Obviously at the moment the government has a pretty big role to play and has also done appallingly.
As one example when the NHS started bringing in paperless records and notes, there was no effort to have one software system across services, trusts or anything else. So whether or not I can see a GP consultation in notes depends on which system their practice uses. This is a huge timewasting pain in the ass. Sometimes you can do a simple, almost instant online referral to another service, sometimes you have to fill out a massive paper document and snail mail it.
The PPE situation looks well organized by comparison, except it doesn't only waste money it spreads the virus.
-
Caught a snippet of Kier Starmer at PMQ's today - from what I heard his questioning seemed totally on point and nailed the government on their numerous failures. Also caught wind of Rachael Reeves sending a list of ignored UK PPE firms to her opposite number Michael Gove. An encouraging start. Hopefully this will continue now parliament is back. The daily 5PM government unchallenged propaganda session was starting to wear a bit thin.
I agreed with all that until the last sentence. Leave it out, it has never amounted to a propaganda session, you're only saying that because you really don't like the conservative party.
Watch Donald Trump's daily briefing, now that is a propaganda session.
-
Caught a snippet of Kier Starmer at PMQ's today
More of a summary than satire but good anyway...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/22/raab-is-tried-and-found-wanting-by-a-masterful-starmer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
It looks like the target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month will be met.
The ONS are starting a large scale study of household testing. The study begins on 29th April.
-
It looks like the target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month will be met.
The ONS are starting a large scale study of household testing. The study begins on 29th April.
Initial phase is 20 or 30k tests depending on whether you look at Sky or BBC. And they’ll be tests where people are visited at home to have their swab taken. I can’t see 10k of them happening a day - that would require several hundred or more testers to be employed/ trained.
-
It looks like the target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month will be met.
The ONS are starting a large scale study of household testing. The study begins on 29th April.
Initial phase is 20 or 30k tests depending on whether you look at Sky or BBC. And they’ll be tests where people are visited at home to have their swab taken. I can’t see 10k of them happening a day - that would require several hundred or more testers to be employed/ trained.
I thought I'd read that it was more than that but you're right. So it's not going to make as big a difference as I thought.
They are aiming to test everyone in the household once a week. 1,000 of them are also getting blood tests so will presumably show up in the numbers twice.
If it's 30,000 + 1,000 tested once a week, it would add up to about 10,000 per day if everyone in each household took part, which they won't.
-
Read about how the Faroes dealt with their testing. Interesting tale - local lab set up to look at viral infections in Salmon farms repurposed to do CV testing. In mid Feb. Bought all the reagents - materials etc...
And if memory is right it was one person. One lab.
-
They do only have the population of a small town though.
-
Spread out into several small villages, across several small islands.
-
Read about how the Faroes dealt with their testing. Interesting tale - local lab set up to look at viral infections in Salmon farms repurposed to do CV testing. In mid Feb. Bought all the reagents - materials etc...
And if memory is right it was one person. One lab.
I'd already linked this on the positives thread
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/08/vetinary-scientist-hailed-faroe-islands-lack-covid-19-deaths
-
Leave it out, it (the daily briefing) has never amounted to a propaganda session, you're only saying that because you really don't like the conservative party.
Watch Donald Trump's daily briefing, now that is a propaganda session.
Guilty as charged - I'm not impressed by the conservative party. That has never been a secret. No doubt it does introduce some bias in my posts for people to have to filter out, but it is actually a low ranking reason why I say it is a propaganda session.
The main reason is because they don't tell the truth.
They are able to have a daily direct platform to UK citizens. It is presented as being *public information*. During the course of which various government ministers have lied, obfuscated, tinkered with stats, and avoided questioning. I'm sure I don't need to give too many examples as they are out there, but Hancock saying we had did have enough PPE but the problem was one of "distribution" - lie. Patel saying she's sorry if NHS workers "feel" they don't have enough PPE! Hancock promising to properly protect care workers but then giving them a badge which says "care" on it - public info or propaganda?! Giving PPE amounts in tons (! I have bought PPE before and it does not come by weight) - obfuscation designed to offer false comfort. Promising planes arriving next day with PPE - lie. Graphs with UK death figures which they know are incomplete, given with no explanation of that - fiddling figures. "Following the science" at all times even when making screeching U-turns. "Johnson is doing well" two hours before he goes to ICU. They even wheeled out a general in fatigues yesterday - alarm bells.
When the softball questions from the media come in they are often batted away as "one for the scientists". Or palmed off with platitudes / a list of seemingly big numbers, without a follow up. That is not scrutiny.
There were ones worth watching - Johnson announcing the lockdowns, Sunak announcing bailout packages. That is public information and on the whole they were properly done. My criticisms are not wholesale. The rest of them however are theatre. They could just send people a text. That is why I am pleased that parliament is back up and running.
Watch Donald Trump's daily briefing, now that is a propaganda session.
I'm sure you are absolutely right that it is propaganda, I'll take your word for it (I've never seen a Trump one). Why exactly? Does he lie too? His are, and yet ours aren't? We aren't all immune to picking sides it seems. Its interesting that you choose Trump to make a relative comparison - the fact that ours look less like propaganda than his is hardly comforting. How do you think they stack up next to say Merkel's from Germany, Varadkar's from Ireland, or Ardern's from NZ??? Watch one - ours start to look very much like what they are. Disagree with me by all means, but no I won't leave it out, I'll say it as I see it.
-
This is good - and scary:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/22/eu-procurement-johnson-priorities-coronavirus-pandemic?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Kettle’s thesis is that the Johnson govt still has a hard Brexit as its overwhelming priority, despite the virus. This seems utterly irresponsible to me, and it’s been something that we’ve avoided thinking too much about. But the decision time is coming. I can’t see how the government can negotiate the next stage of Brexit given the covid crisis. And the economic consequences of a hard Brexit can only exacerbate the huge recession we are about to endure.
It’s fucking madness.
-
They probably see this as a great opportunity to get Brexit done and be able to blame the fallout of it on something else entirely.
Or am I being terribly unfair to the Tories?
-
I think you’re being more than fair to the Brexit lovers who will lap this shit up even as their own kids face years of stagnation.
-
They probably see this as a great opportunity to get Brexit done and be able to blame the fallout of it on something else entirely.
Or am I being terribly unfair to the Tories?
Possibly - you're not suggesting they're dangerous ideologues are you? I was told that was the other fella...
-
The FT are not wearing their “I love Boris” badges today:
https://www.ft.com/content/af17147c-84a1-11ea-b555-37a289098206 (https://www.ft.com/content/af17147c-84a1-11ea-b555-37a289098206)
-
The choice between beating the virus and economic recovery is a false one.
Yup.
-
Nigel I recommend that you watch a Trump press briefing, after that, whatever you think of Raab etc, and I don't think much, it helps you to reflect that it could be much, much worse.
This is a reasonable assessment of the government's performance, from a long time Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail journalist
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/senior-tory-backbenchers-are-increasingly-alarmed-their-own-government-s
-
Nigel I recommend that you watch a Trump press briefing, after that, whatever you think of Raab etc, and I don't think much, it helps you to reflect that it could be much, much worse.
Thanks for the recommendation Toby, but as you know I find the UK one boils my blood quite enough. So I probably won't watch Trump.
In terms of reflecting, I don't think that I would take any comfort in the fact that things could be much, much worse. As in my previous post, if we are doing international comparisons we should not be doing them against the US and Trump. As a country they are clearly performing very very badly in dealing with the virus, and Trump is a known lunatic. It is cold comfort to say we are doing better than them, especially to those UK key workers who have contracted the virus in the line of duty due to lack of PPE. I have reflected, and concluded that things could be much, much better in the UK.
It would require our leaders to stop deflecting and making excuses, take stock of the current situation, and start talking to UK citizens as the adults we are. The government have stuffed up thus far (I think that is now the accepted consensus?), but we are where we are. We need to start seeing some serious nettle grasping from government, and soon.
PPE needs to be sorted *domestically* (how many times have I said this on this thread now?) asap. If that means the government commandeering factories then fine, do it. Saying global stocks are low is really weak. This stuff is not a rare earth element! Just make some, instead of saying the shelves are empty.
If test, trace, isolate is the strategy now, then tell us. The lockdown has worked so far (aka the British people have done the heavy lifting on getting R beneath 1 via social distancing) but compliance will not last forever. The dithering thus far from government will have to make way for clear action on moving forward. If so, testing numbers need to go up, massively. Tracing teams will need to set up. There will need to be visible action on this, rather than warm words. I think it is dawning on some of our cabinet that, in a situation like this, the usual semantic bollocks won't fly - you can't bullshit a virus. If they continue to prioritise bullshit over clear strategy and action, then there will need to be a serious national conversation about leadership. If the cabinet are too lightweight, and it requires the PM to be there then he needs to turn up for work. If he's too ill then fair enough but we should know now. We can't afford to wait around, again.
This is a reasonable assessment of the government's performance, from a long time Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail journalist
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/04/senior-tory-backbenchers-are-increasingly-alarmed-their-own-government-s
Thanks for the link. Summary - too slow to act throughout. I agree.
-
Matt Hancock doing the rounds this morning arguing that Sturgeon’s lockdown exit framework document is just a reiteration of their ‘5 tests’.
A 26 page document outlining potential next steps in easing the lockdown is not a ‘reiteration’ of 5 bullet points, which are in any case only a series of preconditions. Not only is this government incompetent, but they lack the humility to apologise when they fuck up or even give credit where it’s deserved.
-
Latest Metro pop up is depressing .... another day near 800 deaths, more news of a government warning ignored (anyone have a link?) and the prospect of Pritti Patel flexing her muscles given the incresing numbers igmoring advice.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/25/grim-milestone-uk-coronavirus-deaths-pass-20000-12609122/?ico=pushly-notifcation-small&utm_source=pushly
-
Spoke to my Dad this morning, about the only Telegraph reader I know. He was keen to know if we were getting the business back up and running, before I had chance to say much I was talked over: YOU REALLY SHOULD - THE GOVERNMENT ARE URGING BUSINESSES TO GET BACK TO WORK... so that clearly the spin in the Telegraph. As I said, we'll get some platitudes about staying locked down, maybe some walkers shamed, while real transmission risks are ignored.
-
Carole Cadwallandr has been doing some more digging.
https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1254315149135151104
-
Cheers Offwidth. The thread is short but worth reading. Sorry to spoil, but the last tweet deserves quoting:
So that's Ben Warner. Who now either sits 'on' SAGE. Or 'at' SAGE. Or whatever you want to call it. While his brother now has access to entire our health data & is modelling the pandemic. Alongside Peter Thiel's Palantir.
I was wondering why on earth Ben Warner had access to SAGE. Interesting that the coronavirus tracking was awarded directly without going to tender. There are links between Peter Thiel/Palantir, Cambridge Analytica and Vote Leave.
Latest news on Palantir, according to Daily Beast??
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-turns-to-peter-thiels-palantir-to-track-coronavirus
The presence of Cummings and Warner at SAGE fits into the pattern of crunching public data without public knowledge. It was to avoid answering questions on this matter that Cummings refused to give evidence to the select committee 13 months ago and was found to be in contempt of parliament: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/commons-report-rules-dominic-cummings-in-contempt-of-parliament.
edit ?? added whilst looking for corroboration in other media
-
Quick question: happy to give these guys access to your private data in a CV19 tracking app?
-
Quick answer. No.
-
Quick question: happy to give these guys access to your private data in a CV19 tracking app?
To nitpick, how much data is shared really depends on the details of the implementation that is chosen. In particular, the apple/google scheme that's being discussed only shares data if a person marks themselves as having contracted CV19. Up to that point all interactions are protected by a clever encryption scheme, and after that point only enough info from the carrier is shared to identify if you've interacted with them.
-
I realise that. The question remains though.
-
Quick question: happy to give these guys access to your private data in a CV19 tracking app?
Not a chance. The awarding of this contract looks on the face of it to be about as corrupt as it gets.
-
Quick question: happy to give these guys access to your private data in a CV19 tracking app?
If it’s Buttoned down to just location and a unique identifier number that I can use anonymously - then it’s OK for me.
-
Interesting that the coronavirus tracking was awarded directly without going to tender. There are links between Peter Thiel/Palantir, Cambridge Analytica and Vote Leave.
I'm as sceptical as the next guy (the next guy being Nige) but I'm wholly unsurprised by this not going to tender. By its very nature it needs to be available ASAP; is a delay for a tender period really justifiable (clients in my industry rarely go out to tender for 'emergency works')?
That's not to say the awarded party is the correct one.
-
Have a read.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/02/28/mi5-head-wants-exceptional-access-to-encrypted-communications
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users
Fair point Paul, but was the decision making ever in the public domain- including the HoC?
It is MI5's job to discover information that could keep us safer of course, so understandable that they push for greater access. There are a lot of benign purposes for which enhanced data could be used. But the public interest includes privacy and there are less benign and commercial motives for acquiring personal data.
Tomtom, do you trust this administration - the one whose top table is virtually indistinguishable from the VoteLeave campaign, with its links to to Cambridge Analytica, Palantir, the harvesting of data from Facebook, and its flagrant disregard for UK electoral law- to take your data, not share it and quietly use it only for healthcare purposes? :-\
-
MrJA - no I don’t trust them. But there’s a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here... it’s essentially a good idea - and if enough people take part it would help.
I accept that some of my personal - where I go - data may be used for other purposes - but wouldn’t want that to be linked to me in any shape or form (where the anonymised id comes in).
Wonder if Apple will let it pass their App Store standards - they’re quite data independent etc..
-
it’s essentially a good idea - and if enough people take part it would help.
it's a brilliant idea and might be a key element to getting us out of this mess. But the process and protagonists so far are very problematical.
-
Interesting that the coronavirus tracking was awarded directly without going to tender. There are links between Peter Thiel/Palantir, Cambridge Analytica and Vote Leave.
I'm as sceptical as the next guy (the next guy being Nige) but I'm wholly unsurprised by this not going to tender. By its very nature it needs to be available ASAP; is a delay for a tender period really justifiable (clients in my industry rarely go out to tender for 'emergency works')?
That's not to say the awarded party is the correct one.
Deloitte were awarded contract for dealing with test processing without going to tender and making a right mess of it by the look of it;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/hospitals-sound-alarm-over-privately-run-test-centre-in-surrey
-
Hindsight alert - but if we’d been planning and bidding for testing capacity - and even app development in Feb - then limited scrutiny and bidding rules could have been applied.
If.
-
I realise that. The question remains though.
Looks like your skepticism was warranted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52441428
Personally I will not use a contract tracing app that relies on centralised tracking as the risk to my privacy is too high. It's a real shame as the short term benefits (i.e. within the next 6-12 months) to such an app are huge, but given the ridiculously shoddy record of government IT projects I've got no confidence it will be handled properly.
-
Frying pan or fire. Apple/google harvest your data (they probably could anyway!) or UK Govt do.
From what I read there were issues with having to have the app running in the background- always looking for the Bluetooth signal of another phone - all chewing up battery life. If so most people would probably switch it off sooner rather than later.
Also connecting to central server to check ‘connections’ if you make any might work fine with good signal and few people around - but at a busy place (station?) with iffy reception it’s gonna tank. Apple/Google’s local solution looks much neater.
Of course with our Brexit facing bravado we know best etc... just like with all our preparations...
-
Frying pan or fire. Apple/google harvest your data (they probably could anyway!) or UK Govt do.
That's the thing though...the apple/google scheme gives users way more control over their data than the proposed uk govt solution. Under day to day usage (i.e. assuming you don't contract CV19) no information is shared with apple/google, and only a ~daily identifier is shared with people you come in to close contact with. If you then contract CV19 you then have a choice as to whether you let apple/google know, and if you do tell them you are then giving them your daily keys for the x relevant days so everyone you've come in to contact with can find out.
The key point in all of the above is that all the data stays on your phone and is within your control at all times. You could stick your phone through a shredder and all the data about who you've been in contact with would be gone.
I don't know the details of the government's proposed scheme, but centralisation means there's going to be a big list of everyone you've been in close proximity to sitting on a government hard drive. If you decide you don't like the government having that information then it's tough shit.
-
Frying pan or fire. Apple/google harvest your data (they probably could anyway!) or UK Govt do.
That's the thing though...the apple/google scheme gives users way more control over their data than the proposed uk govt solution. Under day to day usage (i.e. assuming you don't contract CV19) no information is shared with apple/google, and only a ~daily identifier is shared with people you come in to close contact with. If you then contract CV19 you then have a choice as to whether you let apple/google know, and if you do tell them you are then giving them your daily keys for the x relevant days so everyone you've come in to contact with can find out.
The key point in all of the above is that all the data stays on your phone and is within your control at all times. You could stick your phone through a shredder and all the data about who you've been in contact with would be gone.
I don't know the details of the government's proposed scheme, but centralisation means there's going to be a big list of everyone you've been in close proximity to sitting on a government hard drive. If you decide you don't like the government having that information then it's tough shit.
The google/apple system is surely bound to fall over if its predicated upon people actively choosing whether to let them know whether they have coronavirus? even if a few people decide not to advise them then the whole contact tracing principle doesnt work surely?
-
The google/apple system is surely bound to fall over if its predicated upon people actively choosing whether to let them know whether they have coronavirus? even if a few people decide not to advise them then the whole contact tracing principle doesnt work surely?
Should have been more precise there. The apple/google scheme doesn't specify when a user should be marked as having contracted CV19, the idea is that governments etc. will build on top of the scheme and make a decision about how and when to identify users as having contracted CV19 based on how testing etc. is being done in a given country.
The point remains that with the apple/google scheme the user has a lot more control over their data as the details about who they've come in to contact with remains on their phone at all times. In particular, when someone is diagnosed the only info they have to share is their daily keys for the last x days (e.g. 14 days). At no point is anyone sending anyone else a list of who they have been in close proximity too (in contrast to the Government scheme).
There's a detailed spec available here https://covid19-static.cdn-apple.com/applications/covid19/current/static/contact-tracing/pdf/ExposureNotification-CryptographySpecificationv1.1.pdf It's pretty technical though.
ed: to clarify "the details about who they've come in to contact with remains on their phone at all times", there isn't a list of names for everyone you've come in to contact with. Each user has a list of daily keys they've come in to contact with and obviously you can't know who that key actually belongs to unless that person is marked as having contracted CV19 and their daily keys are shared. This is the core privacy-preserving bit of the scheme as until someone shares their daily keys the information is essentially useless.
-
No comment yet on Johnson's return and his content-free speech outside No.10? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/27/boris-johnsons-coronavirus-speech-full/ The most priceless line:
"....I know many people will be looking at our apparent success....."
Can anyone explain what this "apparent success" consists of? I'll admit I'm struggling. This line was also slightly jarring:
"....we have so far collectively shielded our NHS...."
Given the PPE issue that sticks in the throat. Although you could read it as collectively that yes "we", as in the British people have shielded the NHS as much as possible via social distancing. Perhaps a tacit admission that the government hasn't actually fulfilled its side of the bargain? Last night's Panorama was damning - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000hr3y/panorama-has-the-government-failed-the-nhs
There were plenty of other pearls in there e.g. the emphasis on "wealth creators", and a commitment to "maximum transparency" which in light of SAGE recommendations being secret seems off.
As usual no useful information whatsoever, especially about current strategy. I had hoped that his "brush with death" might have spurred him into a bout of levelling with the people, instead of bluster. That needs to change asap.
-
No comment yet on Johnson's return and his content-free speech outside No.10?
As usual no useful information whatsoever, especially about current strategy.
I’m getting to the point of just being worn out with it all. Hopefully PMQs tomorrow will bring something new to the table but we seem to be going round in circles with the media asking the same questions every night and being fobbed off with the same inane bullshit answers, then some feeble attempt at follow ups which go nowhere.
-
Thank you for explaining that Remus. I think someone earlier observed that we surrender vast amounts of our data to big commercial companies daily and I agree with that. It’s a concern.
This project goes beyond that and the involvement of Cummings and Warner alarms me. The targeted messaging of the Vote Leave campaign they were involved with, the great lengths to cover up its data harvesting and the identity of the organisations and people doing it along with the refusal to cooperate with parliamentary scrutiny are not just inherently undemocratic, but anti democratic.
Their involvement in this/SAGE and the absence of transparency should be a cause for concern to us all in my view.
-
I had hoped that his "brush with death" might have spurred him into a bout of levelling with the people, instead of bluster. That needs to change asap.
Come off it, he's been to hospital, not Damascus.
-
So, success looks like this:
“ More than 21,280 non hospital deaths have been reported in England and Wales, new data from the Office of National Statistics has shown.
At present, only hospital deaths are included in NHS and UK death figures.
There were 3,096 coronavirus-related care home deaths registered in the week ending April 17 in England and Wales, up from 1,043 the week before - with an additional 4,316 deaths reported as being ‘not in hospital’, bringing the total number of non-hospital deaths reported that week to 7,412.
The new figures show that there have now been 21,284 deaths linked to COVID-19 in England and Wales up until April 17. The official UK death toll at that time was 13,917.
Yesterday, the Government said that 21,092 patients in hospitals who have tested positive for COVID-19 had died.
This means there have now been more that 42,000 COVID-19 related deaths in the UK. “
According to several national and regional newspapers today. Confirming the FT estimates from last week. I feel like the national press, should simply refuse to use the hospital death category now and cease downplaying the toll.
-
Come off it, he's been to hospital, not Damascus.
More's the pity.
But yes you're right, a few puffs of O2 was never likely to turn him into Churchill.
-
I feel like the national press, should simply refuse to use the hospital death category now and cease downplaying the toll.
Agree Matt. Well actually I think in the first instance the government should.
"Maximum transparency"?
But if they won't then at least the press should. The likelihood of that is slim however given the capture of the majority of the press (and BBC news) by the conservative party.
-
Come off it, he's been to hospital, not Damascus.
More's the pity.
But yes you're right, a few puffs of O2 was never likely to turn him into Churchill.
I'd just like to come back to you on this Nigel, because I think we are all so shell shocked by the pandemic it is hard to keep perspective. There was a world before March 23rd, and it hasn't completely gone away.
Boris attempted to shut down democracy on August 28 when it did not give him back the answer he wanted to hear on Brexit. His first lieutenant refuses to be accountable to parliament. This is not the behaviour of democrats.
-
Boris attempted to shut down democracy on August 28 when it did not give him back the answer he wanted to hear on Brexit. His first lieutenant refuses to be accountable to parliament. This is not the behaviour of democrats.
Don't forget about the 17.4 million who all categorically voted for this version of Brexit. That's true democracy that is.
-
Come off it, he's been to hospital, not Damascus.
More's the pity.
But yes you're right, a few puffs of O2 was never likely to turn him into Churchill.
I'd just like to come back to you on this Nigel, because I think we are all so shell shocked by the pandemic it is hard to keep perspective. There was a world before March 23rd, and it hasn't completely gone away.
Boris attempted to shut down democracy on August 28 when it did not give him back the answer he wanted to hear on Brexit. His first lieutenant refuses to be accountable to parliament. This is not the behaviour of democrats.
So I don't think Boris Johnson is a fit PM, I'd really like to see the back of Cummings far more however as he's far more dangerous. Boris seems to want to be liked, Cummings wants to tear down established parliamentary democracy, and the civil service.
However I think that perspective and human decency needs to be preserved, Boris Johnson could well have died, he's not just been to a and e for a sprained ankle. You, I and millions of people may dislike his politics and profoundly disagree with him, but he is a human being.
-
I don't get your point Toby, it does not seem connected to what I wrote.
My point to Nigel was that hoping for a more honest approach from a person who has scant regard for democracy is unrealistic. The rush of sympathy for his recent ordeal is not going to change his political nature.
What's indecent about that?
-
It might have been more the implication that it was a shame he hadn't been to Damascus rather than what you said.
I don't know, I think give him time, I think being in ICU and potentially being close to death changes you. He seems to have changed his chirpy persona and be against easing the lockdown now.
-
It might have been more the implication that it was a shame he hadn't been to Damascus.
That doesn't equate to a desire for him to come to harm though. Don't think anyone was saying that. More just a hope that he might have become a better human being?
-
Damascus is a reference to St Paul's conversion from persecutor of Christians to becoming their greatest defender; I doubt Boris has undergone such a profound change. I am sorry if its flippant tone offended you.
-
I thought a "damascene conversion" was a well known concept? Not my audience I guess!
-
I feel like the national press, should simply refuse to use the hospital death category now and cease downplaying the toll.
Agree Matt. Well actually I think in the first instance the government should.
"Maximum transparency"?
But if they won't then at least the press should. The likelihood of that is slim however given the capture of the majority of the press (and BBC news) by the conservative party.
Gov just announced they're going to supplement the hospital figures with the figures for 'all settings', starting tomorrow.
How does the UK compare with other countries for providing data on deaths outside hospital? (genuinely don't know)
-
Funnily enough Pete I just had a very quick look at that. From a very quick scan it looks like France do include their care home deaths. Or at least have done since early April. I know there are some France-based folk on UKB so they would know more? I don't think Spain or Italy do. The LSE are studying it Europ-wide and estimate that approx. 50% of total deaths will be in care homes. Just doing some further reading....
-
In the meantime, quote from the Guardian live blog on the daily briefing:
Q: Testing in care homes was inadequate. PPE was inadequate. This seems to have taken you be surprise. Will you apologise for leaving people unprotected?
Hancock says he does not think that is reasonable as a question.
He says his department was aware of the problems in care homes right from the start.
He recalls a conversation in January about care homes. They knew the virus was particularly dangerous for care homes.
It is something we have focused on right from the start.
They "focussed" on it! Thank goodness. Shame they didn't actually do anything.
-
Funnily enough Pete I just had a very quick look at that. From a very quick scan it looks like France do include their care home deaths. Or at least have done since early April. I know there are some France-based folk on UKB so they would know more? I don't think Spain or Italy do. The LSE are studying it Europ-wide and estimate that approx. 50% of total deaths will be in care homes. Just doing some further reading....
Do people on here not think that's a crucial piece of information to know before saying how we compare?
I'd not be saying how we compare until I knew, well... how we compare.
-
If your concern is comparing to other countries then yes the data should be apples vs apples. I would *guess* our "all settings" deaths may well align with those of Spain and Italy, once they issue "all settings" data.
-
Do people on here not think that's a crucial piece of information to know before saying how we compare?
I'd not be saying how we compare until I knew, well... how we compare.
This is something I pointed out many pages ago and is a question for the government. Presumably they have better access to know how each country collects their data given that we’re told most days that our scientific advisers are in contact with other countries. So why have they chosen to compare with other countries if it’s not a fair comparison? It’s not a mistake. It’s clearly been a conscious decision that has been made.
-
The most baffling thing for me about our response to the pandemic is the lack of testing as a strategy. The WHO's mantra is test, test, test. South Africa, a country economically far behind the UK, is coping rather well so far, keeping infections and deaths down. Their health minister suggested it was down to house to house testing and tracing, using staff and expertise built up through the AIDS epidemic.
This Guardian article about the NHS app (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/28/contact-tracing-cant-be-run-by-westminster-experts-warn) has some revealing reporting.
Firstly, Singapore's uptake of 20% of smartphone users suggest it may be limited in reach here too.
Secondly, Allyson Pollock, professor of public health at Newcastle University, made some points worth quoting:
It is absolutely ridiculous. You need the shoe-leather epidemiology, you need people on phones. Apps are simply supports for contact tracing.... You need people on old-fashioned things like telephones or going door to door and they need to be local teams because they need to understand the local communities
The whole system should be run by directors of public health and environmental health officers based in local authorities, with the resources they need, because they understand their community, she said. That was how it used to be, before the multiple restructuring culminating in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which led to the decimation of public health disease control and its centralisation and fragmentation, she added.
We don’t know where the block is, but there is a huge block and huge resistance to doing this locally. This is partly because they’ve ripped out so much capacity and they’ve also ripped out the real-time data locally. “We are never going to get on top of this if we don’t put back the local capacity
Is this why testing stopped on 12 March, moving from contain to delay strategies, because after the 2012 reforms the capacity to continue simply wasn't there? Nor the political will to start re-establish the fragmented local capacity?
Anthony Costello is quoted suggesting it would have been effective to continue testing:
The UK “gave up very early”, said Anthony Costello, a professor of global health and sustainable development at University College London and a former WHO director. By 12 March, there had been 10 deaths and 590 confirmed cases, and about 3,500 contacts had been traced. But most of the cases were in London and the West Midlands. Continued testing, tracking and tracing could have kept the virus out of other regions and reduced deaths, he said.
“If we hadn’t stopped it on 12 March, our epidemic would have been much less. They effectively allowed it to spread,” he said.
-
I thought a "damascene conversion" was a well known concept? Not my audience I guess!
Sorry I fully admit my ignorance here! I was under the impression you were hoping he'd been barrel bombed by Asad.
-
mrjonathonr, what you are describing about reasons why "test-trace-isolate" was abandoned are more reasons why the "trace" part of that failed rather than reasons why the "test" part failed (correct me if I'm wrong).
It seems though that the same mindset though screwed up every part of what was needed. The "test" side of things is looked at in https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-coronavirus-testing .
My guess is that the 100k tests will get done on Thursday. However I guess they will largely just be a random smattering of key workers and care-home residents rather than part of a "test-trace-isolate" strategy such as advocated by the "test-test-test" WHO advice for snuffing out outbreaks.
-
mrjonathonr, what you are describing about reasons why "test-trace-isolate" was abandoned are more reasons why the "trace" part of that failed rather than reasons why the "test" part failed (correct me if I'm wrong).
It seems though that the same mindset though screwed up every part of what was needed. The "test" side of things is looked at in https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-coronavirus-testing .
My guess is that the 100k tests will get done on Thursday. However I guess they will largely just be a random smattering of key workers and care-home residents rather than part of a "test-trace-isolate" strategy such as advocated by the "test-test-test" WHO advice for snuffing out outbreaks.
Interesting, thanks Stone. So in summary, the current "ramping up" in tests is most likely window dressing to an underlying herd immunity / do nothing strategy?
-
The health commentator Roy Lilley on Care homes (apologies again for a cut and paste rather than a link but its a sign up service).
Social care...
News and Comment from Roy Lilley
How's yer granny? Mine liked a port-n-lemon, shortbread biscuits, dripping sandwiches and played the piano, in a pub.
Good old gran. Have you got a gran? Is she safe? Where do you think she might be safe?
In a care-home, with people of her own age and experience, looked after by the super-well-intended... or...
At the top of a tower-block, depending on food parcels, the pharmacy delivering her medications and a twice a day phone call; 'How you doing Gran?'
If the data is to be believed, it looks like the tower-bloc might just be safer.
Deaths, in care-homes, from any cause have increased by 99% since the start of the outbreak. The front-line of the Battle-of-Covid 2020, is now in care-homes.
Four Seasons Health Care reported a 79% increase in deaths in two weeks, bringing its toll to 286,
The UK's largest private provider, HC One, of which the former boss of the CQC, David Behan, is now the executive chair, announced a 50% increase in deaths in 10 days, to 616.
Bupa, revealed it had lost well over 200 residents with confirmed or suspected coronavirus.
If, as BoJo announced in his comeback speech, the 'tide is beginning to turn', he should know... it's still a riptide in care-homes.
Yesterday, England and Wales recorded 4,343 care-home coronavirus deaths in a fortnight.
Just where is safe for Gran?
I have nothing but admiration for care home staff, some of whom have left their own homes and are locked-down, with their clients, living in care-homes, some in tents, under siege.
Passion for the job, commitment to their work and vocation in their veins.
However, I have questions... would it be wrong to ask...
Is the inability of the care-home sector, to cope with CV-19, a reflection of a failure of regulation? Care-homes, unlike nursing homes, are not required to have clinical input, the type of which may have improved infection control and clinical governance.
Being able to operate a care-home, legally, without this level of cover, points to the need for legislation to end the artificial boundary between nursing and care. Change regulation and licensing requirements.
Was it an error on the part of the DHSC to assume the privately run care sector would be robust enough to manage the epidemic themselves? Were they left to their own devices? Should the DH+ have intervened with the same robust response the health sector initiated?
Is it reasonable to require, care home companies to have businesses continuity and epidemic emergency plans in place and their own reserve supplies of protective equipment, without looking to the DHSC for supply?
Is it reasonable for care-home companies to provide on-site testing, for their staff, as have Ocado, Amazon, ABB and others?
Is it a fact that the Covid-collapse of the sector means the CQC has been inspecting for the wrong things. For instance; 48% of home care staff leave after less than a year in the job, and 73.5% leave within two years... isn't that a quality indicator?
Is it reasonable to assume that low-waged and high-churn staff cannot be adequately trained, beyond basic induction.
Many care-homes are subsidised by private client's fees, paying, sometimes >double the rates local authorities pay, for the same care. That is inequitable? What part has funding played in the care-home Covid response?
The Daily Mirror reported; HC-One Ltd made a loss of £6.5million in 2018 but the group perfectly legally, paid an estimated £40million in rent to offshore companies in the group.
The care-home business is vulnerable, fragmented, pressured, regulated for the wrong things, sometimes exploited. Much like health services in 1948.
Final question, the sector is highly fragmented, probably, in many cases, not viable and open to manipulation...
... is the answer a fresh start?
Nationalisation and a proper Department of Health and Social Care?
---------------------------
Contact Roy - please use this e-address
roy.lilley@nhsmanagers.net
Know something I don't - email me in confidence.
-
‘Not for the first time, Johnson gave the impression of wishing to restrain a restless British public, all of whom are desperate to know when they can please return to their beloved daily grind.’
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/qjd7qb/uk-government-coronavirus-response-failures?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/qjd7qb/uk-government-coronavirus-response-failures?__twitter_impression=true)
-
Interesting, thanks Stone. So in summary, the current "ramping up" in tests is most likely window dressing to an underlying herd immunity / do nothing strategy?
That has seemed consistent with govt decision making to me.
Stone- yes a dearth of infrastructure to trace, but impacting testing capacity too I imagine. Testing has not matched declared aspirations. Rather than trumpeting 100k tests a day, I wonder how figures will stack up against 700k a week?
-
... is the answer a fresh start?
Nationalisation and a proper Department of Health and Social Care?
I asked earlier in the thread whether a national social care system would have mitigated the problems we now see in care homes. So in response to your post Offwidth, and SF's link to the vice article, I would argue that we are maybe looking at one of the root causes of the current snafu - a political ideology, now verging on orthodoxy, that privatisation is "better" because it is "efficient". Ultimately, that leads to the spectacle of government ministers who aren't in charge of anything. To take a non-covid example the minister for transport is top dog for maybe roads. Rail? No, they just have to ask Northern Rail nicely to buck up when they fuck up. Buses? Dunno ask Stagecoach / First, not our problem. And further they are quite happy with that as it allows them to say "they are straining every sinew" while doing the sum total of fuck all in terms of real world action, and also to express regret when things go wrong because "it was out of their hands".
To relate it back to care homes and covid, *if* Hancock was *really* focussed on care homes back in January, what did he do? Probably nothing, or maybe sent an email to the private care home CEO's. He could instead have locked them down and set up temporary "hot" care homes for those leaving hospital in now defunct hotels, or some other corollary of the Nightingale hospital concept. Who knows, I'm not an expert. But it does typify the general right wing solution of "the market will provide". It is clear that in a pandemic, no, it doesn't. Bizarrely it seems the only one of them who gets it and actually wants to intervene is the ex-hedge fund manager chancellor.
-
Isn’t Germany’s health care via social insurance and 2/3 of the facilities are private?
I’m no fan of privatisation - but the ideology here in the UK IMHO has been to spend as little as politically possible - and that’s maybe what’s at the root of all of that. whether that is expressed via privatisation policies/measures.
-
Interesting, thanks Stone. So in summary, the current "ramping up" in tests is most likely window dressing to an underlying herd immunity / do nothing strategy?
That has seemed consistent with govt decision making to me.
Stone- yes a dearth of infrastructure to trace, but impacting testing capacity too I imagine. Testing has not matched declared aspirations. Rather than trumpeting 100k tests a day, I wonder how figures will stack up against 700k a week?
I have to stress that although I'm personally doing snot-wrangling in the Alderly Park "mega-lab", I'm totally clueless as to what is going on. I basically get an email the evening before telling me whether or not to turn up at 7:30 the next morning. I then spend a shift in a hood, snot wrangling, then go home. Yesterday as I was clearing up, our floor coordinator chatted a bit so I gleaned a bit of info/speculation from her. But overall I'm no better informed than if I'd never been near a testing lab. I'm an ultra-minion (and delighted to be doing that).
My guess is that the hope is to get testing up to speed such that a South Korean type approach is feasible. But I haven't a clue to be honest.
-
Isn’t Germany’s health care via social insurance and 2/3 of the facilities are private?
I’m no fan of privatisation - but the ideology here in the UK IMHO has been to spend as little as politically possible - and that’s maybe what’s at the root of all of that. whether that is expressed via privatisation policies/measures.
Yes but Gemany spend about 50% more per capita than the UK
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis
Summary: Johnson is too weak to take decisions.
-
Do you think he wrote two speeches, one saying a lockdown was advisable and one saying it wasn’t?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis
Summary: Johnson is too weak to take decisions.
Thats a chilling read for me. Well part chilling and part anger inducing.... Whilst the article doesnt shout it in italics - its fairly clear that contrary to the image #10 want to portray - they have not been led by the science - at times they have chosen to follow it and at times not. As well as introducing terms such as fatigue (to lockdown) in the context of scientific advice - when such terms do not exist. What a fucking mess we find ourselves in. What a mess.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis
Summary: Johnson is too weak to take decisions.
Thats a chilling read for me. Well part chilling and part anger inducing ... What a mess.
Yes, to both. When I found myself in an entirely trivial leadership position, I soon learned that not only did I now have the power to take decisions but that it was actually required of me that I take decisions. Johnson has spent his whole life being groomed for being in such positions, albeit on a much larger scale, and has spent years touting himself about as being the only person for such positions, only to show himself as utterly incapable.
-
NHS staff coronavirus inquests told not to look at PPE shortages (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/29/inquests-nhs-staff-deaths-ppe-shortages).
I wonder why they would do that?
-
Some articles looking at Public Health England in the context of the pandemic and the Landsley 'reforms'.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/29/the-coronavirus-crisis-the-centralising-failure-of-public-health-england/
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/29/the-coronavirus-crisis-public-health-england-fit-for-purpose-in-a-pandemic/
Sticking Public Health into councils, cash strapped by austerity, could turn out to be the worst mistake in decades in terms of improving health outcomes in England. At a time when we need local coordination to deal with ending the pandemic we are at the least prepared for such a challenge in modern history.
-
So after 32 daily Covid press conferences where our top scientific advisers have wheeled out a graph showing the ‘global comparison of deaths’, today a significant proportion was spent arguing why you shouldn’t compare with other countries. Including pointing out an article in the Guardian by David Spiegelhalter on that subject. It’s almost as if the graph showed us performing well or at least comparable with other countries until the last few days, at which point...”oh don’t bother looking at that it’s just meaningless anyway”. FFS.
-
I thought that article was interesting, in case it hasn’t made it into one of the 27 Covid threads https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/30/coronavirus-deaths-how-does-britain-compare-with-other-countries
-
That kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!
-
Teestub - yes, that’s the article that Patrick Vallance recommended people read in yesterday’s press conference.
Pete - as an oft defender of this government but also a critic of comparing deaths with other countries when the facts aren’t known, what’s your opinion on why the government’s top scientific advisers have chosen to include a graph of global death comparisons as part of their daily slides up until the point we start looking a bit shoddy compared with other countries, at which point they spend a considerable amount of time rubbishing any comparison?
-
I'm not defending the government but I think Pete has a pretty good point. Much of this discussion seems to have ceased and become one sided criticism of the conservative party.
-
That kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!
Well it was obviously written by some paid up member of the Oxbridge boys club, edited by Dom, attempting to obfuscate the horrendous performance of the government. Or something.
-
Much of this discussion seems to have ceased and become one sided criticism of the conservative party.
Well they are the ones in power and making all the decisions. Or have I woken up in 2025 and missed an election?
-
I thought this was quite an interesting read. Essentially the government are making it up as they go along, but that's not really the fault of any individual actors, more a systemic failure because of what the role of the state has become after 40 years of neoliberalism.
https://www.thefullbrexit.com/covid19-state-failure (https://www.thefullbrexit.com/covid19-state-failure)
-
I thought everyone had a good point here. Thats a good piece Stubs, thanks for the link. Trouble is, the call not to use comparisons is doomed to failure as everyone is using them to try amd illistrate their own point. The Times editorial today feautured a comparison with Sweden which seemed to be implying that they had nailed it and we havent. Cant have it both ways surely! Ali is also right to point out that the government was very keen to show off their graphs until very recently when they stopped looking so clever. Thats worthy of comment too.
-
Much of this discussion seems to have ceased and become one sided criticism of the conservative party.
Well they are the ones in power and making all the decisions. Or have I woken up in 2025 and missed an election?
No obviously not, they have made mistakes but no government hasn't been criticized on their virus response, except perhaps New Zealand although they must have one of the easiest jobs to do in minimising impact. The government has also done a lot right. It's true that many ministers have been pretty ineffective, for which they deserve criticism but ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
I thought this was quite an interesting read. Essentially the government are making it up as they go along, but that's not really the fault of any individual actors, more a systemic failure because of what the role of the state has become after 40 years of neoliberalism.
https://www.thefullbrexit.com/covid19-state-failure (https://www.thefullbrexit.com/covid19-state-failure)
So if we had a socialist utopia we'd have a great plan of action for every pathogen pandemic, asteroid impact, terrorist strike, and nuclear war?
-
Trouble is, the call not to use comparisons is doomed to failure as everyone is using them to try amd illistrate their own point. The Times editorial today feautured a comparison with Sweden which seemed to be implying that they had nailed it and we havent. Cant have it both ways surely!
Johnson was guilty of this in yesterday’s press conference. He was simultaneously dismissing any comparison with other countries in death rates or strategy and also bragging that the UK had imposed the lockdown earlier in the epidemic timeline than other countries.
-
Teestub - yes, that’s the article that Patrick Vallance recommended people read in yesterday’s press conference.
Pete - as an oft defender of this government but also a critic of comparing deaths with other countries when the facts aren’t known, what’s your opinion on why the government’s top scientific advisers have chosen to include a graph of global death comparisons as part of their daily slides up until the point we start looking a bit shoddy compared with other countries, at which point they spend a considerable amount of time rubbishing any comparison?
That’s an easy question to answer!
Just look at the last 6 weeks of posting history here and scale that up to national level - do you really think the people and media wouldn’t be howling in self-righteous protest if the government had chosen NOT to put up some arbitrary graph comparing us to other countries?! No matter how inaccurate that comparison really is?
Some on here would have been saying that the gov not showing comparisons was yet more evidence of them not being transparent.
Yet if the government had truly been transparent and told the people that they weren’t showing comparisons because the graphs were apple-to-pear bullshit, the howls of outrage would then be about incompetence instead and the media would, without any shadow of doubt, have published their own comparison graphs instead. Which the more idiotic in the population would take as hard evidence because they’d seen their idiot media interrogating ministers about why their latest bullshit graph showed xyz.
So basically the self-serving attitude of much of our media, and people being wilfully ignorant of the fact that there isn’t really the evidence right now, puts the government into a position between howls of complaint about transparency or howls of complaint about competency.
TLDR: populations get the gov’s they deserve.
-
I don't think it's entirely fair to say that UKB can't assess situations impartially or rationally. It's certainly true of some posters :jab: but I can remember TT (Labour party member) saying that he begrudgingly thought the govt had done a good job at the start. His opinion has developed over time.
-
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
Is this a joke Toby? So running down public services (including NHS capacity), slashing funding to local government infrastructure which is now vital in contact tracing, avoiding stockpiling PPE for this exact scenario due to costings etc is valuable preparation?
Having a reduced deficit is unarguably a good thing. Achieving that by imposing a decade of reduced funding to vital public services (which just happens to align with your ideological aim of a reduced state) is quite another.
-
I agree Will and of course I’m generalising. I did say population, not population of ukb.
-
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
Will also chip in - that argument is at best not necessarily true, and arguably totally false.
Reducing the deficit hasn't given us any more money to play with (the deficit and national debt still exists). A large sum of the "coronavirus money" is effectively being printed by the Bank of England. They would still be able to do this regardless of what the deficit was. See the "Finance...." thread.
As Ali rightly says reducing the deficit had many negative effects on the public realm, the chickens of which are now coming home to roost.
-
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
Is this a joke Toby? So running down public services (including NHS capacity), slashing funding to local government infrastructure which is now vital in contact tracing, avoiding stockpiling PPE for this exact scenario due to costings etc is valuable preparation?
Having a reduced deficit is unarguably a good thing. Achieving that by imposing a decade of reduced funding to vital public services (which just happens to align with your ideological aim of a reduced state) is quite another.
It's certainly been pretty negative in some ways, but if the government didn't have a large financial buffer then the furlough scheme wouldn't be possible, and you'd already have had redundancies on a huge scale. It's possible that they're delaying the inevitable but the treasury has done pretty well in supporting people in what must be an unimaginably complicated situation.
-
It's certainly been pretty negative in some ways, but if the government didn't have a large financial buffer then the furlough scheme wouldn't be possible
There is no large financial buffer though - see the national deficit and debt. The furlough scheme would still be possible via money printing regardless. Which is in large part how they are doing it anyway.
-
So if we had a socialist utopia we'd have a great plan of action for every pathogen pandemic, asteroid impact, terrorist strike, and nuclear war?
Any government of any colour should have had a plan for the inevitable pandemic. The risk which had been identified by the government itself as THE NUMBER ONE THREAT (excuse the caps) to the UK, above war, above terrorism and above your other hypotheticals. There is no excuse. The government found the resources to put bags of money into the other much lower risk threats. The cost of prepping for a pandemic would have been peanuts compared to for instance Trident renewal.
-
...if the government didn't have a large financial buffer then the furlough scheme wouldn't be possible, and you'd already have had redundancies on a huge scale.
That sounds like a quote from Phillip Hammond and is a false argument/political spin defending the last decade of cuts. 10 years of austerity has had absolutely zero impact on whether or not the furlough scheme would have been enacted, but has had a HUGE impact on our preparedness for this epidemic and ability to cope with it.
Printing money is something you can do as easily as turning on a light switch. Reversing a decade of public service decimation when the shit hits the fan - not so easy.
-
What they said ^. This ongoing assumption that the national economy must somehow be managed like a household must be one of the tories' most successful bullshits. Likewise their ability to manage it better than the others.
-
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
Is this a joke Toby? So running down public services (including NHS capacity), slashing funding to local government infrastructure which is now vital in contact tracing, avoiding stockpiling PPE for this exact scenario due to costings etc is valuable preparation?
Having a reduced deficit is unarguably a good thing. Achieving that by imposing a decade of reduced funding to vital public services (which just happens to align with your ideological aim of a reduced state) is quite another.
It's certainly been pretty negative in some ways, but if the government didn't have a large financial buffer then the furlough scheme wouldn't be possible, and you'd already have had redundancies on a huge scale. It's possible that they're delaying the inevitable but the treasury has done pretty well in supporting people in what must be an unimaginably complicated situation.
Thats a spectacular misreading of the economics in my view. The furlough scheme has naff all to do with the deficit. I agree the treasury have done well to roll out the furlough scheme but saying it wouldnt have been possible without austerity is total bollocks.
-
The furlough scheme would still be possible via money printing regardless. Which is in large part how they are doing it anyway.
^^
Toby, this (Tory) government had a plan, they just didn't follow it. Any sitting administration would have had exactly the same.
-
This ongoing assumption that the national economy must somehow be managed like a household must be one of the tories' most successful bullshits.
💯
-
This ongoing assumption that the national economy must somehow be managed like a household must be one of the tories' most successful bullshits.
If you get yourself a decent quality printing press then any household can do it.
-
That kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!
Pete I think you are being slightly unfair to "this forum's posters" there by folding several issues into the "lack of evidence" category.
The main concerns I have read (and posted) on here have been:
Lack of PPE
Slow on testing
Lack of clarity from the government on strategy and actions
Care homes
I would say those are pretty well evidenced, and internal UK matters, and therefore people should be held to account for it. Regardless of any data inconsistencies in deaths between countries, which is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It may be seen by some as being terribly unfair on the poor old party in charge but I'll live with that.
On international comparisons, I will freely admit that overall no-one knows what the right strategy long term is. Who knows, maybe "herd immunity" was right all along once we take into account repeated waves? Perhaps those countries like New Zealand who have aced it in terms of deaths so far will be storing up epic problems for the future? This will become clear in the fullness of time, but it doesn't negate the fact that if you concentrate solely on the UK there have been definite deficiencies in the response. E.g. not implementing the recommendations of Operation Cygnus (nb not yet published - "maximum transparency"?). Not to mention that the UK response changed 180 degrees at one point, which seems to suggest a lack of preparation and muddled thinking despite the forewarnings. I could go on. If we had been better prepared as a nation then we might not need to be in lockdown.
It seems an odd bit of fatalism to just say lets leave it to play out for a couple of years and come back to it when we know a bit more. But if that's what the government would rather we do as a nation i.e. nothing, then they should tell us soon, showing their reasoning.
-
Sorry this probably isn't exactly the right thread to put this in but I thought this was a fascinating break down of all the challenges that young people face in Britain today. And Covid is likely only going to exacerbate that problem unless we have significant shifts in policy post lockdown and during the recovery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=195&v=ZuXzvjBYW8A&feature=emb_title
-
That kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!
Pete I think you are being slightly unfair to "this forum's posters" there by folding several issues into the "lack of evidence" category.
The main concerns I have read (and posted) on here have been:
Lack of PPE
Slow on testing
Lack of clarity from the government on strategy and actions
Care homes
I would say those are pretty well evidenced, and internal UK matters, and therefore people should be held to account for it. Regardless of any data inconsistencies in deaths between countries, which is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It may be seen by some as being terribly unfair on the poor old party in charge but I'll live with that.
On international comparisons, I will freely admit that overall no-one knows what the right strategy long term is. Who knows, maybe "herd immunity" was right all along once we take into account repeated waves? Perhaps those countries like New Zealand who have aced it in terms of deaths so far will be storing up epic problems for the future? This will become clear in the fullness of time, but it doesn't negate the fact that if you concentrate solely on the UK there have been definite deficiencies in the response. E.g. not implementing the recommendations of Operation Cygnus (nb not yet published - "maximum transparency"?). Not to mention that the UK response changed 180 degrees at one point, which seems to suggest a lack of preparation and muddled thinking despite the forewarnings. I could go on. If we had been better prepared as a nation then we might not need to be in lockdown.
It seems an odd bit of fatalism to just say lets leave it to play out for a couple of years and come back to it when we know a bit more. But if that's what the government would rather we do as a nation i.e. nothing, then they should tell us soon, showing their reasoning.
I agree with almost everything you say Nigel, they're all fair criticisms and the government needs to have a full independent inquiry as soon as possible when the situation stabilises.
But might not have needed to be in lockdown? Really? Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective without some degree of coercion.
-
do you really think the people and media wouldn’t be howling in self-righteous protest if the government had chosen NOT to put up some arbitrary graph comparing us to other countries?! No matter how inaccurate that comparison really is?
...if the government had truly been transparent and told the people that they weren’t showing comparisons because the graphs were apple-to-pear bullshit, the howls of outrage would then be about incompetence instead...
The trouble is Pete, government ministers themselves have chosen throughout this to use comparisons with other countries when it suits them (i.e. to defend their record). So they've been fuelling the fire. Even Johnson just yesterday in the press conference said "We have so far succeeded in the first and most important task we set ourselves as a nation, to avoid the tragedy that engulfed other parts of the world".
So I don't see how you can blame 'the media' or people being 'wilfully ignorant'. If the government wants to argue against international comparisons then fair enough. But don't expect me not to criticise them for being hypocritical twats when they then go and make international comparisons to spin their narrative.
-
I agree with almost everything you say Nigel, they're all fair criticisms and the government needs to have a full independent inquiry as soon as possible when the situation stabilises.
But might not have needed to be in lockdown? Really? Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective without some degree of coercion.
Your last point seems to miss the countries who've had a much, much lower death rate that the UK, while not shutting down nearly as hard. We don't even need to go to South Korea - check the "total excess deaths" graphs on here:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
Germany is already looking at relaxing measures, and managed to keep excess death's "almost" flat. Compare and contrast that to the UK.
Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective in the UK?? without some degree of coercion.
When we were recently in Berlin, we noticed quite how different it is there, in regards to following official rules. I remember once having a frank conversation with German about why they followed a specific rule (something like not crossing the road on a red). They looked totally bewildered and said something along the lines of "well, of course, rules are there for a reason, why would you not follow them". I'm somewhat of a "follow the rules that are logical" kind of person, rather than a slavish rule follower, so it took a bit to get my head around.
-
Ha - Berlin is the only place in Germany where I have regularly encountered people giving the middle finger to rules (including crossing the road!) :D
I have certainly found the attitude you describe in many other places in Germany though!
Its the old adage that in the UK Policing is via consent rather than an order.
-
But might not have needed to be in lockdown? Really? Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective without some degree of coercion.
Yes fair point that does need clarification! I don't mean no lockdown at all, just not *this* lockdown. There are certain things that we might have been able to do back in February that may have meant that the current lockdown could have been less stringent. E.g. screen all international arrivals, and properly test, trace, and isolate early cases. The government didn't do that, hence the general population now have to do the work instead, by staying at home. And let's face it they were slow on asking for that too.
I'm not saying that this would have been the best option long term as I don't know, but in terms of the short term headline numbers of death rates then it is clearly a better strategy - see NZ, Taiwan, South Korea. At present we seem to be in a hybrid strategy of herd immunity for a month or so until they smelt the shit approaching the fan, then flip to total lockdown. And maybe now moving to test, trace, isolate, as recommended months ago by the WHO, but when the virus has already become well established rather than just a few cases, requiring a massive step change in testing numbers. It is clearly confused - the inconsistencies are glaring. The irony is I strongly suspect there was a political rather than medical / scientific motive for doing nothing at first, which was probably to keep the economy running. The other alternative is that we were simply so under-prepared due to years of penny-pinching that it wasn't even a workable option to do anything meaningful quickly enough. I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy? The end result of the whole flawed process is that now we are locked down and the economy has taken a massive hit anyway.
I suppose my ultimate point is that if the conservatives are as worried about the economy as they claim, then a few quid spent on thermometers at airports and community testing teams a couple of months ago might have meant that we could all still be working, and have deaths in maybe triple figures instead of tens of thousands. Instead they are paying people to do nothing at home, which although I'm glad they have done, is the sort of thing they almost certainly wanted to avoid. As well as presiding over a death rate which is already well beyond what they called a "good result". They fail even on their own terms, and yet they still manage to get away with it.
-
I'm not saying that this would have been the best option long term as I don't know, but in terms of the short term headline numbers of death rates then it is clearly a better strategy - see NZ, Taiwan, South Korea. At present we seem to be in a hybrid strategy of herd immunity for a month or so until they smelt the shit approaching the fan, then flip to total lockdown. And maybe now moving to test, trace, isolate, as recommended months ago by the WHO, but when the virus has already become well established rather than just a few cases, requiring a massive step change in testing numbers. It is clearly confused - the inconsistencies are glaring. The irony is I strongly suspect there was a political rather than medical / scientific motive for doing nothing at first, which was probably to keep the economy running. The other alternative is that we were simply so under-prepared due to years of penny-pinching that it wasn't even a workable option to do anything meaningful quickly enough. I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy? The end result of the whole flawed process is that now we are locked down and the economy has taken a massive hit anyway.
I think this sums up what I feel too (more or less). I appreciate that all strategy will adapt/change according to the latest evidence and how things evolve - but it does seem that the countries that have fared better (Germany, Korea, NZ) had a firm strategy - kept to it - and it worked. Even Sweden to an extent.. We seem to have flipped about from one 3 point plan to another 3 point plan etc...
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant.
2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good.
3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.
4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world).
-
Ha - Berlin is the only place in Germany where I have regularly encountered people giving the middle finger to rules (including crossing the road!) :D
I have certainly found the attitude you describe in many other places in Germany though!
Its the old adage that in the UK Policing is via consent rather than an order.
Ha! To be fair, Berlin was just the last place we were in, and have been round a few other parts. Can't remember if we noticed it was more obvious elsewhere. The fact no-one seemed to ever check subway tickets, no automated barrier, yet most people still pay (as far as I'm aware) was one of the things we noticed.
-
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant.
2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good.
3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.
4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world).
I actually agree that those are things we appear to have done well on. Credit where its due. If I was to continue being a moaning minnie though (!), you could say that we wouldn't have had to do any of those things at all if we had followed a clear strategy from the start, as per the other countries you mention.
-
you could say that we wouldn't have had to do any of those things at all if we had followed a clear strategy from the start, as per the other countries you mention.
Yes - esp the testing....
One thing other 'positive' about this government is - that they do actually change their minds and direction (for the better) when they need to - not too much of the dogma tail wagging the dog... but of course if they got it right in the first place etc.. etc..
-
I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy?
This phrase really bothers me. There is no bearded man, high on a mountain, labouring down with stone tablets inscribed with 'The Science'.
There is no such thing as 'The Science'.
There are however, multiple scientific inputs of varying degrees of reliability. Once collated, the leadership elects a strategy. This is 'The Politics' for which No 10 appears very determined to avoid accepting responsibility.
The scientific output from SAGE looks compromised by political input too, which makes foisting responsibility onto neutral advisers like Whitty and Vallance even more egregious. Are either of them PM now, to dictate decisions to the country??
Boris needs to own his own decisions.
-
I'm not saying that this would have been the best option long term as I don't know, but in terms of the short term headline numbers of death rates then it is clearly a better strategy - see NZ, Taiwan, South Korea. At present we seem to be in a hybrid strategy of herd immunity for a month or so until they smelt the shit approaching the fan, then flip to total lockdown. And maybe now moving to test, trace, isolate, as recommended months ago by the WHO, but when the virus has already become well established rather than just a few cases, requiring a massive step change in testing numbers. It is clearly confused - the inconsistencies are glaring. The irony is I strongly suspect there was a political rather than medical / scientific motive for doing nothing at first, which was probably to keep the economy running. The other alternative is that we were simply so under-prepared due to years of penny-pinching that it wasn't even a workable option to do anything meaningful quickly enough. I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy? The end result of the whole flawed process is that now we are locked down and the economy has taken a massive hit anyway.
I think this sums up what I feel too (more or less). I appreciate that all strategy will adapt/change according to the latest evidence and how things evolve - but it does seem that the countries that have fared better (Germany, Korea, NZ) had a firm strategy - kept to it - and it worked. Even Sweden to an extent.. We seem to have flipped about from one 3 point plan to another 3 point plan etc...
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant.
2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good.
3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.
4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world).
All good points, with some of the provisos that others have added. I feel that balance is important. Our government hasn't exactly excelled itself, but neither has it done appallingly.
Re Testing. The figures look good, but what use is testing if you don't trace contacts? A snapshot of whether someone has it isn't actually that useful, as surely they could have caught it by the time they get the results even if they tested negative? I suppose it tells you how widespread it is in the population but not useful as a preventive measure.
-
Its a start - and with those numbers begin to give us data like this. Though yes - a strategy rather than WE MUST MEET MY 100K DEADLINE - TEST ANYONE!!! would seem to be more sensible... (ahem - not saying this is what is happening - of course.....)
(https://assets-global.website-files.com/5e3d471e8cf4751833faf0f9/5ea68cb8d3a80f4ba7d0a1f7_map270420.gif)
Hopefully the above works. Really nice animated gif of the results from the CV19 app that 2.8 million people are reporting symptoms (or not) on in the UK.
Link to page below if image above doesn’t work.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time
-
WE MUST MEET MY 100K DEADLINE - TEST ANYONE!!! would seem to be more sensible... (ahem - not saying this is what is happening - of course.....)
Not even that TT (https://www.hsj.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=7027544)
The cheque's in the post ;)
-
That does not surprise me....
Good grief - why can't they just mea culpa this... I think many people would understand and see that we'll be at 100k soon....
-
I'll be a moaning minnie too!
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant. These Nightingale hospitals have turned into a massive white elephant largely just lying empty. And were prioritised at the expense of doing pretty much naff all with care homes which are now in crisis. Getting the army to build a few massive new field hospitals is significantly easier for Hancock to do and a hell of a lot more glamorous and media friendly than getting involved in the nitty gritty of the mess that is our disparate care system, but who cares about a few old people, right? Yes it's great that the Nightingales weren't needed, but given how many ICU beds have been available throughout the first wave it begs the question, why is our death rate so high?
2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good. This target was only set on April 2nd, at a time when we were doing around 10k tests a day. When "test, test, test" has been the WHO mantra from the very beginning why did we only begin to 'ramp up' testing so late in the day? It's not as if we didn't have warnings from other countries that were weeks ahead of us. There also still does not appear to be a strategy around how to link the testing to contact tracing or any other useful purpose to get out of lockdown. Not to mention the fact they're now fiddling the numbers to even reach that arbitrary target.
3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown. Well done us!
4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world). Yes, agreed, it's generous to those who don't slip between the cracks. But without a very good strategy to come out of lockdown - and fast - it's going to have an unnecessarily large impact on the economy.
-
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
Is this a joke Toby? So running down public services (including NHS capacity), slashing funding to local government infrastructure which is now vital in contact tracing, avoiding stockpiling PPE for this exact scenario due to costings etc is valuable preparation?
Having a reduced deficit is unarguably a good thing. Achieving that by imposing a decade of reduced funding to vital public services (which just happens to align with your ideological aim of a reduced state) is quite another.
Please can I call bullshit on this. Please describe how reducing the deficit helped one iota towards "COVID19 preparedness" (or anything else for that matter). Please provide some sort or cause and effect mechanism and describe how lack of reducing the deficit would have manifested as some meaningful problem.
I'm not just talking about how the cuts were vandalism. I'm talking about the broader principle. I'd have liked the deficit to have been reduced by say a land-value-tax and a wealth tax and corporation tax. However I'd have wanted that purely so as to reduce inequality. Cutting the deficit doesn't figure in my wish for that.
-
On international comparisons, I will freely admit that overall no-one knows what the right strategy long term is. Who knows, maybe "herd immunity" was right all along once we take into account repeated waves? Perhaps those countries like New Zealand who have aced it in terms of deaths so far will be storing up epic problems for the future? This will become clear in the fullness of time, but it doesn't negate the fact that if you concentrate solely on the UK there have been definite deficiencies in the response. E.g. not implementing the recommendations of Operation Cygnus (nb not yet published - "maximum transparency"?). Not to mention that the UK response changed 180 degrees at one point, which seems to suggest a lack of preparation and muddled thinking despite the forewarnings. I could go on. If we had been better prepared as a nation then we might not need to be in lockdown.
It seems an odd bit of fatalism to just say lets leave it to play out for a couple of years and come back to it when we know a bit more. But if that's what the government would rather we do as a nation i.e. nothing, then they should tell us soon, showing their reasoning.
What has New Zealand got to do with the UK? It’s absurd to me that anyone would even consider mentioning them in the same breath when comparing outcomes from a pandemic virus that relies for transmission on THE PROXIMITY OF PEOPLE :lol: :wall:
One is a tiny nation of 4.8million, split roughy 1/4 - 3/4 across two remote, sparsely-populated mostly rural islands in the South Pacific, its closest neighbor Australia is a 5 hour flight away and they are also similarly remote from the rest of the world and also have an extremely low number of covid cases. So essentially you have two hugely remote counties globally, still a long way from each other, with very low covid rates. The next closest neighbor of any significance to NZ is an 8-10 hour flight away.
I lived in NZ for a year and it’s the sort of place where you would seemingly be on first name terms with the whole of south island.
The other is the busiest international travel hub in the world, has 66 million people living in CLOSE PROXIMITY mostly in densely-packed cities and towns, it is close neighbors with 740 MILLION people on its doorstep and with who it shares myriad transport links.
I think *I*could have controlled the covid outbreak in New Zealand 8)
Hey Nige how’s the UK doing compared to Antarctica. ;D
-
If the UK had done what NewZealand did when we had as many cases/capita that they had, we too would have escaped large scale deaths and we too would be able to safely come out of lock down.
Anyway, don't a lot of the people in NewZealand live in cities? I don't see the relevance of having a vast, sparsely inhabited hinterland. The lack of population density in the Scottish Highlands didn't save the people living in central London.
-
How many people do you suppose travel in and out of New Zealand daily? How many people do you suppose travel in and out of the UK daily?
What about travel of, say, an 80 mile radius within New Zealand, versus within the UK?
Is covid transmission exponential?
If you start with higher numbers then do you extremely quickly have far higher numbers?
Is the spread of a highly infectious virus harder to manage among a population of 66 million people or a population of 4.5 million people (spread across two islands).
Does restricting the number of people travelling result in lower rates of transmission?
If so - lets hope so because it's essentially the foundation of social distancing - then would having *far fewer* people travelling in and out and within a country likely result in *far fewer* initial cases of covid and a far slower rate of exponential growth?
-
The 100k tests per day now is not some proud achievement. Granted, I feel a bit less ashamed now. But only a bit.
Earlier today I personally did I guess about 50% of the processing for 360 swab tests. The UK has huge numbers of bioscientists most of whom have been desperate to do anything to help this. Only a tiny fraction have even now been allowed to participate. The PCR machines in the "mega-labs" are not new. They were requisitioned back in mid-March. I'm certain that if many local efforts had been allowed to get going at the start (as per the South Korean approach), not only would we have had ample testing to support an early test-trace-isolate program, the testing technology would also have come on leaps and bounds as tens of thousands of people would have got a hive-mind going.
My main take from this is that as a community we should have been a lot more bolshy when we were told to shut down. I'm a very crap scientist so I thought it imperative that I deferred to the more competent people around me. The problem is that there was a chain of deferral that went all the way up to Boris-the-Clown. The Nobel prize winners etc on the way up also meekly stood aside.
-
How many people do you suppose travel in and out of New Zealand daily? How many people do you suppose travel in and out of the UK daily?
What about travel of, say, an 80 mile radius within New Zealand, versus within the UK?
Is covid transmission exponential?
If you start with higher numbers then do you extremely quickly have far higher numbers?
Is the spread of a highly infectious virus harder to manage among a population of 66 million people or a population of 4.5 million people (spread across two islands).
Does restricting the number of people travelling impact the transmission?
It's scalable. Tower Hamlets has a smaller population than NewZealand.
Don't parts of NewZealand have as high population density as some bad COVID19 hot-spots do?
The problem in the UK was internal community transmission within the UK. Doing as we did, we could have had a catastrophe as we have even if we had only had one case coming in from abroad.
-
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.
Just to add for balance, credit where it's due - the government seems to have successfully rammed home the 'stay at home' message according to the latest Ipsos Mori survey. We are now officially the most fearful nation in Europe about leaving our homes after lockdown, with 71% saying they'd feel "very nervous about leaving home" even if businesses were allowed to reopen and travel resume.
And just to balance out that balancing...I guess that's what happens when you have a party in charge with a reputation for campaigning and Isaac Levido doing your messaging. Unfortunately getting out of the lockdown might require a decent governing party, which on the evidence so far seems pretty absent.
-
WE MUST MEET MY 100K DEADLINE - TEST ANYONE!!! would seem to be more sensible... (ahem - not saying this is what is happening - of course.....)
Not even that TT (https://www.hsj.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=7027544)
The cheque's in the post ;)
I came on to mention this. For anyone who hasn’t read the linked report I can summarise it as:
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE MET THEIR 100K TESTING FIGURE BY COUNTING TESTS WHICH THEY HAVE POSTED TO PEOPLE IN THEIR NUMBERS.
Sorry for the capitals but you couldn’t make it up. I thought they might have maybe held back on testing to have a massive push yesterday with lots of swabs ready to start work on at 00:01, but to change the way you count them like that is just ludicrous.
-
To add to the disparity / incomparably huge gulf between NZ and the UK.
I'd guesstimate 99.5% of people entering NZ enter the country via its two international entry points of Auckland and Christchurch.
The UK is a leaky sieve of entry points. Think about all the regional airports, the seaports, the tunnel. Each one a gateway to a covid case.
And how is it scalable if the growth is exponential? Over the same time period wouldn't a country starting with a higher number always end up with an exponentially higher number all other things being equal?
BTW I'm not saying comparisons are futile - but I'm interested in realistic comparisons, e.g. Germany. And having comparable data not apples-oranges.
-
I'm not sure we won't get a second wave.
There was enough traffic between the M67 and Glossop this afternoon to double the drive time compared to say 6:30 am last Sunday. So lockdown is slipping a lot.
I'd say we will only be safe to come out of lockdown when we have herd immunity (which we'd be lucky to have now by all accounts), or when we have a proper test-trace-isolate regime that can cope with every outbreak.
What flummoxed me is that on BBC R4 this morning they were all talking about the R<1 as being a mark that we could now exit lockdown. How does that make any sense? What we need is to know that we have something in place to keep R<1 when we aren't in lockdown. It is as though someone caught a branch of a tree after falling off a cliff and thought that since they had reduced their downward trajectory, it was now safe to let go of the branch.
-
And how is it scalable if the growth is exponential? Over the same time period wouldn't a country starting with a higher number always end up with an exponentially higher number all other things being equal?
Doubling time was about two days in the UK wasn't it pre-lockdown? So to go from one case to a million takes about forty days. So yes a country that got a million infected people arriving would be forty days ahead of a country that got one infected person arriving. A country starting with ten cases arriving and then sealing itself off, would always have ten times as many as the country with one case arriving and then sealing itself off (if assuming unfettered exponential growth).
However the UK decided not to shut air travel etc when we knew that we had cases coming in. We got to a million cases not by having a million infected people coming over but by having dozens and then letting the outbreak grow here.
-
Dozens? Or hundreds? Or thousands? We don’t know.
And again as per Nigel it’s just not a valid comparison to use NZ closing its border in the same argument as the UK closing its border(s).
-
If you think the UK is a leaky sieve of borders - Germany effectively has none - yet has apparently managed things far better... despite probably being the point of entry for the main European (Then Italian) outbreak.
As stone clearly mentioned it’s the transmission rate within the UK that’s done us over.
Not just Cheltenham and football matches - but all those last min get always people did the weekend before the official lockdown.
-
Dozens? Or hundreds? Or thousands? We don’t know. .
I'm not sure that is true. They are doing a lot of sequencing of viral genomes to assemble phylogenic trees to get and idea of how the outbreaks have been seeded. I think it is a work in progress. i think I heard something about the South Wales outbreak coming from one seeding event.
-
If you think the UK is a leaky sieve of borders - Germany effectively has none - yet has apparently managed things far better... despite probably being the point of entry for the main European (Then Italian) outbreak.
As stone clearly mentioned it’s the transmission rate within the UK that’s done us over.
Not just Cheltenham and football matches - but all those last min get always people did the weekend before the official lockdown.
Yep Germany is a valid comparison. New Zealand just clearly isn't for loads of reasons that should be obvious.
Edit: Stone I'd call that 'don't currently know'.
-
What flummoxed me is that on BBC R4 this morning they were all talking about the R<1 as being a mark that we could now exit lockdown. How does that make any sense? What we need is to know that we have something in place to keep R<1 when we aren't in lockdown. It is as though someone caught a branch of a tree after falling off a cliff and thought that since they had reduced their downward trajectory, it was now safe to let go of the branch.
In yesterday's government briefing one of the scientists said they calculated that R0 had been reduced to between 0.6 and 0.9. This seems like very little wiggle room indeed. Given the lag between infection and measured effects, and the anecdotal/traffic data suggesting the lockdown is getting weaker, I wonder if we haven't already lost some of this wiggle room and just can't see it in the data yet.
Can any meaningful reduction in lockdown measures be applied when there's potentially only 0.1 of R0 between the country and wave two.
-
Now that our test numbers are (will be?) more meaningful (I'm being generous - I mean having a wider representation of the country rather than just people in hospital..) I'd be really interested to see the breakdown of where - and what context those positives are. How many are in / associated with care homes? What is the geographical spread?
I know we shouldnt compare too much - but if we're that far over the peak, why are our new positive test numbers still really quite high compared to the rest of Europe? I'd be expecting those to drop - maybe more than those offset by the new wider testing critera.
From TomToms bubble, I heard of a friend who's come down with it 4-5 days ago - which is the first 'new' case I've heard of in my world since the second week of the lockdown..
Also - (again the guardian - sorry) a critique that the home test kit is really quite nasty (deep nasal swab and tonsil wipe) that one doctor has sugggested could lead to many false negatives as people will be put off doing it properly... I shudder at having to do that to a child.... be worse than putting on sun cream :D
-
Can any meaningful reduction in lockdown measures be applied when there's potentially only 0.1 of R0 between the country and wave two.
I certainly hope not. Meanwhile, some particularly unpleasant people think otherwise;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
The guy attempting to get the lockdown legally reversed doesn't even live here, just makes millions from businesses here while safely living in Monaco.
-
From TomToms bubble, I heard of a friend who's come down with it 4-5 days ago - which is the first 'new' case I've heard of in my world since the second week of the lockdown..
For whatever reason (make up of friend groups, colleagues etc.?) I know of a lot of cases. A colleague reported yesterday that one of their students had died (in China, but shortly after returning there from Denmark).
When a NYC friend posted a story about infected but otherwise healthy young people having catastrophic strokes no less than three people (two of them mutual friends) reported that they directly knew someone this had happened to.
-
some particularly unpleasant people think otherwise;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan?
Yeh, I read that. Not saying I agree with him but there is certainly a case to be made that the lockdown is having serious consequences on people’s quality of life and health outcomes - the list of knock on effects is endless. So it’s not surprising there would be a legal challenge at some point. If the data and scientific advice that all the decisions have been based on gets released as a result that would be a positive outcome IMO. Sadly, I suspect his motives are purely financial.
-
Can any meaningful reduction in lockdown measures be applied when there's potentially only 0.1 of R0 between the country and wave two.
I certainly hope not. Meanwhile, some particularly unpleasant people think otherwise;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
The guy attempting to get the lockdown legally reversed doesn't even live here, just makes millions from businesses here while safely living in Monaco.
Why do you say he's unpleasant Toby?
I've never heard of him before but taking the letter purely at face value it sounds like a fair and reasonable challenge. I'm not saying I agree with it, and I think it's unlikely to succeed, but challenge is not an inherently bad thing in any situation and I think it's particularly needed here where there is clear evidence of significant other harms emerging beyond the number of people dying from Covid-19 itself. It sounds like a lot of what he's asking for is in the public interest, release of SAGE minutes etc.
Suppose we should also be glad that opposition to the lockdown in the UK amounts to a cautious legal challenge, as opposed to heavily armed protesters invading Government buildings ::)
-
On the flip side, just picking up on this point:
he is not taking the case to throw the country into chaos, but to restore the public’s right to decide for themselves if they want to visit friends, go to work or stay indoors
This feels like the sort of thing that people shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves. It's not Brexit.
-
For anyone who hasn’t read the linked report I can summarise it as:
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE MET THEIR 100K TESTING FIGURE BY COUNTING TESTS WHICH THEY HAVE POSTED TO PEOPLE IN THEIR NUMBERS.
Sorry for the capitals but you couldn’t make it up...to change the way you count them like that is just ludicrous.
Seen an interesting comment this morning suggesting this might be another ‘tactically controversial’ number by Dominic Cummings to keep it repeated in the news for days and days. Like the £350k/wk figure. Makes sense.
-
For anyone who hasn’t read the linked report I can summarise it as:
THE GOVERNMENT HAVE MET THEIR 100K TESTING FIGURE BY COUNTING TESTS WHICH THEY HAVE POSTED TO PEOPLE IN THEIR NUMBERS.
Sorry for the capitals but you couldn’t make it up...to change the way you count them like that is just ludicrous.
Seen an interesting comment this morning suggesting this might be another ‘tactically controversial’ number by Dominic Cummings to keep it repeated in the news for days and days. Like the £350k/wk figure. Makes sense.
It makes me wonder about the other numbers. If you've 120k tests, 5k positive, 75k negative (just making up numbers here), and 40 yet to be complete. When do these 40k get reported?
Do they quietly adjust the positive and negative figures for 30 April, or do the tests get added to the day when the tests are actually competed? I'm which case we would be double counting
-
Can any meaningful reduction in lockdown measures be applied when there's potentially only 0.1 of R0 between the country and wave two.
I certainly hope not. Meanwhile, some particularly unpleasant people think otherwise;
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
The guy attempting to get the lockdown legally reversed doesn't even live here, just makes millions from businesses here while safely living in Monaco.
Why do you say he's unpleasant Toby?
... It sounds like a lot of what he's asking for is in the public interest, release of SAGE minutes etc.
He runs a company selling ppe. He lives safely abroad. I think it's much more likely his motives are selling millions of masks, were the lockdown lifted, to anyone who wants to use public transport etc etc
I think its very unlikely that hes got public interest in mind.
Of course, I don't know that.
-
I can't find any evidence his company sells PPE. It appears he runs a charter cargo airline and a 'motorsport business' (does any motorsport business make a profit? Has always seemed like a lifestyle business to me). Seems they've been delivering PPE to the UK via their cargo airline business.
But yeah I share your unease about the motives behind a wealthy, non-resident, business-owner's legal challenge of the lock down. His sentiment strikes me as similar to a couple of wealthy friends, both millionaire entrepreneurs, who've been complaining about the lockdown since day 1. Basically motivated by financial self interest - their rental income from commercial lets has dried up - and liberty to do whatever they want to do.
-
What has New Zealand got to do with the UK? It’s absurd to me that anyone would even consider mentioning them in the same breath when comparing outcomes from a pandemic virus that relies for transmission on THE PROXIMITY OF PEOPLE :lol: :wall:
All I said was that NZ had done well on their death rate, which they have. It wasn't a direct comparison with the UK but you've given a good explanation of the differences nonetheless!
RE borders, we are one of the very few countries on Earth who haven't controlled our borders at all. A large number of countries put some level of border control in place in the period March 14-23 - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/coronavirus-travel-restrictions-border-shutdowns-country-200318091505922.html Whether it is a worthwhile thing to do or not I don't know, and sure it would have been more difficult for the UK than some other countries. But of course it is possible with the political will, even for the UK. You would think that will would be strong here, given the "Take Back Control" mantra of the past few years. Obviously not. Anyway its a moot point now as its already here.
Hey Nige how’s the UK doing compared to Antarctica. ;D
I don't know? Is the British Antarctic Territory doing much worse than the NZ one? ;)
-
That does not surprise me....
Good grief - why can't they just mea culpa this... I think many people would understand and see that we'll be at 100k soon....
Really tiresome stuff isn't it? You would think it would be quite easy to count things then tell people a straightforward number, but apparently there's shades of grey even to that. Interesting that they went for the "big lie" of 122K rather than the reality of 75K ish. Looks like they are more concerned with meeting an arbitary target than actually implementing a useful strategy. What are they going to do with the test results?
-
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in so picked this one. A good article by Paul Taylor, head of 'Health Informatics' at UCL. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/paul-taylor/susceptible-infectious-recovered (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/paul-taylor/susceptible-infectious-recovered). The LRB is usually paywalled so it might not be readable but I think if you register you can read a small number of articles.
Here's the final paragraph.
"The burden of the pandemic has so far fallen mainly on countries in South-East Asia, which coped with it relatively well, and Europe and North America, where the results have been more variable. Its spread will be global. We don’t have the data for many low and middle-income countries that would allow us to run detailed simulations of the kind I have described here. The Imperial team used a simple SIR model, adding survey data, where it exists, to estimate age-specific contact rates, which were then combined with demographic data and the Infection Fatality Rate estimates from China. The results suggest that, if nothing is done, the pandemic will lead to seven billion infections and forty million deaths worldwide. These figures could, in theory, be halved if various mitigation strategies were deployed, but healthcare systems everywhere would still be overwhelmed. The conclusion for the world is the same as it was for the UK. The only option is suppression, and its consequences, economic and social, are unknown."
-
Good post FD. Looks like it’s ravishing through parts of S America at the moment...
-
Re worldwide impact David Milliband was interviewed on the BBC saying that where politicians should be really concerned about is sub Saharan Africa. If they really start getting it, millions are quite likely to die, and migration and immigration will mean that unless it's eradicated or vaccinated against everywhere, then nowhere will be free of it. Essentially our worldwide situation is only as good as the weakest link. Sobering, but probably realistic.
-
Wasn't sure which thread to put this in so picked this one. A good article by Paul Taylor, head of 'Health Informatics' at UCL. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/paul-taylor/susceptible-infectious-recovered (https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n09/paul-taylor/susceptible-infectious-recovered). The LRB is usually paywalled so it might not be readable but I think if you register you can read a small number of articles.
Here's the final paragraph.
"The burden of the pandemic has so far fallen mainly on countries in South-East Asia, which coped with it relatively well, and Europe and North America, where the results have been more variable. Its spread will be global. We don’t have the data for many low and middle-income countries that would allow us to run detailed simulations of the kind I have described here. The Imperial team used a simple SIR model, adding survey data, where it exists, to estimate age-specific contact rates, which were then combined with demographic data and the Infection Fatality Rate estimates from China. The results suggest that, if nothing is done, the pandemic will lead to seven billion infections and forty million deaths worldwide. These figures could, in theory, be halved if various mitigation strategies were deployed, but healthcare systems everywhere would still be overwhelmed. The conclusion for the world is the same as it was for the UK. The only option is suppression, and its consequences, economic and social, are unknown."
I’m a short term reader of the LBR and some of these articles really need to be read at full length to appreciate the authors argument - this is one of the best, if not the best, pieces I have read in respect of the virus in the last couple of months. Jacqueline Roses article, in the same issue, is strangely pertinent to this one. Recommend both. Bit off topic. Sorry.
-
Not off topic at all 5knuckle - the LRB’s long form journo pieces are always on the money.
-
You would think it would be quite easy to count things then tell people a straightforward number, but apparently there's shades of grey even to that. Interesting that they went for the "big lie" of 122K rather than the reality of 75K ish.
Nigel - see above re: ‘tactically controversial’ number to keep it in the headlines. Same as £350k/wk, 50k nurses, 40 new hospitals...
I also hadn’t realised that Hancock sent out a mailshot to Tory members a few days before the deadline promoting the mail order tests with a link to the testing website - that’s where the stockpile of testing kits held back through early April will have come in handy! :-\
I guess the real test will come in maintaining those numbers and linking to a meaningful contact tracing strategy. And the overall ‘all causes’ mortality rate is a number that he presumably can’t fiddle or shy away from.
-
BBC Panorama showed they were counting individual paper towels and individual gloves in their ppe delivery totals...
-
BBC Panorama showed they were counting individual paper towels and individual gloves in their ppe delivery totals...
The one the government is now accusing of being biased you mean?
https://mobile.twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1256859029420290049
Note that they haven’t disputed any of the facts presented. They only have a problem with who spoke about those facts.
-
I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy?
This phrase really bothers me. There is no bearded man, high on a mountain, labouring down with stone tablets inscribed with 'The Science'.
There is no such thing as 'The Science'.
There are however, multiple scientific inputs of varying degrees of reliability. Once collated, the leadership elects a strategy. This is 'The Politics' for which No 10 appears very determined to avoid accepting responsibility.
The scientific output from SAGE looks compromised by political input too, which makes foisting responsibility onto neutral advisers like Whitty and Vallance even more egregious. Are either of them PM now, to dictate decisions to the country??
Boris needs to own his own decisions.
Yes JR agreed completely - I meant to put "the science" in quotations! Made myself watch the briefing yesterday, during the questions part of which the deputy CMO Jenny Harries answered a question about lifting the lockdown by saying that "we don't have enough information yet to be very clear on the immune status". Bit more here - https://inews.co.uk/news/health/we-dont-have-enough-information-yet-on-immunity-a-senior-medic-has-warned-2787219
I nearly choked on my beer! So in early May we don't yet have enough information on immunity. Fair enough, but how come we had enough information / "science" in early March to temporarily pursue a strategy of herd immunity?! The consequences of that mis-step are now becoming tragically clear.
Given that we are now gearing up to basically copy what South Korea did in late January (test, trace, isolate), the question has to be why didn't we do this back then? Something obviously went very wrong somewhere between SAGE ("the science") and Downing Street ("the politics").
-
how come we had enough information / "science" in early March to temporarily pursue a strategy of herd immunity?! The consequences of that mis-step are now becoming tragically clear.
Something obviously went very wrong somewhere between SAGE ("the science") and Downing Street ("the politics").
Not sure if you’ve seen, but former Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King has set up a 12-strong panel of academics to look at “the science” due to the lack of transparency of SAGE. Ostensibly to explore ways to exit the lockdown but presumably they’ll look at other decisions that have been made along the way. Press conference today at 4pm.
-
former Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King has set up a 12-strong panel of academics to look at “the science” due to the lack of transparency of SAGE.
Press conference today at 4pm.
Sorry, 4pm tomorrow.
-
Thanks for the heads up Ali, I'll try and watch that.
Current daily briefing notes a "slight dip" in most recent daily testing numbers. Of a slight, neither here-nor-there, margin of error, barely worth mentioning drop of 43,000 tests, from the maximum two days before.
-
Yeh, it's amazing. The National Medical Director of NHS England. A professor of medicine no less. Someone you might think would know how to interpret a statistic or two. Suggests that an almost 40% reduction from Friday's high point is just a "slight dip" due to the weekend. When there's been no discernible weekend variation whatsoever. In fact Fridays have if anything previously shown a slight drop in numbers for whatever reason.
And we're supposed to believe these people straddling the government ministers at the lecterns every evening are independent of political direction.
-
I didn't see any briefings last week. When the test numbers went up 43,000 overnight to meet Hancock's target, I presume that this was described, in equally dispassionate terms, as a "slight increase"?
-
Jobs for the boys (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/vote-leave-ai-firm-wins-seven-government-contracts-in-18-months)
-
Jobs for the boys (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/vote-leave-ai-firm-wins-seven-government-contracts-in-18-months)
Appalling, but unsurprising. In an extra twist the NHSX app is being delivered by CEO Matthew Gould. Those with long memories will recall he was an intergral part of the Fox-Werrity scandal, and thus already has form for dealing on national security matters with people with no security clearance.
-
Interesting. I would like to know more, this section of the article made me curious.
Faculty is working at the heart of the government’s response to the pandemic. It has been processing large volumes of confidential UK patient information in an “unprecedented” data-mining operation alongside Palantir, a US firm founded by the libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel.
Marc Warner disclosed in an article in the Times that he too attended a critical meeting of Sage in March before the lockdown was imposed. He argued that he needed to align Faculty’s work with that of the rest of government, including Sage. Faculty said he attended Sage as an observer.
-
Apologies if this has been posted already but I came across this today:
https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2020/may/01/uk-government-faces-legal-challenge-coronavirus-lockdown-businessman-simon-dolan
He seems like a complete twat. We’ve been in lockdown for roughly 40 days...28,000 deaths from CV-19 in the uk. He thinks the lockdown was a bad idea - how many more people would’ve died if the government had just said ‘crack on, don’t worry about the virus’???
Particularly annoyed by this as he is living in Monaco.
-
Free to read article in the FT on a subject which seems to have dropped off the agenda, PPE for health workers, so posting to keep it current: https://www.ft.com/content/9680c20f-7b71-4f65-9bec-0e9554a8e0a7
-
He seems like a complete twat. We’ve been in lockdown for roughly 40 days...28,000 deaths from CV-19 in the uk. He thinks the lockdown was a bad idea - how many more people would’ve died if the government had just said ‘crack on, don’t worry about the virus’???
I can't see this litigation going anywhere for a whole host of reasons.
-
He seems like a complete twat. We’ve been in lockdown for roughly 40 days...28,000 deaths from CV-19 in the uk. He thinks the lockdown was a bad idea - how many more people would’ve died if the government had just said ‘crack on, don’t worry about the virus’???
I can't see this litigation going anywhere for a whole host of reasons.
I wonder if his lawyer believes in the case or just took it on because they’ll get paid regardless of the outcome?
-
He seems like a complete twat. We’ve been in lockdown for roughly 40 days...28,000 deaths from CV-19 in the uk. He thinks the lockdown was a bad idea - how many more people would’ve died if the government had just said ‘crack on, don’t worry about the virus’???
I can't see this litigation going anywhere for a whole host of reasons.
It sounds like someone setting themselves up to be the next Farage; in which case, it’s more important to lose...
-
He's also known for promoting David Icke videos.
-
Members of SAGE now public: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups
"2 participants have not given permission to be named". Hmmm I wonder who they could be?
-
From earlier in the thread:
So after 32 daily Covid press conferences where our top scientific advisers have wheeled out a graph showing the ‘global comparison of deaths’, today a significant proportion was spent arguing why you shouldn’t compare with other countries. Including pointing out an article in the Guardian by David Spiegelhalter on that subject.
Turns out David Spiegelhalter is on SAGE.
-
Members of SAGE now public: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups
Released to coincide with the first meeting of the ‘Independent SAGE’ group.
-
From earlier in the thread:
So after 32 daily Covid press conferences where our top scientific advisers have wheeled out a graph showing the ‘global comparison of deaths’, today a significant proportion was spent arguing why you shouldn’t compare with other countries. Including pointing out an article in the Guardian by David Spiegelhalter on that subject.
Turns out David Spiegelhalter is on SAGE.
Is this a simple statement of fact or am I missing something?
Should he not be on SAGE? Or should he be on SAGE, but not have written the article? Or should he have written the article, but not be on SAGE? Or should he neither a. be on SAGE nor b. have written the article?
Or is it something else?
Should the gov not have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries because they are flawed? Or should they have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries despite them being flawed?
And should they have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries, AND said that they were flawed? Or should they have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries BUT said they weren't flawed (or just not mentioned flaws)?
Or should they not have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries AND said they were not making them because they were flawed? Or should they not have made (flawed) comparisons to other countries BUT NOT said they weren't making (flawed) comparisons because they were flawed but for some other reason?
Or something else? Or nothing?
Help me out here I'm struggling to know the rules of what they should be doing, to be doing it right! ;D
-
Help me out here I'm struggling to know the rules of what they should be doing, to be doing it right!
To achieve “maximum transparency”, which is what the government claims to be striving for, they should livestream the SAGE meetings (same as they do with parliamentary select committees) with all the contributors publishing any data or modelling. Or at the very least publish full minutes from the meetings immediately afterwards.
And then government creates policy off the back of that. If it was all out in the open then ministers wouldn’t have to justify any of the science - only the policies they come up with. Which is surely the way it should be?
-
And you Nige, do you agree with this? ^
Interesting, seems a pretty high transparency bar if you don't mind me saying. It's *almost* as if you don't trust anyone in government to make decisions :o
Other than policy for responding to coronavirus, which other parts of government policy-making do you think should apply this level of transparency: Defence? Transport? Home Security? Foreign Policy? Budget? Education? Agriculture? Public Health? All? None? Some? If some why not the others?
-
Members of SAGE now public: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups
"2 participants have not given permission to be named". Hmmm I wonder who they could be?
52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...
-
Other than policy for responding to coronavirus, which other parts of government policy-making do you think should apply this level of transparency:
Before expanding the discussion to other policy areas (which I’m not avoiding and is an interesting subject), do you disagree with the above level of transparency? Given that this is a new virus, there is very rapidly emerging scientific research, and opening up the debate to as wide a range of expert opinion could potentially save many thousands of lives? Not to mention that full transparency and peer review is the accepted model of scientific and medical research.
-
I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.
I do think this sentiment is worth considering:
52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...
In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.
And I also think transparency is often a good thing.
I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.
-
Partly answering Pete (I think) the problem with this secret / no need to bother your pretty little heads with al the details approach is that it treats the public like idiots.
People are in general sensible enough to get behind a decision if they can see the logic - and understand why decisions have been made. AFAIK this is the process in Germany - where Merkel made it clear that people needed to be treated with respect and make the decision making process transparent.
I thought this at first after the first few Cv pressers with the experts flanking the pm making sensible points. But by the day it seems that quite a bit is being hidden from us.
Same with the relaxing of the rules. Why. For fucks sake has the debate about this had to be led by the Welsh, Scottish Governments - and the Tony Blair institute?? Why are we being patronised about a plan being released on Sunday - with teasers (deliberately) leaked to the press this week to gauge opinion? This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this. Grr.
-
I do think this sentiment is worth considering:
52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...
It’s a rolling participation. 52 people don’t sit in every meeting, only the one relevant to their area of expertise. So not an argument to avoid transparency.
In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.
If only the government had listened to you back in February.
-
Regarding time etc... didn’t SAGE meet twice a week from new year up to the beginning of March... it’s not like there’s one big meeting where it’s all decided - viewpoints evolve.
-
Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair, for other reasons) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.
What do you think has changed since the first daily briefings? Might you have just got used to the experts flanking the politicians and begun finding it less illuminating than that first flush of expert love?
-
Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.
What do you think has changed since the first daily briefings? Might you have just got used to the experts flanking the politicians and begun finding it less illuminating than that first flush of expert love?
Pete - that answer is ignoring my points and questioning my own views about the PM’s pressers - which tbh are not relevant (my views).
The point transparency and openness is important - and rather than prod me - do you disagree with me about this?
-
I don't know exactly what point you're making other than a general one that you feel th government hasn't been transparent (about the science?). Personally I feel like I know more than enough (at a layman level) about the science but I couldn't tell you whether that's because the government is transparent 'enough' or whether it's because I like finding out stuff for myself. Probably the latter.
See my reply to Ali:
I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.
I do think this sentiment is worth considering:
52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...
In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.
And I also think transparency is often a good thing.
I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.
-
Not transparent about the science or the decision making process - whilst pretending to be driven by the science - when evidence points that they have not been.
None of which would be a problem if they were transparent.
As per my example about the exit strategy..
-
I haven't thought this but maybe I'm wrong. What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?
My view on exit strategy is why talk about it to joe bloggs when the number one most important point was to stay at home as far as possible? Decision-makers in business etc. don't have their heads in the sand/up their arse they have a different view from what's said to joe bloggs in daily briefings. Our group were talking last week about returning to business as it's obvious which way the wind is blowing - you don't need a weatherman to tell you etc...
Now that we're obviously moving into easing, it's the right time to talk about it to joe bloggs.
-
I don't know exactly what point you're making other than a general one that you feel th government hasn't been transparent (about the science?). Personally I feel like I know more than enough (at a layman level) about the science but I couldn't tell you whether that's because the government is transparent 'enough' or whether it's because I like finding out stuff for myself. Probably the latter.
See my reply to Ali:
I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.
I do think this sentiment is worth considering:
52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...
In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.
And I also think transparency is often a good thing.
I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.
Bad mood, mate?
I read:
“They” (some of the above posters) would like to see more transparency, than there has been (one wanted total, live streamed transparency). Most, just said “more” and there was mention of the (actually pretty silly) recent trend of “teasers” and leaks to gauge opinion prior to announcing policy (your cynical man, might add “and the eventual “U” turn on that policy).
That seems to answer your original question, unless you’re actually expecting a detailed, 30 page, analysis from each poster delineating the pros and cons of every aspect and effect of full transparency on each individual subject and topic.
Also, no clue why anyone needs to be “more knowledgeable” on any topic to request more detail to government policy making and the advice it’s based on?
I tend to think TT is more than a little off with his assessment of Joe public as “mostly sensible”, because I think they’re “mostly large rubber phalluses” most of the time and I fully agree, they shouldn’t be overly involved in (probably) most discussion of technical advice committees.
Jesus! If you think Cummings listening in might influence a debate, what the crap do you imagine a live audience of contrary twunts would do?
Because you know “most” or even “normal” people won’t bother tuning in, most of the time, but your average David Icke worshiping mouth breather, will be following religiously; along with vocal misrepresentation of every other sentence uttered.
Then, when the shit hits the fan (such as these Halcyon days) all the middle class know all’s will flock to the stream.
Just the sort of pressure you want somebody will a left field idea to float amongst the committee, to be under...
That’s a bit of a jest, not a slagging, Pete. I know you only wanted 20 pages.
-
What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?
The lack of any evidence shows they haven’t been transparent. Beyond the 52 members of SAGE and a few government ministers no one knows what “science” the decisions have been based on. And also what “science” has been ignored or filtered out between the SAGE meeting and the subsequent government decision.
-
Bad mood, mate?
I read:
“They” (some of the above posters) would like to see more transparency, than there has been (one wanted total, live streamed transparency). Most, just said “more” and there was mention of the (actually pretty silly) recent trend of “teasers” and leaks to gauge opinion prior to announcing policy (your cynical man, might add “and the eventual “U” turn on that policy).
That seems to answer your original question, unless you’re actually expecting a detailed, 30 page, analysis from each poster delineating the pros and cons of every aspect and effect of full transparency on each individual subject and topic.
Also, no clue why anyone needs to be “more knowledgeable” on any topic to request more detail to government policy making and the advice it’s based on?
I tend to think TT is more than a little off with his assessment of Joe public as “mostly sensible”, because I think they’re “mostly large rubber phalluses” most of the time and I fully agree, they shouldn’t be overly involved in (probably) most discussion of technical advice committees.
Jesus! If you think Cummings listening in might influence a debate, what the crap do you imagine a live audience of contrary twunts would do?
Because you know “most” or even “normal” people won’t bother tuning in, most of the time, but your average David Icke worshiping mouth breather, will be following religiously; along with vocal misrepresentation of every other sentence uttered.
Then, when the shit hits the fan (such as these Halcyon days) all the middle class know all’s will flock to the stream.
Just the sort of pressure you want somebody will a left field idea to float amongst the committee, to be under...
That’s a bit of a jest, not a slagging, Pete. I know you only wanted 20 pages.
Err, no?
Just genuinely interested in what people think and why. Do you have to be in a bad mood to ask questions like that?
And yes to every twunt and his half-witted dog second-guessing a scientist offering an opinion.
-
What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?
The lack of any evidence shows they haven’t been transparent. Beyond the 52 members of SAGE and a few government ministers no one knows what “science” the decisions have been based on. And also what “science” has been ignored or filtered out between the SAGE meeting and the subsequent government decision.
I'm not saying all the evidence is out there - because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether it is or not.
But you mean beyond the evidence of many SAGE members talking directly to the public about the science on their twitter, blogs, articles, select committee hearings, and many of the science being publicly available to read in published studies? So apart from that evidence?
-
Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair, for other reasons) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.
Imagine using sensible, open and transparent leadership to come across as a competent politician. The mind boggles. Almost as if the public appreciates not being treated like children.
-
you mean beyond the evidence of many SAGE members talking directly to the public about the science on their twitter, blogs, articles, select committee hearings, and many of the science being publicly available to read in published studies? So apart from that evidence?
Yeh you’re probably right. What a waste of time those SAGE meetings were! Boris should have just read their blogs and twitter feeds.
-
Not transparent about the science or the decision making process - whilst pretending to be driven by the science - when evidence points that they have not been.
None of which would be a problem if they were transparent.
As per my example about the exit strategy..
Since there's now two panels of scientists, evidence might suggest there's more than one 'science' to be driven by!
-
This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this. Grr.
Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?
-
This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this. Grr.
Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
:agree: Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
-
Yeah, almost like what all those nob-heads needed was a bit less transparency from the government and just to be hit with the lock-down unexpected ::)
Anyway don't you realise the type of people they're trying to deal with..
https://youtu.be/8rJQ6yXWtyk
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
:agree: Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?
-
This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this. Grr.
Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Jeez, it was one representative example, I don't have vast amounts of time to write an essay detailing every single way people weren't following the advice not to congregate.
-
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?
But isn't this perfectly predictable human behaviour and therefore something to be factored into the modelling and advice given by SAGE? Same reason we don't just ask people kindly to pay their tax?
Or perhaps it was, and was overruled by Johnson's 'libertarian nature' thinking it'd be best to let the public have one final blow out over the weekend? Then the public could be blamed for having 'forced the government's hand', rather than the govt having to be decisive? Hard to imagine "the science" prescribing that lockdown should begin on a Monday. But it'd be interesting to see those minutes.
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
:agree: Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?
The public were asked, not told. Given the circumstances I described, yes I think it was inevitable that a fair percentage would choose to ignore or interpret their own way. Given the lack of other options and the limited number of parking spaces at well known beauty spots, an excess volume of visitors was the result, even though most of the public did stay at home. Does this mean I think the public can't be trusted? Some can, some can't. On aggregate a percentage are untrustworthy. Is that a controversial conclusion to draw?
-
Stay at home like they were asked?
Were we asked that? I had a v quick look back at news from 20th March (the Friday before the lockdown) and it looks mostly like we were being asked to avoid unnecessary social contact, not to stay at home.
-
Turns out David Spiegelhalter is on SAGE.
Is this a simple statement of fact or am I missing something?.............
Help me out here I'm struggling to know the rules of what they should be doing, to be doing it right! ;D
No you didn't miss anything, it was a simple statement of fact. I'd just looked over the SAGE member list, that name stood out as having already been mentioned recently in the thread, so I raised it in case it was of any interest to those who had been discussing that topic.
Now I've had a think, my only personal comment on this would be that it was the same day on which 1) UK Gov changed to counting "all settings" deaths, 2) Prof Spiegelhalter's article came out, and 3) his article was referenced by Whitty in the briefing. Given that they both sit on SAGE then it *looks* coordinated, which was not clear at the time. That is all I draw from it. Beyond that then you can concoct any theory you like, ranging from the mundanely informative to the machiavellianly conspiratorial, as to why. I'll leave that to others.
On the transparency point, if the above was coordinated then the effect is that we have received a very thin sliver of the thinking of one or two people on SAGE via the backdoor of a seemingly random and independent article in the Guardian. Do all of SAGE agree?
On the other questions of transparency, my instinctive first reaction would be that the maximum extreme end of live-streaming SAGE would be a nonsense for various reasons. However I would expect at least the minimum that their findings and recommendations to the government would be summarised in plain language and published somewhere in the public domain in a timely manner. When the government then acts we can all see on what basis. The advantages should be obvious. Not least for the scientists who actually sit on SAGE! The present system does seem to allow the government to "follow the science", thus setting "the science" up for a bit of a fall, if required. To give an example, Priti Patel has recently said in parliament that the UK instigated no border controls (in stark contrast to most other countries) because "that is what the science said". We now know that they did quarantine some incoming travellers. 273 to be precise. Out of millions. Obviously all our first cases were imported. Is 273 the amount the science said? It would be good to know...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this "alternative SAGE" is all a part of the scientists, perhaps even those actually on SAGE, suggesting that perhaps we haven't been following their recommendations after all...
-
Stay at home like they were asked?
Were we asked that? I had a v quick look back at news from 20th March (the Friday before the lockdown) and it looks mostly like we were being asked to avoid unnecessary social contact, not to stay at home.
No we weren't. And the 22nd March press conference was the one in which Johnson seemed incredulous that police might get involved in enforcing social distancing when asked.
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
:agree: Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?
Regards agreeing or not with ChrisJ. I disagree with the "we collectively forced their hand" bit. My point was that the government statement earlier in the week had a predictable consequence and the government's behavior people should have predicted it.
Blaming everyone for what a portion did in the absence of an adequately strong request is merely blame shifting. Vagueness aside, it was clear to many that lockdown was on its way and this doubtless persuaded some that this weekend would be their last opportunity for some time to go out and about, hence a sort of request to stay at home having the opposite result. A vague and piecemeal staged lockdown was not the best approach and it's no surprise that people took it to mean different things at that point.
-
I'm surprised to see people thinking we weren't being asked to stay home in the week before the lockdown. Lockdown started on 23rd March. On 17th March Boris addressed the nation and said "now is the time for everyone to stop .... all non-essential travel".
People should from home where "they possibly can" and "should avoid pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues".
Here's a news article from the 17th. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pm-urges-britons-to-avoid-pubs-restaurants-and-theatres-11958549
The advice given at that point is pretty similar to what the lockdown implemented. The difference is that in the week starting the 16th March they asked, and didn't tell, us to do it.
If you think that upon seeing that advice it was inevitable that the pubic would head en-mass to the national parks and keep going to pubs, then that is forcing the government into lockdown no?
There is an alternative universe where on the 18th March we all started behaving in a manner that was consistent with what the government requested. In that parallel universe we might still have retained the privilege of using our common sense about our activities, rather than enduring an enforced lockdown.
-
I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.
Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.
:agree: Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?
Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?
Regards agreeing or not with ChrisJ. I disagree with the "we collectively forced their hand" bit. My point was that the government statement earlier in the week had a predictable consequence and the government's behavior people should have predicted it.
Blaming everyone for what a portion did in the absence of an adequately strong request is merely blame shifting. Vagueness aside, it was clear to many that lockdown was on its way and this doubtless persuaded some that this weekend would be their last opportunity for some time to go out and about, hence a sort of request to stay at home having the opposite result. A vague and piecemeal staged lockdown was not the best approach and it's no surprise that people took it to mean different things at that point.
My impression is very much that the scientific advice changed abruptly and significantly.
Whether that was a change of heart from the experts or the sudden lifting of a politically motivated filter on that advice, remains to be determined.
-
There is an alternative universe where on the 18th March we all started behaving in a manner that was consistent with what the government requested. In that parallel universe we might still have retained the privilege of using our common sense about our activities, rather than enduring an enforced lockdown.
To take that more literally than it was probably intended, I don't think there is such a parallel universe. People are too diverse. If you re-ran these events a billion times, the same inputs would produce the same outcomes. Individuals are unpredictable, 66 million much less so.
Basing policy on what you'd like to happen, rather than what you know will actually happen seems unwise.
-
Bonjoy - I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't understand is that what you are saying is that muppet behaviour by a significant minority was inevitable without forced restrictions, but that we weren't collectively responsible for forcing the government to lock down.
How do you square the circle?
-
I'm surprised to see people thinking we weren't being asked to stay home in the week before the lockdown.
Huh, weird. I remember that day because we'd moved to home working on the Friday before and I remember thinking we'd only beaten the gov recommendation by a few days. I obviously didn't pick up on, or chose not to pick up on, the non-essential travel part. Although you already know that I find "essential" without a "for xxx" to be something that makes me want to :wall: :chair: so maybe I just ignore anything with the word essential in it as being inherently dumb.
-
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this "alternative SAGE" is all a part of the scientists, perhaps even those actually on SAGE, suggesting that perhaps we haven't been following their recommendations after all...
Like the recommendation from SAGE that “a public message against shaking hands has additional value as a signal about the importance of hand hygiene. Encouraging others to politely decline a proffered hand-shake may have benefit” given on the same day (3rd March) as Johnson proudly announced at a press conference that he’d been to a hospital with Covid patients recently and ”shook hands with everybody and...I continue to shake hands”.
If such simple and easy to follow public health guidance from SAGE with no political implications/considerations can be so casually dismissed by the PM then it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they haven’t been slavishly “following the science” when it comes to more politically sensitive decisions.
-
Stu, I think there’s a bit of hindsight going on.
I went out on Kinder for a ‘last’ big (socially distanced) run on the Sunday morning (22 March) with a mate as “we knew what was coming”. I don’t remember prior to that weekend being advised against all but essential travel? If it was reported in some media it wasn’t widespread. My expectation was that we’d be heading for lockdown that coming week.
I’d already taken my kids out of school the previous week before the Gov policy changed, so was alive to the need for social distancing.
My mind was on social distancing not not travelling.
-
The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.
http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/
If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...
But there’s no hindsight here TB - no non-essential travel was the government’s official advice from the 17th March. For whatever reason some were not aware but it’s in the news reports - clear as day.
-
Bonjoy - I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't understand is that what you are saying is that muppet behaviour by a significant minority was inevitable without forced restrictions, but that we weren't collectively responsible for forcing the government to lock down.
How do you square the circle?
Because I dont believe in holding people responsible collectively for individual decisions.
I'm not to blame for people hanging bags of dog poo on hedges. If the government banned dogs tomorrow because of the practice I would resent being held collectively responsible.
-
The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.
http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/
If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...
This was also my point. The advice was clearly not unequivocal (or internally consistent), hence people's varying recollections. Latitude will always result in multiple interpretations of varying validity, even if everyone is sincerely trying to follow the spirit of the guidance.
-
To give an example, Priti Patel has recently said in parliament that the UK instigated no border controls (in stark contrast to most other countries) because "that is what the science said". We now know that they did quarantine some incoming travellers. 273 to be precise. Out of millions. Obviously all our first cases were imported. Is 273 the amount the science said? It would be good to know...
In the interests of transparency (!), just read that Vallance has testified to the Health Select Committee that:
"the idea that you could control this outbreak by stopping travel from one place would not work. He says the advice from SAGE was that either very draconian travel restrictions had to be imposed, or else it was not worth it".
So Patel was half right i.e. they clearly initially opted to quarantine Wuhan travellers (from one place), and was then presented with two scientifically considered options for the future. She chose the not worth it / do nothing option. It is at this point that seeing the "draconian measures" SAGE actually presented would be useful.
-
the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected.
This wasn’t restricted just to the week before lockdown. Remember all the confusion over what was “essential” in the weeks following 23rd March because no guidance had been issued?
-
Nigel, 'Very draconian measures' would surely mean closing all of the major entry points from the EU/rest of the world into the UK - 12-15 major airports, plus 5 or 6 seaports and the channel tunnel.
What else might it mean, that would be 'draconian' and effective in preventing infected travellers arriving?
-
Nigel, 'Draconian' would surely mean closing all of the major entry points from the EU/rest of the world into the UK - 12-15 major airports, plus 5 or 6 seaports and the channel tunnel.
Are you one of the 2 un-named SAGE advisers Pete? :bow:
I think it's quite hard to pre-empt exactly what the SAGE advice would have been. "Draconian measures" could have been temperature checks on all passengers/drivers, mandatory testing on arrival, mandatory 14 day quarantining (like the ones repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship - remember that?), or all of the above. It wouldn't necessarily just be a blanket closure of all access points into the UK. But to achieve the above they would have needed to be way ahead of where they were at the time in terms of testing ability and isolation procedures so it may well have been the only viable option just to go with the 'do nothing' approach. In the same way as the 'test and isolate' strategy was abandoned early on due to the lack of testing capability.
If only they'd had...oh I don't know...an extra 38 days or so to get a head start!
-
Our perceptions of draconian have probably shifted quite alot in the last 6 weeks!
-
The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.
http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/
If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...
But there’s no hindsight here TB - no non-essential travel was the government’s official advice from the 17th March. For whatever reason some were not aware but it’s in the news reports - clear as day.
On this one thread, out of at least 4 similar, in this clique of almost entirely (at a minimum) contributors with tertiary education, your post was number 586 on the subject of “who said what, when, what did they actually mean, why did they say that and not something else and why did other people not hear what I heard?”
So, yeah, direct, unequivocal, simple, instructions; will always be better (they weren’t enough of those things) and people are muppets, even if not overtly antagonistic.
-
The problem with the statement "we followed the science" is that I doubt it is a clear cut answer and not necessarily everyone will agree. I would imagine the "scientific advice" is actually a spectrum of, "if we do this then this happens" from not doing a lot to restricting all freedoms and it's then a judgement call (made by who?) as to what extent or how forcibly measures are introduced.
It will be very interesting* in hindsight to compare the options "the science" put forward and how that was distorted/conveyed through the political lens of the government.
I think we can all agree that the government have not exactly covered themselves in glory in their communication of their message, with Boris' comment on shaking peoples' hands and going to see his Mother on Mother's Day, the general air of "it's not that bad/only the flu/no need to get all panicky about it" really permeated through society until everyone realised that it actually was a big deal.
-
Pete, Ali has largely given the answer I would give so I won't rehash it. If we knew the exact measures proposed then we might see whether we were looking at a pure resource issue or not. Or whether this was actually practically surmountable given the will to do so or not i.e. was there a political decision not to bother, despite it being technically possible? As in the hypothetical perfect world it would probably have helped the immediate UK situation to have done it. Being frank I suspect as per your previous posts you are probably right on this - possibly there was indeed no way we could have done this at short notice. But if true it would be good to know what the logjams were so we can know whether we have sorted them out.
If it subsequently turns out that in the near future that we copy France and instigate some kind of foreign travel testing / quarantine (similar to how we seem to be belatedly swapping to test-track-trace) then would you not like to know what the recommendations are for this?
Finally we have all been using the word because Vallance did in committee, but I would be surprised if SAGE had actually used the word "draconian" in their recommendations as it is a clear value judgement! If they did then again I would like to know.
-
Ali and Nige, woah there, I was offering the most likely interpretation of what 'very draconian measures' might mean when you consider the context that the CSO made the statement - bear in mind he also said that anything other than a complete travel ban would be ineffective at stopping transmission, and even that would likely be pointless. It doesn't take the brains of Britain or a SAGE member to join the dots here..
The CSO is on record in early March as saying a travel ban was pointless and wouldn't work. (because covid was already in the population and spreading).
So Ali, please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting 'very draconian' might mean 'just temperature checks of arriving passengers' or other similar half-measures. Look at the WHO's advice on such measures also, when considering decisions made at the time.
Nigel and Ali if you're going to use hindsight to try to pick apart decisions then you must look at the context in which decisions were made. Your tone comes across to me as wishing to 'ascribe blame' as per the Spiegelhalter article.
What the WHO were (still are) saying at the time is freely available to view.
The WHO has consistently issued advice against banning international travel saying it won't work except in limited country-specific circumstances (which hints at why NZ's travel ban was effective - i.e. limited international connections):
Jan 20th
WHO advises against the application of any restrictions of international traffic based on the information currently available on this event.
[/b]
Feb 29th
Feb 29th: 'WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks.
In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.
Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. Since WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern in relation to COVID-19, and as of 27 February, 38 countries have reported to WHO additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic in relation to travel to and from China or other countries, ranging from denial of entry of passengers, visa restrictions or quarantine for returning travellers. Several countries that denied entry of travellers or who have suspended the flights to and from China or other affected countries, are now reporting cases of COVID-19.
[/b]
On temperature screening:
20th Jan:
The evidence from the past outbreaks shows that effectiveness of entry screening is uncertain, but it may support risk communication strategy by providing information to travellers from affected countries/areas to reduce the general risk of acute respiratory infections, and to seek medical attention early if they develop symptoms compatible with the infection.
During the current outbreak with the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, a number of exported cases were detected through entry screening implemented by some countries. Symptomatic cases may be detected through temperature screening at Point of Entry, for whom medical examination and laboratory tests will be conducted for confirmation. Temperature screening to detect potential suspect cases at Point of Entry may miss travellers incubating the disease or travellers concealing fever during travel and may require substantial investments. A focused approach targeting direct flights from affected areas could be more effective and less resource demanding.
Currently the northern hemisphere (and China) is in the midst of the winter season when Influenza and other respiratory infections are prevalent. When deciding implementation of entry screening, countries need to take into consideration that travellers with signs and symptoms suggestive of respiratory infection may result from respiratory diseases other than 2019-nCoV, and that their follow-up may impose an additional burden on the health system. National policy and capacities should be taken into account during the decision-making process.
29th Feb:
Temperature screening alone, at exit or entry, is not an effective way to stop international spread, since infected individuals may be in incubation period, may not express apparent symptoms early on in the course of the disease, or may dissimulate fever through the use of antipyretics; in addition, such measures require substantial investments for what may bear little benefits. It is more effective to provide prevention recommendation messages to travellers and to collect health declarations at arrival, with travellers’ contact details, to allow for a proper risk assessment and a possible contact tracing of incoming travellers.
-
Ali and Nige, woah there, I was offering the most likely interpretation of what 'very draconian measures' might mean....
You might well be! Though if we actually knew what they were then we wouldn't have to guess.
The CSO is on record in early March as saying a travel ban was pointless and wouldn't work. (because covid was already in the population and spreading)
Ok fine, but then in mid-march most other countries worldwide instigated some kind of border control (I linked earlier, but on phone now so struggling to bring forward). There's a clear difference in approach there for which an explanation would be nice.
In light of that it looks like we were one of the only countries following the WHO recommendations you provided. Did something in their recommendations change in mid-march? Your links are up to late feb. Genuine question as am on phone and signal is poor so hard to check.
-
No the guidance didn’t change, what I posted is the current WHO advice on international travel restrictions if you go on their website today. Same as feb 29th.
Other countries may have done. But they weren’t ‘following the science’!
Sucks to be a government hey, damned either way.
-
in mid-march most other countries worldwide instigated some kind of border control. There's a clear difference in approach there for which an explanation would be nice.
In light of that it looks like we were one of the only countries following the WHO recommendations you provided.
Could it be that the WHO is fully aware of the implications that a total travel ban would have on a nation’s economy (it even says something along those lines in the text Pete provided) and therefore is reluctant to get involved in those political and economic decisions so errs on the side of advising against?
If that were the case the disparity could be that those other countries have made a different political decision to us based on their specific circumstances / state of preparedness. I don’t know, just a hypothesis?
-
Just to break the routine, here’s a quote (supposedly from a CofE Vicar is his weekly news letter):
“And, finally, congratulations to the Prime Minister on the birth of his sixth child. Of course, that’s just counting the ones born in hospital, the real total may be higher...”
-
“And, finally, congratulations to the Prime Minister on the birth of his sixth child. Of course, that’s just counting the ones born in hospital, the real total may be higher...”
I doubt even the PM knows the "all settings" number....
-
No the guidance didn’t change, what I posted is the current WHO advice on international travel restrictions if you go on their website today. Same as feb 29th.
I have checked, and on that you are quite right.
Other countries may have done. But they weren’t ‘following the science’!
They may have been following this? Hidden away on the WHO Technical Guidance pages, "Management of ill travellers at Points of Entry (international airports, seaports, and ground crossings) in the context of COVID-19": https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331512/WHO-2019-nCoV-POEmgmt-2020.2-eng.pdf
Published 19th March. From the intro:
Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), the public
health authorities at points of entry—international ports,
airports, and ground crossings—are required to establish
effective contingency plans and arrangements for responding
a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and to
communicate with the National IHR Focal Point on relevant
public health measures. The current COVID-19 outbreak has
spread across several borders, which has prompted the
demand for the detection and management of suspected cases
at points of entry.
It is of course just a guess, but the publishing date would tie up with when the vast majority of countries started some kind of controls i.e. around that date in March: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/coronavirus-travel-restrictions-border-shutdowns-country-200318091505922.html
-
“And, finally, congratulations to the Prime Minister on the birth of his sixth child. Of course, that’s just counting the ones born in hospital, the real total may be higher...”
I doubt even the PM knows the "all settings" number....
Disappointed by that vicar..... no mention of z values for excess births.
-
On international comparisons. This is a tweet from a Conservative MP on the 15th March comparing Italy and the UK in an attempt to argue that our strategy is working. He’s now deleted the tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1257970488103534592
-
That's nothing. There around 60 thousand posts on ukb comparing us with Italy in an attempt to argue that our strategy isn't working. Neither views are based on reliable evidence.
-
That's nothing. There around 60 thousand posts on ukb comparing us with Italy in an attempt to argue that our strategy isn't working. Neither views are based on reliable evidence.
Yeh, except (a) none of us are serving MPs so our output means fuck all; and (b) the important point about the tweet is that he wrote it when the numbers supported his argument but deleted it when they didn’t, which shows the integrity of the man. And that is also consistent with how the stance of the government has shifted at the daily press conferences in terms of international comparison.
-
Views on the UK C19 response from around the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/complacent-uk-draws-global-criticism-for-covid-19-response-boris-johnson
-
On international comparisons, this tweet from PMQs shows Starmer and Johnson discussing the issue:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1258010797902565377 (https://mobile.twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1258010797902565377)
-
Also on international comparisons, there now follows a message from our old friend Prof Spiegelhalter:
https://twitter.com/d_spiegel/status/1258087627003179009
Not happy about people misusing his Guardian article. Up to and including the PM!
-
Anyway, going back to my previous post about why other countries piled into lockdowns and border controls in mid-March, I had overlooked that the WHO had declared Covid to be officially a pandemic on 11th March. I think, looking at everything in the round, the period March 11-23 will be a crucial one for any future public inquiry. Its in that time window that most other European countries started taking concrete steps, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-52103747
It is also in that time window that the UK abandoned contact tracing (12th March) and did nothing much else except gave handwashing advice. For whatever reason.
I know it only looks like a short window but the transmission is exponential. It would be informative to do a trial model of our current lockdown measures but starting a week earlier - what would that show?
-
Views on the UK C19 response from around the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/complacent-uk-draws-global-criticism-for-covid-19-response-boris-johnson
No-one's interested in dismal stuff like that Offwidth, we have the salacious headlines about Neil Ferguson's love life to keep us distracted. Thank goodness the Telegraph was able to publish it on the same day as this stuff about overtaking Italy's death toll (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/uk/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-europe-scli-gbr-intl/index.html). I wonder why they published it nearly a month after the event? :-\
-
I fondly remember the days when Prof's lockdown tryst with married belle would have meant something different. Even then it might have been a useful distraction from bad news.
-
Its a childishly blatant deflection tactic. The sad thing is it might just work given the press we have in the UK (including the BBC). Going by these two articles in the Guardian (sorry!), it looks like the scientists on SAGE might be twigging that they are being set up to share / take the rap. Surprised it took them this long, that much was obvious from the first utterance of the phrase "we (UK Gov) followed the science".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/06/uk-scientists-being-drawn-into-very-unpleasant-political-situation
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/06/author-of-guardian-article-on-death-tolls-asks-government-to-stop-using-it
We might see all SAGE advice to date getting leaked soon at this rate, by the scientists.
-
It is also in that time window that the UK abandoned contact tracing (12th March) and did nothing much else except gave handwashing advice. For whatever reason.
I know it only looks like a short window but the transmission is exponential. It would be informative to do a trial model of our current lockdown measures but starting a week earlier - what would that show?
Apologies in advance for going well outside of my area of expertise, if it is all bollocks then I will retract, but there is a link here to paper on this subject (caveats - not-peer reviewed, seemingly high R): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20052340v1.full.pdf
Obviously garbage in etc, so I would choose to ignore the exact figures themselves and rather look at them relatively, but from the abstract:
In a 12 week lockdown from 24 March with transmission parameters reduced to 20% of their previous values, around 63,000 severely ill patients will need hospitalisation by mid June, 37,000 critically ill will need intensive care, whilst over 81,000 are expected to die. Had the lockdown begun on 17 March around 16,500 severe, 9,250 critical cases and 18,500 deaths would be expected by early June. With 10% transmission, severe and critical cases peak in April.
I know that you can take this argument to the extreme i.e. if we were in permanent lockdown since 1800 then no one would ever catch anything, but it is illustrative that being slow to lockdown, even by a week, does have a big effect. A statement of the obvious of course, but I thought it was interesting to put some numbers on it.
There is a context with regard to coming out of lockdown. A week earlier at the start would arguably save many more weeks at the other end.
-
I agree entirely with that argument but that's not what SAGE were telling the government according to the Times expose. SAGE failed on timing, not Boris. You can partly blame the government for too much emphasis on modelling in SAGE and too little on epidemic control and the medical and logistical aspects of epidemic management but the experts involved have to take a big part of that blame (unless we are missing something else). Late last night there was some interesting discussion on the Czech and Slovac Republics who closed borders and instigated social distancing very early.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/czech-republic/
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/slovakia/
I fear for the UK with the congratulatory frenzy in this mornings tory press. I cant see how R can remain below 1 unless what Boris is set to propose for Monday is all cosmetic spin and no change to social distancing in content (even then it's risking 'bursting the dam' of the tory side of public support for social distancing). Current UK infection levels seem to me to be not much below peak and were the highest in Europe. If the message is muddled and we end up with 2 weeks of growth at an inadvertant R=2 we will see an order of magnitude increase in infections and we are then too late to stop that proportionally increasing serious hospitalisations and subsequent deaths: hospitals will be back at an unstoppable serious risk of being overwhelmed. Levels of infection in Spain and Italy have come down significantly from their peaks and their relaxation looks not much different from where we are now, despite our more serious position. I don't get it and in particular I don't get how SAGE could support such high risk changes.
-
Maybe people will heed the lesson of how early intervention helps - and transfer that to how we deal with climate change....
-
Ever wondered what Operation Cygnus recommended in 2017 to prepare for a pandemic?
Here it is: https://www.scribd.com/document/460161101/Cygnus-Redacted-Annex-01scribd-Redactedv3#from_embed
-
Nige I haven’t read that link yet. But what matters is what they knew at the time. There’s little use in judging past decisions on present knowledge. Lets see what they were being told at the time by SAGE and the WHO.
Future pandemics, great we can learn and hopefully remember it for the next one.
-
Nige I haven’t read that link yet. But what matters is what they knew at the time. There’s little use in judging past decisions on present knowledge. Lets see what they were being told at the time by SAGE and the WHO.
Future pandemics, great we can learn and hopefully remember it for the next one.
Like SARS, MERS and swine flu. That we learnt from then partially ignored what we learnt...
-
On the manipulation of testing numbers by Hancock:
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesClayton5/status/1258294599833001986
Summary: We haven’t ever achieved over 100k tests in a day. So there is no ‘drop off’ in tests carried out. False accounting to ‘achieve’ an arbitrary target he set himself. Pure and simple.
-
Some sort of logistics FUBAR meant that barely any samples were sent to Alderly Park on Tuesday. Should have had 18000 samples to test but only got a couple of thousand.
-
Nige I haven’t read that link yet. But what matters is what they knew at the time. There’s little use in judging past decisions on present knowledge. Lets see what they were being told at the time by SAGE and the WHO.
Future pandemics, great we can learn and hopefully remember it for the next one.
Yeah, I know all this is raking over old coals and largely pointless, accepted!
But I disagree about it only being a learning process for future pandemics. Seems a counsel of despair. We haven't finished with this one yet, not by a long way. And the same people that were making the decisions 7 weeks ago, are still making the decisions now (SAGE + HMG). To my mind something went a bit skew-whiff with our initial UK response (you may disagree?). If that was due to SAGE, then ideally lets see what they said, assess it, and swap in some folk who called it right to help us with the next bit. Or maybe set up an official "shadow SAGE" to offer an independent check / balance / confirmation? If it was political then ideally lets know about it now, find out where the bollocks were dropped, and get parliament to scrutinise things now they're back (seeing this in action now on for e.g. the app). Given where we are right now, we could really do with getting the timing and process of lifting the lockdown spot on. The current messaging and actions I see on that is not filling me with confidence to be honest!
Yes you're right we can't change the past, but to reverse your sentence, I think there is some use in judging present decisions on past knowledge. The time to improve our response is right now. I would much prefer that to waiting a few years for an inquiry and the solace that we might be OK in 50 years time. Given that we ignored Cygnus from 4 years ago I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that either tbh. Your point still applies btw i.e. what use is blathering about it on here?! I don't know. Hopefully we can go climbing soon.
-
I agree entirely with that argument but that's not what SAGE were telling the government according to the Times expose. SAGE failed on timing, not Boris.
Interesting, do you have a link that can be read free? I don't discount this as being the case. Although you might think someone at the foreign office might have put their hand up and, in the light of the rest of Europe going into lockdown and shutting borders, asked why our science was different to, er, everywhere else's?!
I fear for the UK with the congratulatory frenzy in this mornings tory press. I cant see how R can remain below 1 unless what Boris is set to propose for Monday is all cosmetic spin and no change to social distancing in content (even then it's risking 'bursting the dam' of the tory side of public support for social distancing). Current UK infection levels seem to me to be not much below peak and were the highest in Europe. If the message is muddled and we end up with 2 weeks of growth at an inadvertant R=2 we will see an order of magnitude increase in infections and we are then too late to stop that proportionally increasing serious hospitalisations and subsequent deaths: hospitals will be back at an unstoppable serious risk of being overwhelmed. Levels of infection in Spain and Italy have come down significantly from their peaks and their relaxation looks not much different from where we are now, despite our more serious position. I don't get it and in particular I don't get how SAGE could support such high risk changes.
Agreed.
-
Nige I haven’t read that link yet. But what matters is what they knew at the time. There’s little use in judging past decisions on present knowledge. Lets see what they were being told at the time by SAGE and the WHO.
Future pandemics, great we can learn and hopefully remember it for the next one.
Yeah, I know all this is raking over old coals and largely pointless, accepted!
But I disagree about it only being a learning process for future pandemics. Seems a counsel of despair. We haven't finished with this one yet, not by a long way. And the same people that were making the decisions 7 weeks ago, are still making the decisions now (SAGE + HMG). To my mind something went a bit skew-whiff with our initial UK response (you may disagree?). If that was due to SAGE, then ideally lets see what they said, assess it, and swap in some folk who called it right to help us with the next bit. Or maybe set up an official "shadow SAGE" to offer an independent check / balance / confirmation? If it was political then ideally lets know about it now, find out where the bollocks were dropped, and get parliament to scrutinise things now they're back (seeing this in action now on for e.g. the app). Given where we are right now, we could really do with getting the timing and process of lifting the lockdown spot on. The current messaging and actions I see on that is not filling me with confidence to be honest!
Yes you're right we can't change the past, but to reverse your sentence, I think there is some use in judging present decisions on past knowledge. The time to improve our response is right now. I would much prefer that to waiting a few years for an inquiry and the solace that we might be OK in 50 years time. Given that we ignored Cygnus from 4 years ago I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that either tbh. Your point still applies btw i.e. what use is blathering about it on here?! I don't know. Hopefully we can go climbing soon.
:thumbsup:
Personally I think the biggest obstacle to any government choosing the most effective measures in emergencies like this is the noise created by the UK media.
But, I accept that the counter argument to that is it's our noisy UK media that holds government decision-making to account and keeps it honest. I don't agree, I think this argument would be valid with an honest public-service media, but I think much of our most influential media are fucking rotten and self-serving.
See current outcry over easing of the lock-down. Last week, it was media engineering an outcry about lack of transparency over the government refusing to talk about easing of lock-down measures ahead of time / this week it's media engineering an outcry over the government talking, ahead of time, about easing of lock-down measures.
It's a cynical game designed to sell copy. Which plays into the unfortunate fact that the public's attention-span and memory of what they're supposed to be upset about seems to be approximately 3 days.
-
Interesting, do you have a link that can be read free?
Shitty format but its still here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1251616775504113664.html
The government off course dismissed it all, based on a few small errors (all of which seemed reasonable to me in such investigative journalism that the government had refused to engage with).
This came out today as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/08/revealed-uk-scientists-fury-over-attempt-to-censor-covid-19-advice
Plus more on Cygnus wrt care homes (this article says the Guardian have obtained and published Cygnus but I can't sort out the link to that as yet).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/07/revealed-the-secret-report-that-gave-ministers-warning-of-care-home-coronavirus-crisis
-
Completely agree with all that RE media Pete.
-
Completely agree with all that RE media Pete.
If you REALLY believe that “the biggest obstacle to any government choosing the most effective measures in emergencies like this is the noise created by the UK media” then put your money where your mouth is and never ever link to the U.K. media again. No cheating by linking to foreign media that used information or quotes sourced by U.K. media outlets.
This line absolves the incompetent idiots in the government of any responsibility. The U.K. media - some great, some fucking vile - has been with us for decades. Government as incompetent as this is a more recent phenomenon. And possibly its reasons are more complex than the Mail writing shite.
Edit: please excuse grumpiness. But lumping in everything from the FT to the National Enquirer together as “the media” which all exhibit the same errors, the same foibles, is what the Trumps and the Putins and the Xis want. (And also the Johnsons and the Corbyns, both incompetent, vain fools.) There are massive problems with some journalists and some outlets, at least some of the time. But portraying the whole of the media as the problem helps create distrust and doubt about information which we can use to hold our rulers to account. Rubbishing then entire media is doing the work of dictators and authoritarians for them.
-
Personally I think the biggest obstacle to any government choosing the most effective measures in emergencies like this is the noise created by the UK media.
I was going to reply to this but Sean summed up my thoughts pretty well. During emergencies like this a decent government is there to make decisions and implement policies on our behalf based on the evidence they’re presented with, regardless of what any sniping media have to say, surely? And a large part of their job is to take the public with them and get us to ‘buy into’ those policies - which would be a damn sight easier if they were more open and transparent with what they were basing decisions on.
What I see currently happening is a weak and indecisive cabinet (packed with Brexit loyalists at the expense of any experienced or competent* politicians) using the media to float ideas and gauge public opinion before they’re willing to pin themselves to any firm policies.
*with the exception of Sunak probably.
-
Sean, note that I did actually say a public service media is a good thing. Away from that model much of our media seems to be incentivised by a business model that rewards just being noisy.
But yes I agree there’s a scale from good to bad. Unfortunately the bad seem to be very successful.
And Ali that sounds great. The problem with your theory is when it meets reality.
Because ‘following the evidence’ means changing tack when new evidence suggests it wise to change tack. We don’t have a media sensible enough nor a population forgiving enough to allow this sort of behaviour by governments, without it being portrayed in large sections of the media as something very wrong and indecisive.
‘Decisive’ and ‘following evidence’ are probably incompatible states of mind. Maybe decisively open-minded..
-
Completely agree with all that RE media Pete.
If you REALLY believe that “the biggest obstacle to any government choosing the most effective measures in emergencies like this is the noise created by the UK media” ......
Edit: please excuse grumpiness.
No need to be excused, you're quite right to pick up on that blanket statement! The truth is I started a more considered response to Pete, but when I left it for a bit my laptop died and it was lost. After that I decided I'd rather play guitar than have a big rant on the internet!
I suppose I agree with the underlying sentiment of Pete's post - I do regard the UK media as a huge issue, hence my blanket statement. That statement was badly expressed though, I don't actually "completely agree" that the media is the "biggest obstacle". On specifics then actually I align with your view that this government is uniquely incompetent, and the media is a mixed bag. My main gripe is always with the government and they would remain a disaster with or without the media's input. If it looked like I was excusing the government in any way then I can assure you that is not the impression I wanted to give! I guess in the context of that moment, having just seen the collected front pages of the right wing press and having had the wind taken out of my sails by losing my longer post, it was an easy thing to write.
And possibly its reasons are more complex than the Mail writing shite.
You're right of course, the reasons are complex. The structural problems with UK governance run deep. I suppose this is where the rant could start! In fact separate ones on both "biggest obstacle....(to competent government)", and "the media". I think I'll still choose not to bother for now as it looks like being a nice day and it would take forever to sum it all up.
-
Returning to immediate current affairs - looks like virus measures at UK borders will be coming, in June. Along with test-trace-isolate (which still looks like it is "gradually underway"!) we seem to be moving towards all the measures that other countries took back in March. We seem to be learning, but those at the top of the tree are taking decisions in slow motion. Probably motivated by a desire not to be seen to take a screeching u-turn implying an admission of failure up to now.
We would be much better served if they could just fess up and get whatever needs to be done asap, regardless of the political fall out.
-
‘following the evidence’ means changing tack when new evidence suggests it wise to change tack. We don’t have a media sensible enough nor a population forgiving enough to allow this sort of behaviour by governments, without it being portrayed in large sections of the media as something very wrong and indecisive.
Only if the evidence is kept hidden. If new evidence is presented openly, together with an explanation as to why a change of tack is now sensible then it’s hard for the public or the media to portray it as anything other.
As an example let’s take the likely change of policy on quarantine of travellers. If the govt at the outset had said clearly something along the lines of:
“unfortunately for whatever reason the virus is now too widespread in the UK for travel restrictions to be any use and here’s the modelling from SAGE that shows it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s why we’re not doing the same as other countries. But if we can get the infection rate down then it’s something we’ll introduce at a later date”
I think the public and the media could buy into that. Just repeatedly saying “we’re following the science but you can’t see any of the science, sorry” leads to the (valid) confusion and questioning we’re seeing from the media this morning about the apparent U-turn.
-
‘following the evidence’ means changing tack when new evidence suggests it wise to change tack. We don’t have a media sensible enough nor a population forgiving enough to allow this sort of behaviour by governments, without it being portrayed in large sections of the media as something very wrong and indecisive.
Only if the evidence is kept hidden. If new evidence is presented openly, together with an explanation as to why a change of tack is now sensible then it’s hard for the public or the media to portray it as anything other.
As an example let’s take the likely change of policy on quarantine of travellers. If the govt at the outset had said clearly something along the lines of:
“unfortunately for whatever reason the virus is now too widespread in the UK for travel restrictions to be any use and here’s the modelling from SAGE that shows it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s why we’re not doing the same as other countries. But if we can get the infection rate down then it’s something we’ll introduce at a later date”
I think the public and the media could buy into that. Just repeatedly saying “we’re following the science but you can’t see any of the science, sorry” leads to the (valid) confusion and questioning we’re seeing from the media this morning about the apparent U-turn.
That might work with politically engaged people who actually read full articles, but everyone else, and probably a lot of media would be shreaking that the government had given up on us because it had got so bad. Now, the only thing most people will be listening to is 'can I go to Spain in August to get drunk on a beach '.
-
What I see currently happening is a weak and indecisive cabinet (packed with Brexit loyalists at the expense of any experienced or competent* politicians) using the media to float ideas and gauge public opinion before they’re willing to pin themselves to any firm policies.
*with the exception of Sunak probably.
Michael Gove is neither weak nor indecisive, and hes certainly not loyal! I'm not saying that hes actually doing anything useful, aside probably for himself by keeping as quiet as possible and hoping that Johnson screws it up so he can take over.
-
As an example let’s take the likely change of policy on quarantine of travellers. If the govt at the outset had said clearly something along the lines of:
“unfortunately for whatever reason the virus is now too widespread in the UK for travel restrictions to be any use and here’s the modelling from SAGE that shows it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s why we’re not doing the same as other countries. But if we can get the infection rate down then it’s something we’ll introduce at a later date”
I think the public and the media could buy into that. Just repeatedly saying “we’re following the science but you can’t see any of the science, sorry” leads to the (valid) confusion and questioning we’re seeing from the media this morning about the apparent U-turn.
They did! Nobody remembers. People just remember the things they want to and the narrative pushed by the media they read.
As I pointed out to Nigel - the government CSO said in a public briefing in early March that a travel restriction was pointless at that time and would not have an impact on the spread (because it was already in the community). The WHO said the same thing at that time - and still says it. The advice against travel restrictions is on their website.
So now we're going against the evidence according to the WHO. Or going with the evidence, as there is evidence both ways. No doubt the worse of the media will try to engineer another story about U-turns.
-
They did! Nobody remembers. People just remember the things they want to and the narrative pushed by the media they read.
As I pointed out to Nigel - the government CSO said in a public briefing in early March that a travel restriction was pointless at that time...
I'd forgotten about that Pete - when in March did he actually say that?
-
As an example let’s take the likely change of policy on quarantine of travellers. If the govt at the outset had said clearly something along the lines of:
They did! Nobody remembers. People just remember the things they want to and the narrative pushed by the media they read.
The key word in what I wrote was clearly. For a govt so good at ramming messages home when they want to it's a cop out to blame the 'media narrative' or people's poor memories. The only message being rammed home at the daily press conferences is that of "following the science" while at the same time failing to present any of 'the science'.
-
He said it in the press briefing with Boris Johnson on March 12th. It was the chief scientific officer saying it and he explained in basic terms some of SAGE's thinking behind it - the ineffectiveness of the screening measures where infected persons got through screening in the US; and he stated stats saying you needed to stop 95% of all inward travel originating from China to delay the spread by 1 day, but that realistically the UK could perhaps prevent 50% of all inward travel therefore it would be totally ineffective. It was in all the media the following day.
How clear do you want it?
It was not the politicians saying 'we're following the science'..
None so blind as those that refuse to see...
(let me get that for you: 31 minutes on 12th March press briefing)
-
He said it in the press briefing with Boris Johnson on March 12th. It was the chief scientific officer(sic) saying it and he explained in basic terms some of SAGE's thinking behind it
It was also the same chief scientific adviser (Patrick Vallance) who defended the aim of "building up herd immunity" to the media the following day, because our response was an outlier compared with other countries. This aim was then rowed back on and the lockdown was imposed. But with little explanation as to why. And his comments were only clarified on the 5th May to the health select committee. I don't see that as clear messaging.
So is it any wonder that questions might be asked about other measures of ours which are outliers? And particularly if the models that the decisions are based on aren't released?
-
I see... So you started off saying that if only the government had explained their reasoning around travel restrictions:
If the govt at the outset had said clearly something along the lines of:
“unfortunately for whatever reason the virus is now too widespread in the UK for travel restrictions to be any use and here’s the modelling from SAGE that shows it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s why we’re not doing the same as other countries. But if we can get the infection rate down then it’s something we’ll introduce at a later date”
I think the public and the media could buy into that.
When it's pointed out to you that they actually did, you switch to a different tack and claim that the message wasn't clear nor was there any explanation of the science behind the policy:
The key word in what I wrote was clearly. For a govt so good at ramming messages home when they want to it's a cop out to blame the 'media narrative' or people's poor memories. The only message being rammed home at the daily press conferences is that of "following the science" while at the same time failing to present any of 'the science'.
When it's pointed out to you that you're wrong again - and that it was the actually chief scientific adviser giving the message about travel and that he also explained some of the reasoning behind the decision not to restrict travel - you switched tack again. Now you're trying to say that, 'well.. anyway whatever the chief scientific adviser said is going to be perceived as unclear, because he made another statement, about another topic, the next day and that turned out to be incorrect.. so why should we take on board whatever he said the day before'! And therefore: 'is it any wonder questions are asked'..
:lol:
So presumably by this logic we should only listen to scientists who are correct first go and never change their mind.
And the modelling behind the decision to change from mitigation to suppression was well publicised by Imperial.
Questioning is all good provided you're prepared to accept answers.
-
So presumably by this logic we should only listen to scientists who are correct first go....
That would be the ideal yeah! Wink emoji etc.
-
Hi Pete :wave:
Come off it. There's no change in tack going on - as you well know it's not the way things are done on here to set out a complete argument all in one go. What you get is snippets back and forth in response to specific points made.
Having said that, just to clarify my position if you can be bothered to read it:
This govt from the very start has used the justification of "following the science" in an attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility, despite the fact that it's widely recognised there is no single direction that 'the science' points in. What they're doing is making political decisions based on (what should be) completely independent scientific input. They shouldn't pass the buck and claim they're deferring slavishly to the scientists. That's not feasible, and it's clearly not true. The govt have also made the claim that there is "maximum transparency" when it comes to decision making, despite the fact they're releasing only selective bits of SAGE advice, at a much later date, and in a heavily redacted form. So again, not true. And they also claim to be open and honest with the death rates and testing figures. Well, see David Spiegelhalter's take on that this morning: https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1259409480347004928?s=20
I won't go into the infamous '38 lost days' in Jan/Feb, nor the disregarding of the Cygnus recommendations, but needless to say the laissez faire attitude (to put it kindly) of the govt in the early stages has limited many available options from March onwards, with all the knock on effects we're seeing now. I also won't go into the shambles of the PPE fiasco, which is still ongoing.
You're right that the modelling in the Imperial paper is widely seen as the catalyst for the govt to switch to suppression (i.e. lockdown). But up until that point a strategy of 'herd immunity' was clearly the one they were pursuing. I don't believe for a second that a man with the background of Patrick Vallance would use the words 'herd immunity' by mistake. And the lack of any mitigation measures at that time supports this (no social distancing whatsoever, no ban on mass gatherings, etc). So the new Imperial modelling was publicised, yes, but correct me if I'm wrong - there's been no adequate explanation as to why herd immunity was being contemplated prior to that, or who was advocating it and based on what science. Just a fairly unconvincing denial that it was ever a strategy. Hence my comment about there being "little explanation as to why" and it not being "clear messaging" - and that's why the media were asking for clarification around that time, which wasn't forthcoming. If I'm wrong on that then I'm happy to be corrected?
But this lack of clarity and fundamental change in strategy at the outset is also why I'm not surprised that questions are asked down the line about other UK policies which are outliers compared with other countries. It's reasonable to wonder whether these will be reversed in a similar way. And it's incumbent on the govt to be completely clear and completely transparent as to why we've differed (hence my comment "is it any wonder questions might be asked..."). The truth is that on a number of policies we differed because our govt had fucked up from the start and were too late to the party. Nothing to do with any difference in science between countries. Just a logistical fuck up. But by not holding their hands up and admitting to that it leads to confusion at a later date.
We abandoned test-track-trace on 12th March because we didn't have the capability to do it (as a result of the govt doing nothing in Jan/Feb to get things moving). But the govt are only admitting to that now, almost 2 months later. Hence why people couldn't understand the reason we'd abandoned it when it was the central pillar of the WHO strategy and other countries were pursuing it ruthlessly. And also why it wasn't prioritised until 21 days later when Hancock set his 100k/day target, and the numbers didn't start to increase until around 20th April. That seems like an unforgivable waste of time given the mantra of 'test, test, test' the WHO advocated from the very start. See David Spiegelhalter again this morning: https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1259429980913782784?s=20
I also find it odd that by 12th March the proliferation of the virus had clearly exceeded our capacity to contain it by the test & trace strategy to such a degree that we abandon it, and yet lockdown isn't imposed for a further 11 days.
In terms of travel restrictions - yes, Vallance explained in the 12th March press conference the reasoning why it was virtually pointless at that stage. But not the fact that it was pointless because we'd let the virus get so out of control in the previous few months and we had no ability to test, track, and trace even if we wanted to. Hence the justifiable confusion around why we're bringing in travel restrictions now when we're "past the peak" but didn't do it sooner when we "had a chance to stop it" (just an example of many similar sentiments I've heard or read in the last few days and is a fairly intuitive stance). [[btw I'm not personally arguing for or against travel restrictions, just pointing out why not being completely transparent in the first place leads to confusion down the line]]
As a result of all of this it looks like we're on track to have the worst, or at least one of the worst, death rates in Europe by whatever measure you choose, but also have the least scope for safely relaxing lockdown measures any time soon given where we are relative to the govt's '5 tests'. So it's not going well.
TL;DR Government needs to stop passing the buck on decisions being made and mea culpa the mistakes that have been made. In the words of the world's greatest TV doctor Phil Hammond - they centralise praise and devolve blame.
-
Well said.
Harry Cole from Mail on Sunday now attacking Boris for snubbing the Cabinet (printing the advice, recording half of today's 7.00pm announcement yesterday, all before the position is 'formally agreed' by Cabinet today).
https://mobile.twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1259416232987627521
Nicola Sturgeon says she doesn't understand what 'stay alert' means; what hope the public then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52605959
-
There are some variations in definition, but Cambridge dictionary has:
alert
adjective
quick to see, understand, and act in a particular situation
Perhaps there will be clarification of what particular situation we should be alert for and what action we should then take. Currently, it's meaningless, beyond the clear implication of changing the slogan that staying at home is no longer necessary.
What a mess.
-
There are some variations in definition, but Cambridge dictionary has:
alert
adjective
quick to see, understand, and act in a particular situation
Given that definition, there is a certain irony to Mr Johnson telling *us* to stay alert. Do as I say, not as I do...
-
Brilliant post Ali. I'll be quoting that in my own rants.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXrjSOLWAAI2Qd4?format=jpg&name=small)
Jesus!
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2WT59lu4tCU
-
Ffs. bJ telling everyone to get to work today if they can. Tubes and roads much busier. Now Raab on breakfast telling people it’s after Wednesday. Shambles.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXrjSOLWAAI2Qd4?format=jpg&name=small)
Jesus!
Yup.
Currently level three thousand and some odd, point seven, ish.
Be a while before we get to level three on that scale.
-
No proper press conference this afternoon apparently. Just the usual spiel followed up with 'questions from the public'. It's all starting to look a bit Stalinist, isn't it?
-
Pre-recorded questions :tumble:
-
Govts clarifications via Raab and radio appearances this morning seem to have made things more not less confusing (re the BMC thread).
Across my social media - what is apparent is even from right/centre right people I know - the unanimous derision and pisstaking of the governments message. They’ve got this really wrong I think - and I wonder if we’ll get row back or double down.
-
Govts clarifications via Raab and radio appearances this morning seem to have made things more not less confusing (re the BMC thread).
Across my social media - what is apparent is even from right/centre right people I know - the unanimous derision and pisstaking of the governments message. They’ve got this really wrong I think - and I wonder if we’ll get row back or double down.
I could have written the same post.
-
Even Sloper was texting me last night about it..
-
So many aspects of the govt's strategy don't make sense it's hard to know where to start.
As a genuine query to any epidemiologists out there, does the effect of quarantine not just disappear if we exempt France from it? Surely as a major gateway from Europe/World into the UK, it means it's still pretty easy to get in and not be quarantined?
I mean this as a genuine question by the way, if anybody has any knowledge beyond the instinctive feeling that it completely negates the policy.
-
If I was France, I wouldn't want any Brits coming in!
-
France has closed all its borders - recently extended until mid June I think...
-
France has closed all its borders - recently extended until mid June I think...
Apart from to Brits. Reciprocal deal......
-
As a genuine query to any epidemiologists out there, does the effect of quarantine not just disappear if we exempt France from it? Surely as a major gateway from Europe/World into the UK, it means it's still pretty easy to get in and not be quarantined?
I'm not an epidemiologist (as you know) but the quarantine thing seems like just smoke and mirrors to me. 14 day self-imposed quarantine with no associated testing = pointless. My gut feeling is people will just ignore it. The France exemption is presumably to avoid interruption of freight to/from the continent as they know lorry drivers can't quarantine. That's just my reading of the situation but happy to be corrected.
-
Just read that the govt is citing basketball as a sport that is ok to do after weds.
HAVE THEY EVER PLAYED IT? basketball is the most contact non contact sport going! Nuts.
Hello... is anyone in #10 thinking at the moment? Hello..??
-
Your missing the “as long as you maintain social distancing” thing though.
All sports can be played in some form or other within these guidelines. You could go on your own and use the local basket ball court or with a family member. Ditto footy, ditto climbing, ditto rugby etc. You couldn’t last week.
Sumo might be hard but other than that it’s all possible.
Seems to me that everyone is expecting some kind of individual risk assessment and plan writing up For them.
-
France has closed all its borders - recently extended until mid June I think...
Apart from to Brits. Reciprocal deal......
Fucking mental. Assume you need to SQ for 14 days after a visit though.
-
Your missing the “as long as you maintain social distancing” thing though.
All sports can be played in some form or other within these guidelines. You could go on your own and use the local basket ball court or with a family member. Ditto footy, ditto climbing, ditto rugby etc. You couldn’t last week.
Sumo might be hard but other than that it’s all possible.
Seems to me that everyone is expecting some kind of individual risk assessment and plan writing up For them.
Footy.
With 2mtr distancing?
Team lined up at 2mtr intervals across pitch. “None shall pass!” (Did you see what I did there) and you’re down to shots at goal from the centre line...
-
Your missing the “as long as you maintain social distancing” thing though.
All sports can be played in some form or other within these guidelines. You could go on your own and use the local basket ball court or with a family member. Ditto footy, ditto climbing, ditto rugby etc. You couldn’t last week.
Sumo might be hard but other than that it’s all possible.
Seems to me that everyone is expecting some kind of individual risk assessment and plan writing up For them.
Footy.
With 2mtr distancing?
Team lined up at 2mtr intervals across pitch. “None shall pass!” (Did you see what I did there) and you’re down to shots at goal from the centre line...
Gav - #10 said ‘not football’ - hence my ffs about basketball..
And here’s the issue. If they said any sport where it was possible to maintain social distancing - then that would make sense. Instead they have to give daft and incorrect examples...
Seen a couple of reports that BJ left the script a few times in the version that went out. Including the returning to work tomorrow bit.
-
FFS! Are people trying to misunderstand a very very simple flow chart?
Can you do the sport outside AND while maintaining social distancing = Yes = Do the sport and FFS maintain social distancing
II
No
II
You can only do the sport with members of your own household.
What is so difficult to understand about that? If you can whip up enough people from your household to shoot some hoops (my manager is currently living in a house of 7 people) then have at it.
Caveat: this is based on last night's broadcast. I've not seen the 50 page doc yet. Has anyone?
-
Caveat: this is based on last night's broadcast. I've not seen the 50 page doc yet. Has anyone?
It's due at 2PM I think.
-
Caveat: this is based on last night's broadcast. I've not seen the 50 page doc yet. Has anyone?
It's due at 2PM I think.
Johnson has just announced another statement/address at 7pm.
Will - where have they said any sport is fine as long as you can socially distance or play with just your household? I’ve yet to see it phrased so clearly. They’ve also said football no, basketball yes!
If I were a senior police officer trying to determine what their policy should be WRT the changes I’d be either half way through a decent malt by now or having a nervous breakdown.
-
Caveat: this is based on last night's broadcast. I've not seen the 50 page doc yet. Has anyone?
It's due at 2PM I think.
Johnson has just announced another statement/address at 7pm.
Will - where have they said any sport is fine as long as you can socially distance or play with just your household? I’ve yet to see it phrased so clearly. They’ve also said football no, basketball yes!
If I were a senior police officer trying to determine what their policy should be WRT the changes I’d be either half way through a decent malt by now or having a nervous breakdown.
Last night's address made it very clear. If there's been further contradiction then I'm not aware of it (I haven't seen any specific communication from the government on individual sports, so not sure where the football/basketball thing has come from).
Johnson's speech last night said this about exercise (8mins and 30secs into the address):
And from this Wednesday we want to encourage people to take more, and even unlimited, amounts of outdoor exercise. You can sit in the sun in your local park, you can drive to other destinations, you can even play sports but only with members of your own household. You must obey the rules on social distancing.
That to me is crystal clear, but I haven't watched or listened to any news this morning.
-
Your missing the “as long as you maintain social distancing” thing though.
All sports can be played in some form or other within these guidelines. You could go on your own and use the local basket ball court or with a family member. Ditto footy, ditto climbing, ditto rugby etc. You couldn’t last week.
Sumo might be hard but other than that it’s all possible.
Seems to me that everyone is expecting some kind of individual risk assessment and plan writing up For them.
Footy.
With 2mtr distancing?
Team lined up at 2mtr intervals across pitch. “None shall pass!” (Did you see what I did there) and you’re down to shots at goal from the centre line...
I have been playing footy with the family all shutdown in the garden as i am lucky enough to have one big enough. ditto chucking rugby balls about. I can now got down the local field as long as its socially distanced, so you are wrong.
You make the assumption that it must involve a match where as you could just kick a ball between to people. A lot of kids are obsessed with footy but without a garden have not even been allowed to kick a ball, they can now. It obviously needs to be in an area not overly crowded.
-
Caveat: this is based on last night's broadcast. I've not seen the 50 page doc yet. Has anyone?
It's due at 2PM I think.
Johnson has just announced another statement/address at 7pm.
Will - where have they said any sport is fine as long as you can socially distance or play with just your household? I’ve yet to see it phrased so clearly. They’ve also said football no, basketball yes!
If I were a senior police officer trying to determine what their policy should be WRT the changes I’d be either half way through a decent malt by now or having a nervous breakdown.
I agree with Will its very simple and easy to understand. You can play any sport you like as long as it complies to social distancing or with your household. What the activity is has no bearing on anything. You cant play a full game of basketball obviously but you and your housemate(s) could go to the park and play one on one(two) etc. ditto footy.
-
Some clarity for business at least with a list of who must remain closed (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing#visiting-public-places).
However for others wording varies between sources on whether they 'can' open or 'should' open. NB Legally, 'should' is a recommendation and not mandatory.
-
Hey - I’m not arguing with your logic - kicking a ball against a wall with just yourself is in effect football!!
- just that Raab was on this morning saying that you couldn’t play football! And later #10 said in examples of sports that would be suitable included basketball along with Tennis.
It’s the mixed messages - some old biddy could listen to the radio and now snitch on people from the same family for kicking about - equally some might think it’s green light to gather in a big group and shoot some hoops.
Raab then went on to say later that people should exercise common sense... which is of course true. Or the govt could just consistently promote a simple and clear message.... that would enable people to exercise their common sense?? Raab seemed (even for him) unusually out of his depth today...
As I posted earlier today - it’s not just me - plenty of people with all sorts of views that I know have posted what a mess the unlockdown message is...
-
Some clarity for business at least with a list of who must remain closed (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing#visiting-public-places).
However for others wording varies between sources on whether they 'can' open or 'should' open. NB Legally, 'should' is a recommendation and not mandatory.
I read that as places like physios and sports massage people being able to open. Which is good for a man with a duff finger, but strikes me as rather surprising. Did I skip a sentence or two somewhere?
-
Some clarity for business at least with a list of who must remain closed (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing#visiting-public-places).
However for others wording varies between sources on whether they 'can' open or 'should' open. NB Legally, 'should' is a recommendation and not mandatory.
As in "should open, as you won't get furlough pay any longer"? Let's see what the next announcement brings..
-
Some much-needed clarification:
* 4 year olds can go to school, but university students who have paid for the tuition they haven’t had and the accommodation they aren’t living in, can’t go to university.
* A teacher can go to school with many 4 year olds that they are not related to, but can’t see one 4 year old that they are related to.
* You can sit in a park, but not tomorrow or Tuesday but by Wednesday that’ll be fine.
* You can meet one person from another household for a chat or to sunbathe, but not two people so if you know two people from another household you have to pick your favourite. Hopefully, you’re also their favourite person from your household or this could be awkward. But possibly you’re not. But as I can’t go closer than 2m to the one you choose anyway you wouldn’t think having the other one sat next to them would matter - unless two people would restrict your eyeline too much and prevent you from being alert.
* You can work all day with your colleagues, but you can’t sit in their garden for a chat after work.
* You can drive to other destinations, although which destinations is unclear.
* The buses are still running past your house, but you shouldn’t get on one. We should just let empty buses drive around so bus drivers aren’t doing nothing.
* It will soon be time to quarantine people coming into the country by air... but not yet. It’s too soon. And not ever if you’re coming from France because... well, I don’t know why, actually. Because the French version of coronavirus wouldn’t come to the UK maybe.
* Our youngest children go back to school first because... they are notoriously good at not touching things they shouldn’t, maintain personal space at all times and never randomly lick you.
* We are somewhere in between 3.5 and 4.5 on a five point scale where 5 is all of the virus and 1 is none of the virus but 2,3 and 4 can be anything you’d like it to be really. Some of the virus? A bit of the virus? Just enough virus to see off those over 70s who were told to self isolate but now we’ve realised that they’ve done that a bit too well despite us offloading coronavirus patients into care homes and now we are claiming that was never said in the first place, even though it’s in writing in the stay at home guidance.
* The slogan isn’t stay at home any more, so we don’t have to stay at home. Except we do. Unless we can’t. In which case we should go out. But there will be fines if we break the rules. So don’t do that.
Don’t forget...
Stay alert... which Robert Jenrick has explained actually means Stay home as much as possible. Obviously.
Control the virus. Well, I can’t even control my dogs and I can actually see them. Plus I know a bit about dogs and very little about controlling viruses.
Save lives. Always preferable to not saving lives, I’d say, so I’ll try my best with that one, although hopefully I don’t need telling to do that. I know I’m bragging now but not NOT saving lives is something I do every day.
So there you are. If you’re the weirdo wanting unlimited exercise then enjoy. But not until Wednesday. Obviously.
-
:bow:
-
Some much-needed clarification:
* 4 year olds can go to a school system that their parents have paid tax towards, but university students who have paid for the tuition they haven’t had and the accommodation they aren’t living in, can’t go to university because 4 year-olds spend a few hours in schooland then go home to watch ceebeebies, rather than live full-time in shared accommodation with people from all over the country/world and don't tend to have parties and shag each other, although ceebeebies is still a thing.
* Teachers shouldn't go back to work because they would risk catching coronavirus. Lower-skilled workers can all die for all we care because they never paid attention in school and they probably bullied us.
* You can sit in a park, but not tomorrow or Tuesday but by Wednesday that’ll be fine because it follows that well-known concept of 'linear time' whereby events can be allocated to a point on a commonly-understood calendar system of days, weeks, months and years at any point in the past, present or future; and this can be used to communicate and co-ordinate the actions of mass populations and we can all use this well-accepted principle to navigate our lives. The alternative is we each operate by our own personal clock, I mean I mostly do anyway..
* You can meet one person from another household for a chat or to sunbathe, but not two people because if two teh nwhy not three or four or five right. So if you know two people from another household you have to pick your favourite. Or just alternate like sensible people might.
* You can work all day with your colleagues, but you can’t sit in their garden for a chat after work.. because you probably hate your colleagues and who the hell wants to sit in their garden.
* You can drive to other destinations.. although the new guidance, if you bother your arse to read it, states that you should check ahead to ensure planned destinations are open to the public - many areas have publicised that they aren't open so you wouldn't want to be 'that' dickhead and try to go to those places.
* The buses are still running past your house, but you shouldn’t get on one because bus drivers are among the workers facing the highest risk of being killed by having to go to work.. So we should just let empty buses drive around so bus drivers aren’t being killed by having to go to work, although we don't really know if bus drivers are being killed because they don't work on what the media tells us is 'the front line' so we aren't interested in them.
* It will soon be time to quarantine people coming into the country by air... but not yet. It’s too soon because it would have been, in the words of scientists advising on SAGE, a drop in the ocean of new cases compared to the exponential spread within the country and a drain on resources that would be better used elsewhere.. And not ever if you’re coming from France because... they have had a ban on incoming travel so France can't be easily used to travel through people trying to dodge the UK quarantine rule.
* Our youngest children go back to school first because... they are notoriously good at harming or killing themselves if left unattended at home while teenagers aren't, so much.
* We are somewhere in between 3.5 and 4.5 on a five point scale where 5 is all of the virus and 1 is none of the virus but 2,3 and 4 can be anything you’d like it to be really.. but if you're that bothered about it you can read the definitions, but anyway who the hell around here understands numbered scales that correspond to increasing severity?
* The slogan isn’t stay at home any more, so we don’t have to stay at home. Except we do. Unless we can’t. In which case we should go out. But there will be fines if we break the rules. So don’t do that. And definitely don't waste your life being a cock and not using your common sense.
FTFY
-
Ta.
;D
-
Your missing the “as long as you maintain social distancing” thing though.
All sports can be played in some form or other within these guidelines. You could go on your own and use the local basket ball court or with a family member. Ditto footy, ditto climbing, ditto rugby etc. You couldn’t last week.
Sumo might be hard but other than that it’s all possible.
Seems to me that everyone is expecting some kind of individual risk assessment and plan writing up For them.
Footy.
With 2mtr distancing?
Team lined up at 2mtr intervals across pitch. “None shall pass!” (Did you see what I did there) and you’re down to shots at goal from the centre line...
I have been playing footy with the family all shutdown in the garden as i am lucky enough to have one big enough. ditto chucking rugby balls about. I can now got down the local field as long as its socially distanced, so you are wrong.
You make the assumption that it must involve a match where as you could just kick a ball between to people. A lot of kids are obsessed with footy but without a garden have not even been allowed to kick a ball, they can now. It obviously needs to be in an area not overly crowded.
At some point, you’ll realise I was making a joke about a possible format for socially distanced tactics; y’know, what with the leagues kicking off again soon (maybe)...
Another amusing image that popped into my head, was combing the sports of Football and Pole Vaulting. The pole would allow socially distanced tackling and allow players to pass each other (as long as the pole was greater than two meters). Probably end up looking like some Dantesque Chimera of Football, Snooker, Hockey and Field Athletics.*
I’d watch it just for the blood and horrific injuries.¹
*That wasn’t serious either.
¹ Neither was that.
This has been brought to you by Muppet, Plonker and Sons, speechwriters and strategists to Prime Minister Johnson...
-
You’re too good for Bj.
-
(https://scontent.flhr4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/96678542_10163535936550322_1111747375421980672_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=1480c5&_nc_ohc=YiiOjDCAlsoAX-Ssysf&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr4-1.fna&oh=b35851a9c378d1eba46f78fa9c6267e2&oe=5EDED3CC)
-
Hows life in the Deloitte* snot emporium Stone?
*a guess
-
Also interested in an update Stone. After the past few days I'm still left wondering what the government's public health strategy actually is - are we committing to test, trace, isolate, and if so are doing it now, or "sometime soon" like with border controls? The masses have their orders - "Stay Alert"; but what are they doing?
Also, had a cynical thought this morning. Given that we can meet one person outside but not two, the logic I can best make fit is that it is designed to shut down any potential protest. Or if not designed that way, it helpfully has that effect.
-
Hows life in the Deloitte* snot emporium Stone?
*a guess
Hi, I only know about Deloitte involvement via the media. On time sheets it is "Department of Health Alderly Park". On other stuff it is "Lighthouse Labs Alderly Park hosted by Medicines Catapult".
I guess Deloitte would be involved in the overall logistics of getting the swabbing done and getting the samples sent to us. I think though the vans arriving with samples are DHL and they get unloaded by Army people. It is Army people in uniform who walk in with stacks of samples.
It is great for my peace of mind to be able to get on with some testing :) . It is a very friendly, happy, upbeat place to work. I'm not the only Sheffield climber there. It is a zero-hours type arrangement and it was a case of getting an email at 7pm telling us whether or not to come in at 7:30 am the following day but now we get several days notice (I was off yesterday and today, after five days on through the weekend, and then I'm on for the rest of this week and weekend).
There was a lot of training going but that seems to have quietened down with enough people to make use of the space. They might have an extra shift (after 8pm) introduced though I guess.
On the whole I can just turn up and get on with it. Last Tues though barely any samples turned up so we were all sent home and the following shift was cancelled. The other glitch is that the sample tubes come in a bizarre array of shapes and sizes that demands innovation in handling/racking etc. When I started many of the samples were arriving in leaked tubes that had to be voided. That seems to have been largely sorted now. Many samples still arrive with the barcodes wrapped around the tube such that they have to be peeled off to scan them though.
I have a totally worm's-eye-view of it all. I have no idea why there are the reported multiple-day delays people are reporting for getting test results back. As far as I can see we get through the samples that are sent to us within a day. I suppose there must be unfathomable delays either in getting the samples to us or getting the test results back to the people tested.
I read that in South Korea people can turn up to get swabbed with ample availability and they get the results back in seven hours. That is what we need here if we are to get test-trace-isolate working and get to grips with the crisis.
You wrote before that a friend of yours is a professional in an NHS COVID19 testing lab. I read something (now a few weeks old) from their professional body that seemed exasperated that the testing wasn't all being done by the NHS and PHE labs. I really hope that that is now resolved and that people like me are helping the overall effort rather than unwittingly being party to some grand Tory outsourcing fiasco.
-
Thanks for the update Stone - thats really good - and interesting to hear. Good to get out of the house and do something to help too (wish I could)...
In Wuhan - according to the WHO reports they had hospitals/clinics where if you were suspected you turned up were tested - and then waited there for the 4 hours it took to get the results back. If positive you stayed - if negative you went home. Part of the testing also included a CT scan. I've read that in UK hospitals if suspected CV cases are admitted they first chest x ray them as its quicker than waiting for a test (and we don't have many ct scanners).
We've not heard from our friends for a while - hope they're OK. Both normally work in labs in MRI (Manchester Royal Infirmary) and were moved - all hands to the pump - to the CV19 testing bits..
-
Also, had a cynical thought this morning. Given that we can meet one person outside but not two, the logic I can best make fit is that it is designed to shut down any potential protest. Or if not designed that way, it helpfully has that effect.
You could still just ‘happen to meet’ a load of other people in the street, purely by chance of course, all carrying similar placards. “Well I didn’t know all these other people were going to be here guv’na”.
Although saying that, given Johnson seems to have been won over by the hawks and they’re now falling over themselves to push people back to work despite no effective test-trace-isolate strategy in place the most obvious way to protest would be a peaceful one at home watching Midsomer Murder repeats. You really tried to get child care of course, but with no luck. It’s just a good job Boris agrees that’s “a barrier to work” and “all reasonable employers will understand”. He’s got our backs on that one :lol:
-
In Wuhan - according to the WHO reports they had hospitals/clinics where if you were suspected you turned up were tested - and then waited there for the 4 hours it took to get the results back. If positive you stayed - if negative you went home. Part of the testing also included a CT scan. I've read that in UK hospitals if suspected CV cases are admitted they first chest x ray them as its quicker than waiting for a test (and we don't have many ct scanners).
A friend who's a doctor on the COVID19 ward in Sheffield told me that they have been able to get their patients' test results done by the hospital's own lab with a 6hr turnaround (that's similar to the process time at Alderly Park).
Four hours is extremely impressive if those Wuhan tests are RT-PCR tests. That speed would be like just processing one sample through with no delays anywhere I'd guess. It takes me ninety minutes to get a batch of ninety sample tubes scanned in and the samples pipetted into a 96well plate ready for the first robot. The samples are double bagged and it's all done in a virus containment hood which makes it all a faff. There is also someone up stream opening the boxes that the samples come in.
It is stunning that they have that availability of CT scanners in Wuhan. I remember back when I had lymphoma, I had an eight week wait for a CT scan after I had finished chemo and the result was that I still had a residual mass that needed some unplanned radiotherapy.
I also read that in Wuhan they had extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines for patients who couldn't survive on a ventilator. I think in the UK we have wallowed in the idea that we should offshore everything such as making smart phones etc to places such as China and Korea whilst we took the elevated roles such as composing adverts for phones or trading derivatives of stocks of phone companies etc. Those nurtured capabilities haven't been a lot of use against the virus.
But what really galls me is that we do have vastly more of the needed expertise than has been made use of in this crisis. What has really failed has been coordination. The government has been very effective at shutting things down but utterly rubbish at empowering people to do what they want to do to sort it all out. When we look back at this, I think that is what we really have to do soul searching about. How and why does that all work in other countries but not here? We had 750k people sign up to "help the NHS". Evidently our government was only up for setting up a sign-in website and not for anything beyond that. Perhaps it is a reluctance to delegate. The COVID19 testing in South Korea and Germany was delegated down to local labs who volunteered to convert to do it. In the UK there was a massive desire from the ground to join in something like that but it wasn't allowed to happen. Similarly with contact tracing, the UK has thousands and thousands of people clued up and keen to get contact tracing apps working. But we don't have anything working even now. The 750k people who volunteered to help the NHS would no-doubt have included many (ie tens of thousands at least) who would have been up for Chinese-style "shoe-leather" contact tracing. But nothing gets done.
-
I also read that in Wuhan they had extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines for patients who couldn't survive on a ventilator. I think in the UK we have wallowed in the idea that we should offshore everything such as making smart phones etc to places such as China and Korea whilst we took the elevated roles such as composing adverts for phones or trading derivatives of stocks of phone companies etc. Those nurtured capabilities haven't been a lot of use against the virus.
But what really galls me is that we do have vastly more of the needed expertise than has been made use of in this crisis. What has really failed has been coordination. The government has been very effective at shutting things down but utterly rubbish at empowering people to do what they want to do to sort it all out. When we look back at this, I think that is what we really have to do soul searching about. How and why does that all work in other countries but not here? We had 750k people sign up to "help the NHS". Evidently our government was only up for setting up a sign-in website and not for anything beyond that. Perhaps it is a reluctance to delegate. The COVID19 testing in South Korea and Germany was delegated down to local labs who volunteered to convert to do it. In the UK there was a massive desire from the ground to join in something like that but it wasn't allowed to happen. Similarly with contact tracing, the UK has thousands and thousands of people clued up and keen to get contact tracing apps working. But we don't have anything working even now. The 750k people who volunteered to help the NHS would no-doubt have included many (ie tens of thousands at least) who would have been up for Chinese-style "shoe-leather" contact tracing. But nothing gets done.
Nailed it in those two paragraphs Stone. On both angles - that despite talking a big talk most politicians, especially of the right, view productive work as something that makes money, rather than something that makes things. Things gets offshored and we become a nation that can't make enough waterproof gowns. And then the obsession with centralising things rather than using alternative options. I actually don't have a problem with centralisation in theory as it can be a more efficient way to do things. But only if you are organised and put the hours in. Those times are behind us it appears. Currently gov seem unable to organise an orgy in a brothel. And the only alternative option they consider is more outsourcing. I think the NHS volunteers thing shows that PR takes precedent over actually doing anything.
-
It looks like a return to a large scale decentralised test-trace-isolate strategy before lockdown measures are eased is one of the key recommendations of the ‘Independent SAGE’ group.
-
Yep. From the Guardian live blog:
In a report being published today, the group warn that simply ensuring the NHS is not overwhelmed is “counter-productive” and “potentially dangerous”. Without strong measures to suppress the spread of infections “we shall inevitably see a more rapid return of local epidemics and face the prospect of further partial or national lockdowns,” the authors write.
The report, which includes 19 key recommendations, will be sent to Downing Street, Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser who co-chairs Sage, the first ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Jeremy Hunt, the chair of the Health Select Committee.
The experts call on ministers to reverse the 12 March decision to abandon efforts to test, trace and isolate cases of Covid-19 and replace the existing centralised testing approach, which relies heavily on the private sector. In its place, the group call for a decentralised strategy that puts GPs and local health teams at the heart of the outbreak control. The report states that the “over-dependence on outsourcing” is unsustainable.
Note last paragraph = what Stone said.
-
Hancock added: "Some of our most vulnerable people live in care homes and yet only around a quarter of the deaths that have happened have been in care homes. That’s much lower than most international comparators."
Er, hang on!
-
Hancock added: "Some of our most vulnerable people live in care homes and yet only around a quarter of the deaths that have happened have been in care homes. That’s much lower than most international comparators."
Er, hang on!
That wouldn’t be one of our most senior govt ministers indulging in a spot of double standards would it? Surely not.
-
It looks like a return to a large scale decentralised test-trace-isolate strategy before lockdown measures are eased is one of the key recommendations of the ‘Independent SAGE’ group.
That is why David King has set it up really, isn't it? That and the fact that full public buy-in requires transparency. We aren't doing this though. My current guess is a second wave in July.
-
Yep. From the Guardian live blog:
In a report being published today, the group warn that simply ensuring the NHS is not overwhelmed is “counter-productive” and “potentially dangerous”. Without strong measures to suppress the spread of infections “we shall inevitably see a more rapid return of local epidemics and face the prospect of further partial or national lockdowns,” the authors write.
The report, which includes 19 key recommendations, will be sent to Downing Street, Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser who co-chairs Sage, the first ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Jeremy Hunt, the chair of the Health Select Committee.
The experts call on ministers to reverse the 12 March decision to abandon efforts to test, trace and isolate cases of Covid-19 and replace the existing centralised testing approach, which relies heavily on the private sector. In its place, the group call for a decentralised strategy that puts GPs and local health teams at the heart of the outbreak control. The report states that the “over-dependence on outsourcing” is unsustainable.
I totally agree with putting GPs at the heart of outbreak control. A Sheffield GP was on TV who had set up local shoe-leather contact tracing and was saying that the same could be done in parallel throughout the country. I'm wondering though about the wisdom of reversing the centralisation of testing. I guess a lot depends on whether by "testing" they mean swabbing the people or analysing those samples. People should be swabbed wherever is most convenient for them to ensure they get it done promptly. Regarding analysing samples, the huge advantage of taking the South Korean/German "Dunkirk small ships" approach was that already existing teams of people were able to just get going from the outset. The UK Lighthouse labs have entailed converting offices into labs and recruiting and vetting the staff. That caused many weeks delay. But that is now water under the bridge.
The only remaining advantage of decentralised sample analysis would be if logistics were more agile with decentralisation. That might, but perhaps need not necessarily, be the case. It only takes a few hours to drive from anywhere to one of either Milton Keynes, Alderly Park or Glasgow (the "mega-lab" sites). So delays of several days (as I've heard of) are not due physical distance. They are down to other screw ups. I suppose a lot of the decision hinges on what is being done with the testing. Perhaps some people (such as some customer-facing key workers) etc ought to be tested every week or so. That perhaps could be done well in a centralised mega-lab. Perhaps test-trace-isolate strategies though need extremely rapid testing where every hour counts a tremendous amount. Those might be best met by innovative point-of-care testing technologies rather than RT-PCR. Perhaps though an RT-PCR back-up test might still be wanted. A centralised lab might be suitable for such back-up testing.
Another possible advantage of decentralisation is that it could provoke more technological innovation. Being centralised locks things into a fixed way of doing things. Obviously a given test needs to follow a validated Standard-Operating-Procedure. But if many different labs were doing it, they would be developing and validating improved approaches as side projects. Methods such as using second generation sequencing, CRISPR etc etc may well supersede the RT-PCR test method.
Above all, I'd want to know what causes the UK delays and to talk to people doing this in South Korea, China etc if I were deciding. You'd hope that those deciding are up on that but I really wonder and doubt it.
-
Also the transfer of information Stone. Many complaints that CV19 results from centralised (provatised?) system are not being forwarded to GPs or updating patient records... I suspect this would not be such an issue if testing had been devolved.
-
I have a totally worm's-eye-view of it all. I have no idea why there are the reported multiple-day delays people are reporting for getting test results back. As far as I can see we get through the samples that are sent to us within a day. I suppose there must be unfathomable delays either in getting the samples to us or getting the test results back to the people tested.
Based on my experience, I think the problem is likely to be the logistical delays of getting the tests to the patients and on to the testing centres and then the same delays getting the results back again.
I'm taking part in the antibodies testing study. Here is my anecdotal experience of being tested:
20th April: I am contacted to urgently arrange an appointment to be tested. Requested to call at 9am. 9-12: call centre fails to cope with demand. No queueing system, just an engaged tone. 12-14: call centre offline. 14-17: engaged tone.
21st April: I finally get through to a robot, where I can request a callback (they had everybody's contact details from the start, why were we ringing them?)
24th April: I get my callback. Testing appointment booked for 26th April. Nurse will call ahead to confirm the time.
26th April: The nurse never turned up or contacted me.
27th April: I rang up to find out whether I needed to rearrange. Took 4 hours to get through to a robot to request another callback.
29th April: They called me back: apologised for the missed appointment, blamed an admin error. Someone would call me back to rearrange but she couldn't speculate as to when.
1st May: Called back by someone better informed: He admitted that the reason they missed my appointment and the reason why nobody had yet rearranged was that the Midlands depot had no testing kits. They were still awaiting their first delivery. I would be contacted ASAP when tests were able to commence. He couldn't give a timeframe.
10th May: I am contacted to rearrange and am finally tested. I discussed with the nurse who said it was his first day of being able to conduct any tests. He had received zero communication throughout on when the tests would be available. He went in to work each morning expecting to begin testing only to find out that he was not going to be testing that day.
12th May: I contacted my doctor to find out whether they had received my results yet. They were not aware of the study nor that results would be issued to them rather than directly to participants. During my test, the nurse had confirmed that he had already tested many people that day from my surgery (he now knew the surgery contact details by heart). The sole doctor is going to have to interpret all of these results before he can relay them to participants. It would be good if he was at least aware of this additional workload.
Similar to PPE, it is clear that the infrastructure and communication is inadequate at almost every stage of the supply chain. The bottle necks are not the preparation or testing in the lab.
We can rattle on about our "capacity" to test x number of people per day but it is completely irrelevant unless we have the logistical capacity along the entire chain from booking the test all the way through to communicating the results.
I hope these delays and confusions are because more urgent cases are being prioritised over volunteers taking part in an academic study to improve understanding but it does not inspire confidence.
-
Some clarity for business at least with a list of who must remain closed (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing/staying-alert-and-safe-social-distancing#visiting-public-places).
However for others wording varies between sources on whether they 'can' open or 'should' open. NB Legally, 'should' is a recommendation and not mandatory.
As in "should open, as you won't get furlough pay any longer"? Let's see what the next announcement brings..
Apparently an extension of the furlough period to October.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52634759
-
Good news for people. Although implies an expectation we'll be locking down again at some point before October.
-
Good news for people. Although implies an expectation we'll be locking down again at some point before October.
They’ve found a map for where that magic money tree we were always told didn’t exist is. It’s obviously harder to find when only those scrounging work-shy scum need help.
-
I'm taking part in the antibodies testing study. Here is my anecdotal experience of being tested:..............................................
I hope these delays and confusions are because more urgent cases are being prioritised over volunteers taking part in an academic study to improve understanding but it does not inspire confidence.
It's great that you are participating in that study. I've been really keen to know how widespread COVID19 immunity now is.
Evidently faff and delay is the flavour of the season. I'm still none-the-wiser of why it bedevils the UK (and apparently the US) COVID19 response and yet some countries do fine. It's possible to get say interflora deliveries to work in the UK. So I don't understand what our problem is.
-
Good news for people. Although implies an expectation we'll be locking down again at some point before October.
With current strategy it’s inevitable imo.
-
I'm taking part in the antibodies testing study. Here is my anecdotal experience of being tested:..............................................
I hope these delays and confusions are because more urgent cases are being prioritised over volunteers taking part in an academic study to improve understanding but it does not inspire confidence.
It's great that you are participating in that study. I've been really keen to know how widespread COVID19 immunity now is.
The Government have been quoting a figure around 3% for the population outside of London. This is much lower than I was anticipating. Will be interesting to see if the figure changes as more data becomes available.
Evidently faff and delay is the flavour of the season. I'm still none-the-wiser of why it bedevils the UK (and apparently the US) COVID19 response and yet some countries do fine. It's possible to get say interflora deliveries to work in the UK. So I don't understand what our problem is.
I don't understand why we as a country are so slow at getting on top of the logistics and planning either.
How many vans and lorries are currently sat idle around the country that could be used to assist supply? I would happily load up the campervan with a few thousand test kits and drive them to where they are needed.
The US varies wildly from state to state and county to county. Talking to my colleagues in Texas about shopping there: all shops are closed to walk in customers. Most switched to home delivery only in mid March, with a small number also offering click and collect. They can get delivery slots at will and have almost complete freedom on the day and time they want.
Meanwhile in the UK, my parents are shielding and supposedly get a priority slot from their local supermarket. They have not yet been able to arrange a single delivery through that scheme. Luckily for them, I can deliver shopping to them so they don't have to risk going to the shops themselves. Other vulnerable people aren't so fortunate.
-
I'm taking part in the antibodies testing study. Here is my anecdotal experience of being tested:..............................................
I hope these delays and confusions are because more urgent cases are being prioritised over volunteers taking part in an academic study to improve understanding but it does not inspire confidence.
It's great that you are participating in that study. I've been really keen to know how widespread COVID19 immunity now is.
The Government have been quoting a figure around 3% for the population outside of London. This is much lower than I was anticipating. Will be interesting to see if the figure changes as more data becomes available.
At last night presser/Q&A, the CSA said that serology testing had shown that they now estimated c10% of London's population has antibodies present and c4% on average in the rest of the country with some regional variations. Vallance explained this is based on 2 week old ONS data re people who would have had an infection 3 weeks previously so effectively what the estimated position was c5 weeks ago.
Vallance also said that an ongoing ONS study trying to measure the number of people in the population who are infected indicates that c136k are currently infected but with wide intervals of 65k-250k around that central estimate.
It's at 28:15 if anyone wants to listen - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jh2f/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-11052020 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jh2f/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-11052020)
-
Broad brush timeline overview of Britain vs coronavirus: https://appeasement.org/
-
It's great that you are participating in that study. I've been really keen to know how widespread COVID19 immunity now is.
The Government have been quoting a figure around 3% for the population outside of London. This is much lower than I was anticipating. Will be interesting to see if the figure changes as more data becomes available.
At last night presser/Q&A, the CSA said that serology testing had shown that they now estimated c10% of London's population has antibodies present and c4% on average in the rest of the country with some regional variations. Vallance explained this is based on 2 week old ONS data re people who would have had an infection 3 weeks previously so effectively what the estimated position was c5 weeks ago.
Vallance also said that an ongoing ONS study trying to measure the number of people in the population who are infected indicates that c136k are currently infected but with wide intervals of 65k-250k around that central estimate.
It's at 28:15 if anyone wants to listen - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jh2f/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-11052020 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jh2f/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-11052020)
Cheers, I couldn't remember the exact figures and could only give it half attention first time around.
-
So being 'optimistic' and 10% present infection with 30k dead = mortality rate of 0.5%
To get up to Herd immunity levels of 60% - thats another 150k deaths...
Its probably at least 40k dead at the moment - and infection rate less - but the death rate may decline as treatments and diagnosis improves... so if no vaccine then 180-360k dead...
-
Officially 40k now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-40000-official-figures-say
-
Officially 40k now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-40000-official-figures-say
Cue govt ditching the global comparisons.
-
Officially 40k now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-40000-official-figures-say
Cue govt ditching the global comparisons.
Although to be fair, global comparisons probably are a waste of time as every country seems to be using different reporting criteria. Who knows what the true figure is in Italy etc. It sounds like Belgium has been much more transparent all along.
-
Although to be fair, global comparisons probably are a waste of time as every country seems to be using different reporting criteria. Who knows what the true figure is in Italy etc. It sounds like Belgium has been much more transparent all along.
Yep, global comparisons or precise league table is difficult to do with certainty. Not denying that. It’s the way the govt have been using it as a propaganda exercise is the issue. They started comparing them every day in the press conferences when we looked good relative to other countries early on. I’ve posted up thread a tweet from a Tory MP comparing our numbers with Italy in the early stages as a way to argue “the strategy is working”. As soon as our death rate looked shit compared to the rest of Europe they started arguing why you couldn’t make international comparisons and that MP deleted his tweet. Now we’ve gone above 40k and are looking really shit compared with the rest of Europe they’re just missing that data out altogether.
And all that despite govt ministers still making comparisons with other countries when the numbers are in their favour. Including Matt Hancock this morning comparing care home deaths. It’s just rank hypocrisy.
-
Yes I totally agree with the hypocrisy of picking and choosing when and what data to use. It reminds me of some of the shadier tactics used by pharmaceutical companies to make drug trials look good.
I suppose what I mean is, I don't know how much we can believe that we are the worst country in Europe, when there's a good chance other governments are doing the same. God alone knows what the true figure is in Iran and China, who's governments don't exactly have a track record of releasing data that makes them look bad
-
I suppose what I mean is, I don't know how much we can believe that we are the worst country in Europe, when there's a good chance other governments are doing the same.
Going off excess deaths stats, we are very much the worst in Europe and worse than the US.
https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
-
The excess deaths is currently the stat I find most useful. Even if plots are really depressing, they are pretty.
-
I suppose what I mean is, I don't know how much we can believe that we are the worst country in Europe, when there's a good chance other governments are doing the same.
Going off excess deaths stats, we are very much the worst in Europe and worse than the US.
https://www.ft.com/content/a26fbf7e-48f8-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441
Oh dear. I clearly recall Raab saying at a briefing that we shouldn't compare data yet, the REAL test will come when we can compare excess deaths. Might try and find that. They have obviously chosen the wrong metric to wriggle out of it there, as it will probably look worse than the "normal" recorded figures. Don't let them forget it. I wonder what their excuse / right wing talking point will be after that? Already starting to hear that we have done well because deaths haven't reached half a million yet. Hmmm.
-
USA 30k excess deaths. UK 50k excess deaths.
Possible that lockdown was suppressing other forms of death in the US. Interestingly SA is considerably under their regular death rates - again a lockdown effect?
I hate to bring this back to media - but ITV, c4, Sky - all picking up on this. BBC - nothing.
-
Both countries with a lot of deaths from firearms, I wonder if that has dropped significantly since March.
-
Definitely the case in SA. Murder rate way down, and their severe lockdown seems to have controlled the outbreak.
-
Definitely the case in SA. Murder rate way down, and their severe lockdown seems to have controlled the outbreak.
Thats amazing on both counts - my (niave) perceptions would be parts would be rife for some bad CV outbreaks...
-
It was just about martial law there. Complete curfews.
-
It was just about martial law there. Complete curfews.
I have a good friend and former oppo, who now runs an “executive limo and driver service” across Europe and SA (read between the lines as to the nature of the “Driver’s” training).
Anyway, his business partner/backer is Afrikaans and I get into a weekly argument with him (my oppo, don’t know the partner) because he’s convinced the SA situation, as told to him by said backer, proves the whole thing is a lie and faked here...
Not only is my oppo university educated, he’s a nice bloke (despite the ability to move you rapidly into the next life with one punch). I get the impression from him and my other mates that take his side in our debates, that they just can’t conceive of a foe they can’t control or fight off with sheer will power and physical strength.
Nuts.
Here, this is the gist of his missive:
“I’m in contact a lot with my business partner in Durban , South Africa . The army are patrolling the streets enforcing the lockdown there. The health service unless you have money is pretty much non existent. The black population have huge numbers of people with compromised immune systems due to hepatitis and hiv and no access to healthcare. You’d expect the black people to be dropping like flies , with piles of bodies everywhere in the townships , they are living 20 people to a bathroom in very close proximity to each other. The covid infection is going through the population like wildfire , virtually no government testing there, yet there are no bodies in the streets . Why is that? . Maybe it’s not quite as lethal as was initially thought. Warren buffet says “be greedy when everyone is fearful, be fearful when everyone is greedy” we’ll have to live with current covid 19”
-
Definitely the case in SA. Murder rate way down, and their severe lockdown seems to have controlled the outbreak.
Thats amazing on both counts - my (niave) perceptions would be parts would be rife for some bad CV outbreaks...
I understand they have a lot of community contact tracing infrastructure TomTom, established to combat the HIV epidemic. So skills, manpower, experience and political will to implement.
We just have the first two, which helps explain why we are not as successful at coping as one of the poorest nations on earth.
Edit
just read your post saying there’s no community testing in black community OMM. BBC said the opposite?
-
I've got SA mates who are convinced it's all BS too for reasons stated.
No idea as to cause and effect, possibly it's mutated and SA have a less dangerous strain?
-
A quick look at the Worldometer stats, SA only hit the 100 death mark around 30th April and are at 250 two weeks later.
We hit that around 18 March. Two weeks later, had ~2500 dead. That’s a pretty significant difference.
However, their number of cases continues to rise (700/day and increasing) and so do the deaths, so it’s not under control there.
I don’t know enough about SA. Am I wrong to think the reporting is likely to be highly suspect and almost certainly below, significantly, actual?
(A bit like ours...)
-
Aye, not sure the Verneukpan has enough pinches of salt to take with the stats.
-
Now we’ve gone above 40k and are looking really shit compared with the rest of Europe they’re just missing that data out altogether.
And all that despite govt ministers still making comparisons with other countries when the numbers are in their favour. Including Matt Hancock this morning comparing care home deaths. It’s just rank hypocrisy.
Shapps choosing to compare care home death rates with other European countries again today. I hope someone takes them to task over this hypocrisy soon.
-
USA 30k excess deaths. UK 50k excess deaths.
Just seen this - while excess data on the FT is really interesting its worth noting that dates of latest data can be very different so UK is May 1st while US is Apr 11 (and Italy is Mar 31).
UK does look like it may possibly be worst hit in Europe, though Italy, Belgium, Spain and to some extent Netherlands seem to be in the similar ballpark (more than 50% excess deaths)
-
London doing ok, so we can reopen.
Rest of UK? Obviously, the government position is “fuck them”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788)
Flippant, but it often feels as of “UK” policy, has very little consideration for anybody outside of the M25.
Also, surely hospital admissions today, only tell you what r was ~2 weeks ago, when the lockdown was still working and not even what it was last week, when it started to crumble?
-
New Gov slogan?
https://twitter.com/dylan_patel/status/1259382422048854016
-
London doing ok, so we can reopen.
Rest of UK? Obviously, the government position is “fuck them”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788)
Flippant, but it often feels as of “UK” policy, has very little consideration for anybody outside of the M25.
Also, surely hospital admissions today, only tell you what r was ~2 weeks ago, when the lockdown was still working and not even what it was last week, when it started to crumble?
I think that the government has made a huge mistake with this current policy. The actual change in the law and regulations is tiny, but people appear to have generally decided that now they can do whatever they want. I fear to think what national parks and beaches will be like this weekend.
In three weeks the figures will probably get worse and it'll be panic stations and stockpile mania again
-
London doing ok, so we can reopen.
Rest of UK? Obviously, the government position is “fuck them”.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-london-lowest-rate-infection-uk-a9515761.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1589533788)
Flippant, but it often feels as of “UK” policy, has very little consideration for anybody outside of the M25.
Also, surely hospital admissions today, only tell you what r was ~2 weeks ago, when the lockdown was still working and not even what it was last week, when it started to crumble?
I think that the government has made a huge mistake with this current policy. The actual change in the law and regulations is tiny, but people appear to have generally decided that now they can do whatever they want. I fear to think what national parks and beaches will be like this weekend.
In three weeks the figures will probably get worse and it'll be panic stations and stockpile mania again
I do think that, possibly, maybe, if you squint at it from the right angle (maybe add red and a polarising filter); there might be a hint of a plan and even something approaching logic, behind the debacle.
We are only going to get through this by significantly, permanently, changing our behaviour.
In many ways, lockdown, only provides a false sense of security and genuinely cannot be permanent. However, it’s clear, too many still don’t take it seriously or flatly deny the severity.
Not a situation likely to change under an enforced lockdown. Perhaps “They” feel a “managed” second wave might be what’s needed to drum the message home?
This is idle musing, of course. I have no faith in “Their” ability to manage anything, let alone a deadly virus. I do think they might actually be capable of believing they can. There must be some hope that there is a seasonal aspect to the virus transmission (and this is probably the start of low transmission season). There is still the hope that sufficient penetration, might, confer the fabled “Herd immunity”.
In darker moments, I can almost imagine that “clearing out” the most vulnerable from the care homes and population at large, might be seen in some quarters as a punch to be taken now; that will be a fading memory by years end and even “clear the undergrowth” that gives the death toll it’s greatest fuel.
Then again, ‘They” are probably just incompetent and overly influenced by greedy corporate interests.
-
Managed second wave - or ripples on the curve if you like is fine - if you’re coming from a low point. Eg. Much easier to manage a rise of 100 cases a day from a base of 200-400. This could be done or helped by track and trace etc. If it’s a rise of 1000 on a base of 2-4000 (as we have at the moment) that’s not possible.
-
BMJ view on the government response..
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1932
-
Succinct. This caught my eye:
On 19 March, the status of covid-19 was downgraded from level 4, the highest threat level, to level 3 by the four nations group on high consequence infectious diseases and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens.11 This enabled the required standard of personal protective equipment to be lowered for staff in hospitals and to nurse patients in non-infectious disease settings.
In contrast, the WHO declared a global pandemic on 11 March.
-
Fuck me this govt just cannot show even a scrap of honesty or empathy.
The IFS produces a detailed report on the state of the jobs market showing vacancies posted in March were just 8% of the levels in 2019 and only “tentatively recovering in the health and social care sector and barely at all in other parts of the economy”.
Therese Coffey’s response: “there are a substantial number of job vacancies”.
One of these statements is not based in reality.
If she can’t even recognise or admit there’s a problem what hope is there to fix it?
-
BMJ view on the government response..
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1932
Comprehensive and clear.
Herd immunity via contracting the virus still looks like the plan, going on actions not words. It'd be easier all round if they would just admit it.
-
Never thought I'd say this, but yesterday's daily briefing was quite revealing. Well, the questions part at least:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jd72/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-19052020
I suspect we won't be seeing much more of Dame Angela McClean at briefings.
-
Never thought I'd say this, but yesterday's daily briefing was quite revealing. Well, the questions part at least:
I suspect we won't be seeing much more of Dame Angela McClean at briefings.
I get the sense a few of the scientific advisers have become acutely aware of being lined up for blame so are gently distancing themselves from decisions and being more blunt in their answers. Very wise.
The emerging line from ministers now also seems to be that “we know more now than we did back in February/March” to excuse decisions that were made. In a sense that may be true about certain aspects but it doesn’t explain away some fundamental flaws in their strategy. I use the word ‘strategy’ in the loosest sense.
-
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-blames-scientists-for-wrong-advice-on-pandemic-2020-5?r=US&IR=T
Shoulders already aslope.
-
Having been involved in advising government in the past - as a scientist you’re normally treated apolitically and with the upmost of respect and courtesy. After all - you’re doing it to help - not for any great payback (although it doesn’t generally do your reputation any harm!)
If they start blaming scientists and science advice - then support and help from the science community will very very rapidly evaporate.
This all feels like a very Trump-lite way of dealing with things.
-
If they start blaming scientists and science advice - then support and help from the science community will very very rapidly evaporate.
Future disaster in the making there. Trump-lite/populist short termism- yes.
-
Downing St are now saying Coffey’s comments were “unhelpful”, but it seems to be a tried and tested method of putting up a (relatively) junior minister to sew the idea in the public’s mind and then No 10 distancing themselves when challenged. The damage is already done by that point, but they can plead innocence. I’m assuming the scientists can see this tactic for what it is, and push back accordingly.
-
Yup, right out of The Donald's playbook, point fingers at everyone but yourself.
-
Never thought I'd say this, but yesterday's daily briefing was quite revealing. Well, the questions part at least:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jd72/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-19052020
I suspect we won't be seeing much more of Dame Angela McClean at briefings.
Indeed! Lots of very pointed silences following her answers which said quite a lot more than she had. Thanks for highlighting.
-
decimate
/ˈdɛsɪmeɪt/
verb
1.
kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
2.
HISTORICAL
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion, in 2020 it refers to Care home residents) as a punishment for the whole group.
(Historically)"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers".
(Present) “Cummings is the man who determined it was necessary to decimate a large body of helpless elderly people”.
Definitions from Oxford Languages (and a bit of tooth grinding frustration).
(Sorry. My Grandmother died, last week actually (non covid). Because of the situation, she died alone. Even when we knew she was deteriorating, nobody could visit. A careworker sat with her until she passed. My Grandmother was the fourth person that woman had sat with, for the final moments, that week. She was the only non covid. I can’t go to her funeral, just found out).
-
Sorry to hear that OMM :(
-
Never thought I'd say this, but yesterday's daily briefing was quite revealing. Well, the questions part at least:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jd72/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-19052020
I suspect we won't be seeing much more of Dame Angela McClean at briefings.
[/quote
It's becoming a surreal shadow play. Everyone knows it's a massive mess that cost tens of thousands of lives but the pretence of sucess has to continue. This was one of the few times cracks showed.
On the science point, several key government scientific advisors have to be guilty of errors but we still don't exactly who, with how much guilt, or about what. I've sat in enough high level academic committees over decades to know eminent scientists are people with the usual flaws: those prepared to say the emperor has no clothes are more the exception than the rule. From the leaks so far SAGE seems to be where the biggest science problems occurred, where of course they got the balance of modelling versus other key skills very wrong and Dom and his pet post doc sit in (no intent to spin or intimidate... oh no). To be fair to SAGE they inherited a shit show (especially, and despite Cygnus, in pandemic preparedness and an austerity hits on our Public Health service and council support for social care) but Testing, PPE, the herd immunity nonsense and Care Home protections should have been handled much better from the scientific input side. As someone with a longstanding hard boiled experience of science (the great and mainly good through to the bad), and a well known Boris critic, I never saw this coming: the worst cabinet I've ever seen doing so well on the political end on its financial response and a good bit of the serious epidemiology problems being down to mixed quailty advice on the bit involving science. As much as I dislike the ongoing political communications fiasco (plain lies to muddled messages), I think the English population rescued the government from the worst consequences of that, as they behaved better in social distancing than I cynically expected. Even the austerity factors (especially council services, PH and Cygnus) were more Cameron and May's fault.
My final point on science is where are SAGE on the pace of relaxation? The bulk of independent public science input says it's too much too soon in the UK, given infection level's being by far the highest in Europe for doing what we are doing.
-
This will be old news for many but i found it interesting, especially the planned cessation of testing as containment failed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/did-the-uk-government-prepare-for-the-wrong-kind-of-pandemic
-
This will be old news for many but i found it interesting, especially the planned cessation of testing as containment failed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/did-the-uk-government-prepare-for-the-wrong-kind-of-pandemic
*if it’s the same article I read earlier - I think it is
It provides an interesting narrative alongside what actually happened. How our plans evolved followed what was recommended back in 2016 - until the herd immunity cock up / speed bump. Explains quite a bit - from both how the science and policy side.
If that’s the case - begs the question why we stuck to that when many other countries did something different
-
This thread from Newsnight reporter Lewis Goodall is a shocker:
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1263219921124720640?s=20
(I haven't seen any of his reports, just followed what he's written on Twitter.)
-
This thread from Newsnight reporter Lewis Goodall is a shocker:
Yes it is. On a personal level I am so grateful that I don’t have anyone I love in a care home right now. But that doesn’t make what’s happening on a societal level any less painful to witness. Even more shocking given that the Cygnus report was so explicit in highlighting how exposed care homes would be, yet nothing was done beforehand to prepare and then such catastrophically bad decisions were made during.
-
We lost a distant relative in similar circumstances to the second home described in the thread. He had been terrified of going to hospital and catching it and refused to go in for an operation while the government were still telling us everything was fine.
About 4 weeks ago, he had a minor fall and ended up in hospital because the overstretched home couldn't cope with anyone requiring additional attention. He was discharged 2 days later back to the home. 6 days later, he started to cough and he didn't last long. His wife only got told he had fallen ill hours before he passed and didn't get a chance to say goodbye.
It has of course spread around the home. I know others there have since lost their lives to it but I don't know how many.
The funeral company didn't offer a streaming or recording service so even some of his closest family weren't able to attend.
-
Never thought I'd say this, but yesterday's daily briefing was quite revealing. Well, the questions part at least:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jd72/briefings-downing-street-coronavirus-news-conference-19052020
I suspect we won't be seeing much more of Dame Angela McClean at briefings.
Sorry about a repost but I fucked up the quotes.
It's becoming a surreal shadow play. Everyone knows it's a massive mess that cost tens of thousands of lives but the pretence of sucess has to continue. This was one of the few times cracks showed.
On the science point, several key government scientific advisors have to be guilty of errors but we still don't exactly who, with how much guilt, or about what. I've sat in enough high level academic committees over decades to know eminent scientists are people with the usual flaws: those prepared to say the emperor has no clothes are more the exception than the rule. From the leaks so far SAGE seems to be where the biggest science problems occurred, where of course they got the balance of modelling versus other key skills very wrong and Dom and his pet post doc sit in (no intent to spin or intimidate... oh no). To be fair to SAGE they inherited a shit show (especially, and despite Cygnus, in pandemic preparedness and an austerity hits on our Public Health service and council support for social care) but Testing, PPE, the herd immunity nonsense and Care Home protections should have been handled much better from the scientific input side. As someone with a longstanding hard boiled experience of science (the great and mainly good through to the bad), and a well known Boris critic, I never saw this coming: the worst cabinet I've ever seen doing so well on the political end on its financial response and a good bit of the serious epidemiology problems being down to mixed quailty advice on the bit involving science. As much as I dislike the ongoing political communications fiasco (plain lies to muddled messages), I think the English population rescued the government from the worst consequences of that, as they behaved better in social distancing than I cynically expected. Even the austerity factors (especially council services, PH and Cygnus) were more Cameron and May's fault.
My final point on science is where are SAGE on the pace of relaxation? The bulk of independent public science input says it's too much too soon in the UK, given infection level's being by far the highest in Europe for doing what we are doing.
-
I feel terrible saying this, but I'm glad by father died at home two years, my sister by his side. Otherwise there's a high chance this would have been his fate. I'm so sorry for anyone who has had to experience this.
-
We lost a distant relative in similar circumstances to the second home described in the thread. He had been terrified of going to hospital and catching it and refused to go in for an operation while the government were still telling us everything was fine.
About 4 weeks ago, he had a minor fall and ended up in hospital because the overstretched home couldn't cope with anyone requiring additional attention. He was discharged 2 days later back to the home. 6 days later, he started to cough and he didn't last long. His wife only got told he had fallen ill hours before he passed and didn't get a chance to say goodbye.
It has of course spread around the home. I know others there have since lost their lives to it but I don't know how many.
The funeral company didn't offer a streaming or recording service so even some of his closest family weren't able to attend.
Shocking but sadly predictable.
A similarly shocking blog from Roy Lilley today
I have no words...
News and Comment from Roy Lilley
I'm lucky to have a voice, I can say what I think needs to be said. I am really privileged that people write to me with their secrets, their complaints, their hopes and ideas.
I try to reply, acknowledge, make a comment.
I was sent this email two days ago. It made me weep. Tears of sorrow, compassion, hopelessness, frustration and anger. I have no words...
-oOo-
My parents reside in a care home, Mum has last stages of Dementia and Dad has Parkinson's (but with full mental capacity)
The care home, via random testing, in early May, established they had what they termed an asymptomatic resident. I am yet to be told what this means and how this "longstanding resident" caught the virus in the first place.
It took until last Thursday for the rest of the care home residents and staff to be tested... after chasing, by myself and other relatives.
(I know the testing regime has been shambolic)
Before the test results arrived Mum developed a cough and became poorly. Dad's tastes changed, went off his food and began to display signs of confusion.
I had to ask, in an email, for them to be isolated. At this point I believe the only resident to be isolated was the person who was asymptomatic.
The test results came back late Sunday. We were not notified. During the early hours of Monday morning Mum and Dad became very ill. At that point we were advised they both have Covid.
They are both still here fighting for their lives. Mum is on an end-of life-plan due to her co-morbidities.
Dad should be being helped by the NHS (here I am critical of the system not the people)
In our view, Dad needs a drip but the care home can't do that. He can't be admitted to hospital, due to having all the non-standard elderly people's symptoms, he doesn't qualify.
My Dad didn't want a DNAR, he expected to be helped by the NHS he believed in, voted for, paid for all of his life.
We have just been told that the local GP has said Dad cannot be resuscitated because the care home doesn't have the enhanced PPE.
This is confusing. PHE has issued guidance on PPE for staff undertaking resuscitation; Level 3 PPE it's not needed in care homes, which conflicts with Resuscitation Council guidance... Level 3 is needed.
We know there is a national shortage and we also know distribution is/has been shambolic but they can't get it and are now looking to local charitable organisations to see if they have any.
Ours isn't an unfamiliar tale but it is devastating, for all the families like ours who find themselves without anyone who can do anything. I feel totally helpless.
I am someone who has worked in health and local government for all of my working life.
How must other families feel? Angry, let down by a system that should be caring for a generation that fought poverty, the war, the depression and gave us freedom.
It's a generation that's being left to die.
... if you can use our story to raise the profile of the elderly especially in the context of today's statistics showing 25% of deaths relating to the elderly, I would be grateful
I'd also like Government to realise that these are real people with real families, daughters (in our case) and grandchildren who will be scared forever.
Presumably, hospitals have appropriate PPE so my Dad would be safer in hospital?
I have read your blogs for years and this is the first time I have been brave enough to ask you for help.
Tonight will be another sleepless night, checking the phones, wondering how they are doing and hoping/praying that they make it through the night.
-oOo-
Yesterday morning I learned my correspondent had bought 10, CE approved face shields, '... for use with my parents... they'll be delivered to the care home'.
Can I ask, please, next time you watch the 5pm, Number 10, press charade, you remember this email.
Next time you hear a minister or a house-trained chief-medico-scientist, telling us, this-n-that's world-beating, protective rings, done-at-pace, spending more money than god... please, remember, this email and ask yourself, are they fools or liars.
I have no words...
-
This thread from Newsnight reporter Lewis Goodall is a shocker:
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1263219921124720640?s=20
(I haven't seen any of his reports, just followed what he's written on Twitter.)
Bloody hell
"Cumnor Hill was told by CQC that this (isolating to protect the home from C19 ) was not in accordance with government advice- that social interaction was vital and it represented a deprivation of liberty. Care home CEO told me he was told "we would have to take out a deprivation of liberty order on all our homes.""
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/uk-first-coronavirus-contact-tracing-group-warns-of-difficulties
Intriguing article about a volunteer track and trace group set up by retired Sheffield GPs.
The absence of a proper national TT system was described as a “schoolboy error” by Dr Bing Jones who helped set up the group. Summary: getting the operation to work effectively was pretty much impossible. Dr Jones believes the gov track and trace system will struggle more than they did. :o
-
One of the most terrifying things I've read in the news recently is that 1 in 5 (19%) of Americans would refuse a CV vaccine. I wonder how many dangerous idiots there are in the UK.
Edit: just heard reports of Oxford study that found 19% of people surveyed thought that Jews had created the virus. A similar number thought maybe it's a Chinese bio weapon.
-
One of the main tools of political popularism is to generate a fearful and suspicious population when it comes to status quo politics and experts. So please be careful who you call an idiot.
-
One of the main tools of political popularism is to generate a fearful and suspicious population when it comes to status quo politics and experts. So please be careful who you call an idiot.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but, you could call them “Masters of the human condition, Lords of the common wisdom” and it would only be a euphemism for idiot.
-
Depends on whether they exercise their right to vote , innit?
Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual', is commonly held to refer to a person who did not participate in voting. Later associations of ignorance and stupidity come to us via Latin and then French.
So populists are definitely not idiots in the early classical sense.
-
Might knob heads be a better description? :D
-
One of the main tools of political popularism is to generate a fearful and suspicious population when it comes to status quo politics and experts. So please be careful who you call an idiot.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but, you could call them “Masters of the human condition, Lords of the common wisdom” and it would only be a euphemism for idiot.
I'm sure some may be idiots but that would also include in my view any well educated person labelling huge lumps of the population in that way. Brexit really woke me up to the extent of this... how huge numbers of people can make odd looking decisions for what they saw as good reasons and certainly often without being stupid. The problem with blanket labels is even more obvious in the US: most white college educated Americans voted for Trump (clever them...short term reduced taxes) who increases problems for poor people already struggling to get good public health information (but can easily find conspiracy shit on Facebook and Fox news); how much idiocy is there when the poor white Americans made bad health decisions, compared to the white rich voting for Trump.
-
One of the main tools of political popularism is to generate a fearful and suspicious population when it comes to status quo politics and experts. So please be careful who you call an idiot.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but, you could call them “Masters of the human condition, Lords of the common wisdom” and it would only be a euphemism for idiot.
I'm sure some may be idiots but that would also include in my view any well educated person labelling huge lumps of the population in that way. Brexit really woke me up to the extent of this... how huge numbers of people can make odd looking decisions for what they saw as good reasons and certainly often without being stupid. The problem with blanket labels is even more obvious in the US: most white college educated Americans voted for Trump (clever them...short term reduced taxes) who increases problems for poor people already struggling to get good public health information (but can easily find conspiracy shit on Facebook and Fox news); how much idiocy is there when the poor white Americans made bad health decisions, compared to the white rich voting for Trump.
Sorry, “idiot” and “educated” are not mutually exclusive and a lot of what is happening today, is idiotic.
I think you are entitled to your politically correct approach, but I don’t believe you will achieve what you hope to.
Generally, I think people roll their eyes when they hear people talk as you have. That particular group of “populists”, broad church they may be, would almost certainly have a serious medical episode, from the amount of eye rolling that would ensue from reading that description.
The desire to avoid distinguishing between groups, in defiance of clear observation, is part of the reason for the current divide, not a cure for it.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/21/uk-first-coronavirus-contact-tracing-group-warns-of-difficulties
Intriguing article about a volunteer track and trace group set up by retired Sheffield GPs.
The absence of a proper national TT system was described as a “schoolboy error” by Dr Bing Jones who helped set up the group. Summary: getting the operation to work effectively was pretty much impossible. Dr Jones believes the gov track and trace system will struggle more than they did. :o
The apparent culture of health care workers to clam up and refuse to divulge contacts (at the possible behest of their line managers) was quite shocking for me.
-
The apparent culture of health care workers to clam up and refuse to divulge contacts (at the possible behest of their line managers) was quite shocking for me.
Me too... but I did wonder how much was due to this being an 'unofficial' TT scheme rather than one with the full weight of the Govt behind it...
-
Behest or fear Chris? Have you seen the reporting of NHS staff threatened with their jobs for discussing PPE shortages? A management culture that may not be just in hospitals.
-
Behest or fear? Have you seen the reporting of NHS staff threatened with their jobs for discussing PPE shortages? A management culture that may not be just in hospitals.
I know - the culture and zero hours contacts in care settings means people will not want to stop working...
I wonder if the Govt has actually thought how it would force people to enter quarantine if TT identified them. Similar to Priti Patels UK entry quarantine thats due to be announced? It would very much go against this governments 'nudge' solutions...
I seem to remember reading an article in the last couple of days saying that the UK Govt will have to toughen up how it enforces self quarantine from TT if it comes in. Quite how well that will go down amongst someone self employed (for example) getting a call from a bored T&T call centre worker telling them they have to quarantine.
-
Sorry, “idiot” and “educated” are not mutually exclusive and a lot of what is happening today, is idiotic.
I think you are entitled to your politically correct approach, but I don’t believe you will achieve what you hope to.
Generally, I think people roll their eyes when they hear people talk as you have. That particular group of “populists”, broad church they may be, would almost certainly have a serious medical episode, from the amount of eye rolling that would ensue from reading that description.
The desire to avoid distinguishing between groups, in defiance of clear observation, is part of the reason for the current divide, not a cure for it.
We will have to agree to disagree. I think the fact anti-vaxers are a real issue is often more about people living in a bubble where most family or friends are suspicious of vaccines and sadly too much popularist social media supports such positions; what is needed is serious Public Health investment, action on dangerous social media posts and adult discussion. Low vaccination rates add risk to everyone... it's important and urgent and fuck all to do with being PC.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/26/drop-in-vaccination-rates-in-england-alarming-experts-warn
-
From the ZOE covid self reporting app... Looks to me like a cessation of the downward trend and a level if not slight rise since restrictions were eased.... :(
(https://assets-global.website-files.com/5e3d471e8cf4751833faf0f9/5ec24cf97a11421efda62c92_map18may.gif)
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
-
And Cummings now caught breaking (quite clearly) the travel / isolation rules six weeks ago to his parents in Durham... possibly whilst symptomatic - and with one of his kids...
Reported and spoken to by the police at the time.
In normal times - with a normal government he’d be walking the plank right now. My money is on nothing happening....
-
And Cummings now caught breaking (quite clearly) the travel / isolation rules six weeks ago to his parents in Durham...
In normal times - with a normal government he’d be walking the plank right now. My money is on nothing happening....
I’m not sure what’s worse about this - the fact he quite clearly won’t resign (despite Ferguson having to do so for a much lesser infringement), or that the BBC’s political editor is on Twitter directly defending him quoting an ‘unnamed source’ again. If ever there was any doubt about her independence. The whole thing fucking stinks.
-
Sorry, “idiot” and “educated” are not mutually exclusive and a lot of what is happening today, is idiotic.
I think you are entitled to your politically correct approach, but I don’t believe you will achieve what you hope to.
Generally, I think people roll their eyes when they hear people talk as you have. That particular group of “populists”, broad church they may be, would almost certainly have a serious medical episode, from the amount of eye rolling that would ensue from reading that description.
The desire to avoid distinguishing between groups, in defiance of clear observation, is part of the reason for the current divide, not a cure for it.
We will have to agree to disagree. I think the fact anti-vaxers are a real issue is often more about people living in a bubble where most family or friends are suspicious of vaccines and sadly too much popularist social media supports such positions; what is needed is serious Public Health investment, action on dangerous social media posts and adult discussion. Low vaccination rates add risk to everyone... it's important and urgent and fuck all to do with being PC.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/26/drop-in-vaccination-rates-in-england-alarming-experts-warn
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anti vaxers are really so isolated from reason. It's not as though the benefits of vaccination aren't known widely, massively publicised and repeated endlessly.
There are valid reasons for making decisions or holding views many might disagree with, but crap like vaccine scepticism and the 5G /CV19 conspiracy is utterly idiotic. I really don't think there's much excuse for it.
-
And Cummings now caught breaking (quite clearly) the travel / isolation rules six weeks ago to his parents in Durham... possibly whilst symptomatic - and with one of his kids...
Reported and spoken to by the police at the time.
In normal times - with a normal government he’d be walking the plank right now. My money is on nothing happening....
Of course he won't go, and probably won't comment or apologize.
Some, are apparently more equal than others in the new levelling up utopia
-
On Cummings, an interesting point: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/05/did-dominic-cummings-break-lockdown-and-will-he-have-resign
-
(https://i.ibb.co/RPSxMKq/98-C79-FB0-335-F-4726-9904-5-BFFBF2-FC6-EC.jpg)
-
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anti vaxers are really so isolated from reason. It's not as though the benefits of vaccination aren't known widely, massively publicised and repeated endlessly.
There are valid reasons for making decisions or holding views many might disagree with, but crap like vaccine scepticism and the 5G /CV19 conspiracy is utterly idiotic. I really don't think there's much excuse for it.
It's not that simple. The biggest issue in the UK was a doctor linking the triple vaccine with autism.
We have all sorts of growing popularist beliefs that at face value look idiotic but I think must be due to clever propaganda and a decline in public trust for the most reliable news sources. It was scary enough when I was a young man and the Scum Excess and Fail were the biggest selling UK papers.
I'll give another unrelated example. There was a news story in the winter about a kid being left on the floor in Leeds A& E. Soon after lots of social media posts called it out as a scam. The evidence showed it was true and that was made clear on mainstream news. That day one of my father in law's carers commented on this. I laughed and said it turned out when the BBC journalists talked to hospital staff it was that the scam posts were the scam. The next day she "proved' it was a scam and her co worker agreed. After the long weekend it was clear all 6 carers were convinced it was still a scam. Wider conversations over the years repeated similar problems from bullshit Brexit memes to vaccine concerns. These were all kind, able, hard working, busy, normal people with highly complex lives that but for Neil's stroke I would never have had a chance to talk to. I now feel a bit ashamed using labels about the popularist views of such people. They are not idiots, just misinformed. I've met enough genuine idiots (including well educated ones) and racists and cunts to know what is going on with popularism is bigger and more insidious.
-
Where you get your news from is the biggest thing. I would not be surprised if Facebook was their source.
Targeting confirmation bias is an art. Digital tools make it powerful. Just ask VoteLeave/CambAnalytica/Cummings/Thiel/Palantir/Putin and so on. Should Ben Warner be in that list? :-\
-
The carers mostly got theirs from shared social media and in the background from bland BBC TV news. I think this is a serious problem for the future of the UK (and even more so for the US).
-
I’m not sure what’s worse about this - the fact he quite clearly won’t resign (despite Ferguson having to do so for a much lesser infringement), or that the BBC’s political editor is on Twitter directly defending him quoting an ‘unnamed source’ again. If ever there was any doubt about her independence. The whole thing fucking stinks.
See Toby's link:
''the guidelines are helpfully unspecific and vague on this issue. They are clear in that people who have symptoms should self-isolate: you are not breaking the rules if you travel to provide care for someone else, but you are breaking the rules if you travel to receive it. (Had his parents travelled to him they would have been within the rules – travelling to them is a different matter.''
But there is an (unhelpfully vague) get out clause in the government’s guidelines for people with children. The guidance states:
“If you are living with children. Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible. What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance.”)
Neil Ferguson - clearly breaking lockdown twice, for a shag with his lover.
Cummins family - possibly breaking lockdown, to have their kids looked after by the grandparents while they self-isolated with symptoms.
I couldn't give a shit either way. But on the face of it and if you're able to drop politics and instead look at the two examples impartially, the first example is a far more trivial, self-indulgent reason to break lockdown than the second.
-
A. Fergusson. Advisor on government panel of 20+ scientists. After self isolation over visits lover twice - nearby.
B. Cummings. Closest advisor to the PM. Whilst He and his wife are symptomatic drives 260 miles with their 5 year old child - to visit his elderly parents and family for childcare whilst they are ill.
Two wrongs don’t make a right etc... and Cummings behaviour - and how the Tory wagons have circled to protect him will stick in the craw of many who have followed guidelines to the letter.
I wonder if the #10 ‘cover up’ will end up being worse than whatever Cummings did.
-
You can frame each case in the way that most fits your outlook TT.
For e.g. you can emphasise Fergusson being 'nearby' if you want, while emphasising that Cummins 'drove 260 miles'.
Or, you can emphasise 'driving 260 miles is irrelevant if you're in a metal bubble and aren't stopping' - as other intelligent people have done in the various climbing threads - while emphasising that 'nearby' is worse if you're contacting other people.
I honestly couldn't give a shit. All I'm interested in is a bit of objectivity. Just going on the surface of what's known about the two cases, to say that twice breaking lockdown to go out and shag your married lover is 'a much lesser infringement' than taking your kids to be looked after whilst both parents are self-isolating with covid, is clearly false. If more facts emerge I'd changed my view.
-
Scientist, apolitical. Not infected. Liaison at home.
Political appointee resident in number 10. Travels to a distant region whilst infected with Covid.
If you look at this impartially, there is no comparison. When you are involved in formulating rules for UK you have to follow them.
-
Whichever way you spin it 'Liaison at home' is the same as 'self-isolating at home' - both cases involved people from outside the household visiting somebody else's household. This should be obvious.
From a transmission point of view the distance is irrelevant if you're not using public transport or stopping. Without more details it's pretty hard to make more of a case than that. Details such as did the Cummins have contact with the grandparents or did they self-isolate in a separate part of the house? Were the kids tested and came back negative? Without knowing, hard to judge.
The difference between them are the motivation for breaking the rules. In one case it was self-indulgent: for a shag (twice), in the other case it was for childcare. The guidance gives leeway for travelling for childcare issues (see the caveat wording (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/05/did-dominic-cummings-break-lockdown-and-will-he-have-resign)), it doesn't give leeway for breaking lockdown (twice) to shag your married lover.
I'd imagine there may be more sympathy for the childcare excuse but maybe I'm wrong. I wouldn't be surprised to see him have to go, nor would I be surprised if he doesn't. Couldn't really give a shit either way - I'm more interested in my ancap levels being a bit rubbish at the moment.
-
The difference between them are the motivation for breaking the rules.
This is nonsense. The virus doesn't care about your motivations. The rules are to protect the public in a pandemic, behaviour is the issue. Morality and motive are irrelevant.
Ferguson's behaviour meant he had to go. He was involved in the process whereby rules were formulated but didn't follow them.
With Cummings there is a major difference- he has a role central to formulation of policy, making him unfit for it. Whilst infected (!) he went to another part of the country in defiance of the lockdown. Distance is important in a pandemic because of seeding infection. It's why we have not been allowed to drive; the guidance explicitly prohibited it.
You can contort as much as you like, but Cummings' behaviour, in view of the standards by which others have been judged, means he has to go. Whether he will is down to politics.
-
Motivation clearly isn’t nonsense in the theatre of public opinion - which is the context for whether or not he goes (and is the currency in which people deal on this thread - not objective facts).
I agree motivation is irrelevant to how a virus behaves. If only we were all as objective as covid19.
And you’re still not acknowledging that one case clearly broke the rules (twice), while the other case - based on what’s known so far - possibly involves bending the rules as per the caveat published in the guidance. Very different.
Whether you or I think they (the family) were wrong to do so is the realms of public opinion. But the fact is that according to the guidance it looks like they may have operated within it.
-
Somehow it would seem fitting for Cummings to go, despite not having actually 'broken the rules'. It would form a fitting coda for how he's spent his time in politics: doing things within the law but outside of the spirit of the insitiutions.
-
I have absolutely no liking for Dominic Cummings but I entirely agree with Pete. That's why I posted the link. Stephen Bush is hardly a government supporter. Laura Kuenesberg was only making the same point, although I've not looked at her twitter feed. Cummings will obviously get away with it, it is less frivolous than either of the other figures who have resigned, although he won't care anyway.
A certain body of opinion might suggest that actually neither him nor his wife, a Spectator editor, actually had it. After all if you had symptoms could you drive 260 miles? Or if you thought everyone in Whitehall had it might you just get the f*ck out of there to save your own skin? They're both obviously pretty wealthy. Getting a nanny for childcare would have been the work of a moment. I'd be surprised if they didn't already have one as they both work full time. Total speculation and not that it matters.
Offwidth, I understand your point, I think there might be a difference to how we are thinking the word idiot labels someone. I'm not saying there's any malign intent, but I'd contend that if you get your news on Facebook, you're an idiot, though not necessarily s bad person, and none of your opinions will be well formed.
-
I honestly couldn't give a shit. All I'm interested in is a bit of objectivity.
It’s funny how often your attempts to defend this govt are accompanied by this same caveat Pete.
Just going on the surface of what's known about the two cases, to say that twice breaking lockdown to go out and shag your married lover is 'a much lesser infringement' than taking your kids to be looked after whilst both parents are self-isolating with covid, is clearly false.
Ferguson didn’t go out though, did he?
As for Cummings, if he was acting within the guidelines and just “taking care of his wife and young child” (as several members of the cabinet have now said) then why did No 10 refuse to say at the time where he was when he was self-isolating, despite being asked numerous times? If he was doing nothing wrong there was no need to be so cagey was there? In fact, knowing that hundreds or thousands of families across the country might be in a similar situation and facing the same choice the govt could have taken it as an opportunity to use his example to clarify what the rules were so those families could also “do the right thing” (Cummings’ words) and make sure their children were looked after properly. But the govt didn’t, did they? They just covered it up, hoped it would go unnoticed, falsely denied the family had been spoken to by the police, and are now trying to brazen it out.
What he did originally, and whether it was or wasn’t an infringement of the govt’s own lockdown rules is fairly trivial compared with the fact that No 10 knew about this at the time and rather than being honest with the public they chose to cover it up. But that’s basically the modus operandi of this govt, isn’t it?
Edit: Forgot to mention the article his wife wrote for The Spectator about their experience self-isolating which conveniently made no mention of them being in Durham but does say that his son brought Cummings Ribena in bed when he was ill, which somewhat goes against the claim that him and his wife lived completely separately from the rest of the family during their time there.
-
Motivation clearly isn’t nonsense in the theatre of public opinion - which is the context for whether or not he goes (and is the currency in which people deal on this thread - not objective facts).
I agree motivation is irrelevant to how a virus behaves. If only we were all as objective as covid19.
And you’re still not acknowledging that one case clearly broke the rules (twice), while the other case - based on what’s known so far - possibly involves bending the rules as per the caveat published in the guidance. Very different.
Whether you or I think they (the family) were wrong to do so is the realms of public opinion. But the fact is that according to the guidance it looks like they may have operated within it.
If (if) people keep coming forward, stating that he has been seen left, right and Chelsea and this Guardian article is only half true and (if) we assume the official police statement isn’t, as the government insist, a lie (sorry, they said confusion, my bad. Sounded like they meant “lie” though, didn’t it?), then he’s guilty.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1590259080 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/23/new-witnesses-cast-doubt-on-dominic-cummingss-lockdown-claims?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1590259080)
-
I honestly couldn't give a shit. All I'm interested in is a bit of objectivity.
It’s funny how often your attempts to defend this govt are accompanied by this same caveat Pete.
Ali, I'm not interested in defending any government tory or labour. I'm interested in what's true and what's bullshit, and you're talking bullshit because you're biased. That to me is the bigger crime because it means what you say can't be taken at face value, which I think is a pretty sad state. You were talking shit because, from the facts you were aware of, you were incorrect to say that a person who twice broke lockdown to fuck his lover was a lesser infringement than someone who was acting within the caveats published in the covid guidance.
If, as Matt points out from an article published at 7.30pm this evening, more facts emerge that Cummins is talking shit then you'd end up being correct, but you'd have arrived at that point not by basing your opinion on facts.
-
Pete - have you read the article his wife wrote in The Spectator magazine many weeks ago? Either she was lying in that, or the statement put out by No 10 earlier today (and associated quotes from ‘a source close to Cummings’ last night) was a pack of lies. Someone is lying, and that was clear long before these new witnesses came forward tonight. That’s how I ‘arrived at that point’ - basing my opinion on the statements of two of the people involved in the story (facts, you could call them), statements which were contradictory.
-
I get the feeling that most people who voted for the Tories and/or Brexit are pretty ambivalent towards Dominic Cummings and don't really care what he does (or even know who he is) but on the other side they shout and get worked up about everything he does but this doesn't really penetrate the bubble of people who don't care. If that makes sense!
-
I wonder how many other ministers, MP’s (both sides) and others are now worried... More will emerge I’m sure.
Cummings can’t have done this without it being sanctioned or people knowing. He’ll have a security detail of some sort I would have thought...
-
Don't stay at home; Don't protect the NHS; Don't save lives.
That was the slogan, wasn't it?
-
Pete - have you read the article his wife wrote in The Spectator magazine many weeks ago? Either she was lying in that, or the statement put out by No 10 earlier today (and associated quotes from ‘a source close to Cummings’ last night) was a pack of lies.
The Spectator article is clearly all made up anyway since she talked about being in London at the end of their isolation.
I really dislike Cummings, I voted remain, and for the Green party, but Pete is right here. You can just about get away with what Cummings did but not what Ferguson did. I thought Ferguson was a sad loss as an advisor. I'd like nothing better than to see the back of Cummings, but I'm going to have to suck that up, he's clearly not going anywhere, unless he turns out to have been murdering nurses and storing them in his cellar or something.
-
You can just about get away with what Cummings did
I think that may depend on who “you” are. If you are one of the little people, maybe not.
Susan Michie (quote from the guardian:
University College London professor Susan Michie, a member of Sage, told Sky News there was no question that what Cummings had done broke the guidance. “It appears that three rules have been broken. One is leaving the house when you’re symptomatic, another is travelling far distances and staying overnight elsewhere, and the third is having a person – in this case a child – go from one household to another household. The problem about having different rules for different people is that it breaks the trust of the people in those who are issuing the guidelines.”
.
The point about not moving about when you suspect you may be infectious is a serious one. If you infect others, downstream, people are going to die. That’s a serious as it gets.
Cummings behaviour is far worse than Ferguson’s (and that was bad) because he recklessly travelled when he and his wife had cause to suspect they were infectious. The idea that no one in London could have done for them what they claim they needed his parents to do is spurious. Top govt adviser can’t get home help in the capital? Not credible.
You questioned whether he could really be ill if they could drive to Durham, Toby. It isn’t relevant. Infections caught from asymptomatic carriers can kill too.
The hypocrisy makes his position in any normal sense untenable. Whether he goes depends on public opinion.
It’s a bit more serious than just basic ethics though. Many people have suffered because they have applied the lockdown’s strictures to themselves for the greater good. People have gone without seeing family, when Cummings didn’t. People have kept away from support, when Cummings didn’t. People have left isolated family members alone; refrained from visiting elderly parents in care homes, including when they knew they were dying; left family to die alone hospital, exercising enormous discipline and restraint. When Cummings didn’t.
Collectively, we saved lives by denying ourselves basic liberties. When Cummings didn’t.
It’s not just that people will be angry. It’s that for the virus to be controlled we have to have discipline. When someone as high profile as he is breaks the rules, a lot of other people will too.
That’s why Calderwood and Ferguson had to go. That is why Cummings has to go too.
Edit: blooming autocorrect, misspelling basic words
-
The day Dad died we said our last words to him through a doctor’s phone covered in plastic.
At his funeral I saw my auntie’s eyes full of pain as Dad’s coffin rolled to the flames, but I couldn’t hug her.
All immensely painful, and all the right thing to do.
What Cummings has done is a gross, gross insult to those of us who’ve lost loved ones in this. If he turned up at my house I’d break his fucking nose and happily go to court for it.
-
I can’t put it better than MrJR and Sean have. It’s an insult to so many families.
If Cummings’ statement is to be taken at face value then he also made three assumptions as part of his decision making, as he was apparently asymptomatic at the time.
1. That he would definitely go on to catch the virus from his wife (reasonable assumption).
2. That he would go on to develop symptoms (based on the data that is not a given).
3. That those symptoms would be sufficiently bad* that both he and his wife would become completely incapable of caring for his child at some point in the future (and they had no-one close by to look after him), hence bringing concerns for child welfare into the equation.
The last one is a pretty big and indefensible assumption. You can’t decide to flagrantly break the lockdown rules, driving over 250 miles, just in case you can’t look after your child at a future time. Or was it written into the Coronavirus legislation that one of the excuses for leaving your home was if that behaviour was based on your predictions of future events?
*I’m in no way underplaying the seriousness of this disease for many people.
But as I said previously - if what Cummings did is within the spirit of the guidance, and wasn’t going against the govt order to stay at home then surely there would have been no need for No 10 to be reluctant to say where he was at the time. And if it was a case of him doing “the right thing” and “taking care of his wife and young child” then they could have used that example to clarify the guidance so other families could follow suit. As it is, the govt have insulted many families by “doing as they say, not as they do” and also now insinuating that if other parents didn’t seek childcare when they thought they might be infected they weren’t protecting their children.
-
Various Tory MPs on Twitter trying to make the narrative about ‘good parenting’. What an insult to the countless good parents who have managed to take take of their children in this crisis whilst doing what the government asked them to, without risking the lives of others for their own convenience by leaving the house when infected.
Think No10 has misjudged this.
-
So, bearing on this, is it good parenting to send your child to school on 1st June? Or not? Someone should ask Johnson for a definitive answer, if they can find him.
-
First Tory (Stephen Baker - firmer ERG leader) has broken ranks and said he should go. Let’s see if this is a drip, a trickle or a tide...
-
Shame he didn’t call the NHS volunteer service, it was set up several days before. Good opportunity to show faith in the gov system.
-
First Tory (Stephen Baker - firmer ERG leader) has broken ranks and said he should go. Let’s see if this is a drip, a trickle or a tide...
A single drip I suspect. Steve Baker and Cummings have a history of mutual dislike for one another. It may make Cummings dig in deeper.
Either way I think Baker is correct - Johnson is using up a lot of political capital on this so he clearly realises he’s lost without Cummings. Even if he doesn’t resign I think it’s been very damaging already and has exposed precisely where the power balance of the Tory party now lies, and just how weak Johnson is.
-
If you want to know who truly rules you, take note of who you cannot criticise.
-
Up to about 7 or 8 Tory MP’s calling for his head now...
think we’ve moved from drip to trickle.
-
Up to about 7 or 8 Tory MP’s calling for his head now...
think we’ve moved from drip to trickle.
Yep, I underestimated how damaging they obviously see this becoming (or how much Cummings is disliked). Wonder how many more before the day is out...
-
Yep, I underestimated how damaging they obviously see this becoming (or how much Cummings is disliked). Wonder how many more before the day is out...
Naked contempt doesn't generally inspire solidarity. Will depend on whether it blows over in the next 24 hours I expect.
-
I think he might go today. Seen going into #10 - peston - FT - both suggesting it’s when not if now.
Though won’t this just be a bit like in Star Wars - one evil person will just be replaced by another...
-
I think he might go today. Seen going into #10 - peston - FT - both suggesting it’s when not if now.
Though won’t this just be a bit like in Star Wars - one evil person will just be replaced by another...
:popcorn:
If he does go though the whole cabinet have put themselves in the shit already by defending his lies. Shapps saying “we’ve never told people specifically where to locate themselves” is a classic!
-
Jenrick is today's sacrifical lamb for the daily party political broadcast. Interesting choice, he's not exactly squeaky clean on this sort of thing...
-
No, he only escaped because it was more minor, and so is he.
-
Labour demanding answers. Worth a look:
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1264532041380638725
-
When a completely satirical news site runs the story, without changing any detail or making any parody and yet still manages to come across as satire; then we’re all fucked:
(https://i.ibb.co/xqWgyvq/EAEE7676-BC9-B-4566-B56-F-468-CB62-BB961.jpg)
-
Not sure that will cut through with Boris.
-
Jenrick is today's sacrifical lamb for the daily party political broadcast.
Johnson taking it now. Is it going to be a sacking, brazen it out a bit more, or announce an enquiry by Sedwill to take the heat off and then bury the findings?
-
Evens on sacking I recon. I think sacking is the cleanest way out for BJ but he loses his most important govt member...
Enquiry is a way out - but still leaves much hanging...
-
He lives to fight another day,
-
He lives to fight another day,
Indeed. I wonder what the Guardian/Mirror have up their sleeves for tonight.. so far they’ve timed their releases very cleverly.
-
BJ must be very confident of not having to enact lockdown 2.0 over the next few weeks/months. There's no way people would stick to the rules after this...
-
I can't begin to articulate how fucking angry I am. I'm very close to punching walls. And it isn't even my country's government.
Guy Fawkes was right.
-
I genuinely believe this is dangerous territory to move into.
Vast numbers of people believe that Cummings flouted the guidance and so broke the law. And that the PM just lied to the nation about it.
-
I’d love to agree, but suspect as a nation we stepped over the line when we voted for a political project which used lies and racism to win.
-
On the plus side, if we have a second wave and more restrictions again, at least we can just smash on climbing safe in the knowledge that we're still being more responsible than those at the centre of government
-
So the new precedent set by the PM is that we are allowed to break the lockdown legislation if we are ‘following our instinct’.
-
“I think what they did was totally understandable ... I think any father ... would understand what he did”.
The sheer fucking chutzpah of this coming from Johnson, of all people,
-
That's that then. Rasputin lives to fight another day.
If there's a second wave of infections and we get lockdown 2.0 while I'm in the UK, I'm going to do what the fuck I want, where I want.
-
Wow. I did not expect that. Risking the integrity of any future lockdowns and self-isolation requirements which will undoubtedly end up killing many hundreds or thousands of people. All to save the career of one individual. What the fuck just happened?
-
We just got a clear demonstration of where the true power lies in this government, that's for sure. It doesn't bode well for the next couple of months whatever your politics are if this is is used as a reason to ignore the rules.
-
Wow. I did not expect that. Risking the integrity of any future lockdowns and self-isolation requirements which will undoubtedly end up killing many hundreds or thousands of people. All to save the career of one individual. What the fuck just happened?
Possibly some of what happened is the lifting of the veil that the Brexit culture war has not gone away - in fact for this government it takes precedence over the pandemic. Reigniting this war now, when we have a deadline coming up soon (last chance to ask for an extension in July I think? If not requested it could well be no deal) might even be seen as a good thing, in their world.
-
Will we see a police investigation? It would be very easy to clear up with ANPR and CCTV. It certainly passes the public interest test.
-
Will we see a police investigation? It would be very easy to clear up with ANPR and CCTV. It certainly passes the public interest test.
Dominic Cummings facing possible police investigation as pressure mounts
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/24/witness-complains-to-police-about-dominic-cummings-as-pressure-mounts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Several members of behavioural part of SAGE not happy. Including this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ReicherStephen/status/1264606173212409857
-
That Tweet from the UK Civil Service account though.
Almost makes it worthwhile.
I understand J K Rowling has offered to pay the responsible party’s salary for a year, should they be fired over it.
-
Link?
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1264617551411261441
-
Link?
Sorry.
My bad, just assumed.
MrJr covered the JKR, but here’s a link to an article covering the (now deleted) Tweet:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-tweet-civil-service-arrogant-offensive-a9530706.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-tweet-civil-service-arrogant-offensive-a9530706.html)
-
I've tried to be apolitical on some of this stuff but this is ridiculous. The defence of Cummings was completely feeble and failed to provide any justification (not that one was available!) or to answer the many outstanding questions.
My only hope is that this isn't going away and Cummings is going to go in the end and this government and Johnson in particular will be massively damaged by the whole affair.
The Tory press isn't looking good for Johnson at the moment - massively negative on the internet front pages from Telegraph and the Mail at the moment so this isn't just a 'campaigning newspapers' issue,
-
Tim Montgomerie who runs Conservative Home isn’t mincing his words either:
Tonight, I’m really embarrassed to have ever backed Boris Johnson for high office. (https://mobile.twitter.com/montie/status/1264597531402567680)
-
I still think that Cummings is going nowhere.
It's certainly true that all of the press are properly going for him though. For Boris he may be more canny than people are thinking; The Sunday Times had a long piece today which otherwise would have been news basically detailing precisely how Johnson was indecisive and ignored adviser after adviser saying that they should lockdown at the beginning of March. It explicitly says in the article that his dithering lead to 1-1.5 million infections. Even with a 2%mortality rate, that's a lot of dead people. The Cummings related outrage may be providing a convenient diversion.
-
Canny? Diversion? This is surely just two big, important stories coming out at the same time, not surprising in the middle of a vast and historic news event. I don’t even think it means the Sunday Times story will be gone or forgotten - those same facts may well become part of the established narrative through other media.
-
Canny? Diversion? This is surely just two big, important stories coming out at the same time, not surprising in the middle of a vast and historic news event. I don’t even think it means the Sunday Times story will be gone or forgotten - those same facts may well become part of the established narrative through other media.
Indeed, I'd be surprised if it didn't. But this allows people to get all het up about Cummings behaviour and Johnson defending him, rather than Johnson indirectly killing people. I know which he's probably more worried about.
-
I’d like to think that as a fairly functioning adult I can get worked up about more than one thing at a time.
But I may be overestimating myself.
-
I’d like to think that as a fairly functioning adult I can get worked up about more than one thing at a time.
But I may be overestimating myself.
I like it. I'm sure you can. The eminently watchable Charlie Brooker can get worked up about literally everything at once.
Millions can't.
-
I’d like to think that as a fairly functioning adult I can get worked up about more than one thing at a time.
But I may be overestimating myself.
I like it. I'm sure you can. The eminently watchable Charlie Brooker can get worked up about literally everything at once.
Millions can't.
It isn’t a fashionable thought, but the Conservative party couldn’t function without a substantial core of educated, intelligent, managerial/director class, supporters and incredibly wealthy donors and Grandees.
Whilst the swivel eyed loons still enjoy a degree of representation amongst that group and their antics often lead to the impression that they are a majority, they almost certainly are not.
Many, many people in the above mentioned group, are quietly disgusted, by both issues and several others. They are writing to their MPs and local party chairs. They are discussing deselection, where MPs don’t listen. There is discontent amongst the backbenchers. Many are quite aware that the legacy of these months, regardless of the day to day chatter amongst the Hoi Polloi, is going to be a Mill stone around their collective necks. The fickle dicks we lovingly refer to as “The People”, will shortly realise they’re skint, a good chunk of their relatives are dead or struggling to recover and BJ has failed.
If he has already lost the majority of the “professional” core, then he (if not the party) is done. Exhibit A: Margaret Thatcher.
-
Some pithy comments on twitter, such as https://twitter.com/EdGambleComedy/status/1264591362927800338?s=19
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1264599478054592519?s=19
I still wonder of the widespread outrage will come to anything Matt. I seem to remember a similar reaction to the prorogation of parliament, although it was overturned, in the end Cummings and Johnson got their way anyway.
-
It all eats away at their credibility, over the long run. One embarrassing act after another.
No Con leader survives for very long, not if they don’t keep the core happy and now they’re in power, for at least the next 4/5 years, they can afford to cut a leader loose.
(https://i.ibb.co/yn6mgPj/EB41614-C-7-EBD-40-C0-9-DC4-1-F47-F12-A94-BA.jpg)
-
I dunno Toby. Prorogation is very much a parliament thing (even the word ffs!) - whereas pretty much everyone in the UK has made considerable personal sacrifice for controlling this pandemic. Seeing one of the government getting away with it when we’ve spent ten weeks etc... will make far more people cross I suspect.
The bigger picture here of course is that it grossly undermines the message - and as Barrows and others have stated - makes any future lockdowns much harder to instigate.
He’s blown all his social capital in 3 min.
-
Ah, that’ll be that two week timer they set....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-uk-hospital-weston-super-mare-nhs-general-ae-patients-a9531116.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-uk-hospital-weston-super-mare-nhs-general-ae-patients-a9531116.html)
Edit:
I just realised, I should have mentioned that that was black humour, not a serious critique of government policy. Just in case Offwidth fails to see the throwaway nature of the comment, again...
Edit 2:
They’re still idiots, though.
-
From Dominic Cummings press conference as reported by the Guardian
"However, his eyesight had been affected by his illness and so he went for a short drive to see if he could drive safely – to the town, Barnard Castle."
You can't make this shit up!
-
I wasn't drink driving officer, I just couldn't tell if I was drunk so I thought I'd take a short trip behind the wheel to test it out... :lol: :wall:
-
He could have read out his statement on Friday - said sorry - maybe it wasn’t the right thing with hindsight but at the time I weighed everything up and did it.
And - I think he could have got away with that.
Instead - his perspective taking is laughable - he cannot see how this comes across as one interpretation of the rules for one and another for another... the selfishness of his actions too.
-
You're not sure if you're safe to drive, so you go for a little test drive, taking your wife and young child with you.
-
You're not sure if you're safe to drive, so you go for a little test drive, taking your wife and young child with you.
Then as well as having a test drive. You go for a walk and sit around by the river. Then whilst returning home, your child need the toilet which means you all have to also spend some time in the woods...
-
Wasn't the date of the eyesight testing drive also the date of his wife's birthday?
"Visit the woods, look at the flowers, save the NHS" certainly has a ring to it.
-
I can’t help but admire a 48 year old man who can go 5hrs without needing a pee. ;D ;D ;D
-
What a crock of shit. Clearly fitting his story around the facts that have come to light. Sounds like a lot of Tory MPs are getting angry emails from constituents. Mine’s had two from me already and will probably get another few once he sends his stock copy and paste response...
-
I can’t help but admire a 48 year old man who can go 5hrs without needing a pee. ;D ;D ;D
Think maybe his 4 year old son managing the same feat is the greater achievement?
-
"Genius" special advisor and SAGE attendee! What a way to protect your family:
+ Coop your child up in a car for 5hrs with suspected Covid sufferers, probably contributing to their subsequent hospitalisation for symptoms of infection.
+ Reduce the distance between your (assumed infected) family and your elderly parents, from 250+ miles down to being on the same (admittedly large) property.
+ When everyone dodges the virus bullet and recovers, check your eyes are fine to drive to drive to London by driving 30 miles to somewhere else entirely, with your family in the car. Experiment successful (!), undermine the whole point by turning around and heading 30 miles back North.
+ Not to mention the risk of spreading infection to non-family, eg when refuelling. Which he can't be 100% sure he even did. Only 95% sure. What? Check your bank statement before doing the press conference.
This is the sort of "protective ring" coming from the top that explains why we are where we are. Now 47,000 deaths, officially.
Cummings talked so much crap in his press conference that I fully assumed that he was knowingly committing hari-kiri to give Johnson half a chance to sack him, without Johnson having to resign himself. In reality it was an experiment to see how far they, or maybe he, can take the piss. The simple fact of an unelected advisor giving a press conference from actual 10 Downing St would have been in your face enough, even without the intelligence insulting content. Add in having the PM come out of hiding to defend you in the daily briefings he normally can't be arsed to do, and then the cabinet lining up to cast a "protective ring" around him on every channel. Quite easy to see who is really in charge, and he's flicking the v's at the whole country.
Given the damage to credibility this is causing, the question has to be why is he so indispensible?
-
His statement seemed to me like a child caught doing something wrong, and then making up a story to try and fit with what they think are the facts, adding in extra detail to make it seem more plausible. I did when i was a child, I see my kids doing it.
However not as middle aged men in senior government positions.
In a fascinating turn of hypocrisy, a local MP has resigned over the DC affair, in spite getting caught doing what DC has done (sort of)
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/moray/2206152/north-east-mp-blames-slow-broadband-for-return-to-house-of-commons/
-
Latest YouGov poll shows 59% think he should resign. And 52% of leave voters think he should, so they’ve even lost their base. Pretty ironic given they are the self-branded “people’s government”.
But they’ve obviously made the decision to dig and keep on digging regardless of consequence. But that’s what Cummings does. And he’s invested too much in his project to relinquish the power he now holds.
The retrospective editing of his blog to try and suggest he forecasted the coronavirus epidemic is another interesting turn up. There really is no limit to his lies and manipulation.
-
Another 'brainy move' to add to Nigel's list.
https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1265034438645293056
-
Roy Lilley's latest blog:
Carry the can...
News and Comment from Roy Lilley
It's hard to know who to trust. When it comes to the papers, it's not black and white. Newspapers have owners, owners have views, axes to grind, points to make, who governs Britain and how. The printed media are party-loyal and parti-pris. Like vicars preaching to the choir.
Except... Once in a while they break ranks. The Times did, last Saturday. I can't link, it's £walled. It's the toff's paper. I trust I'll not engage the wrath of Mr Murdock if I reveal that their love affair with BoJo is on the slide. It's not hard to see why. The PM is so blatantly making a Cornona-Horlix, that continuing to support him will drag them into looking stupid, too. They criticise; school open/close policy, care-homes and a blame-game with scientific advisors and his initial, tardy response. They point out; probably, 40,000 people have died and the true number might be half that again, comparing us with Japan, with a population 50% higher, more elderly than us and only 734 deaths...
The Times also points out, the off-on, track and trace policy. They are not happy. Neither is the other bastion of Toryism, the Telegraph. They're making some very serous allegations; tens of thousands of CV-19 tests have been double-counted; '... diagnostic tests which involve taking saliva and nasal samples from the same patient are being counted as two tests, not one.' The DH+ and PHE were caught red-handed and confessed. Each confirmed the double-counting. I hope there are no NHS people implicated in this? Come the reckoning, they'll have some explaining to do.
The Telegraph adds; '... [HMG]...was accused last month of including thousands of home tests which had been posted but not completed, in a bid to reach its target of 100,000 tests.' Doesn't this add up to an attempt to deceive, on an industrial scale? Add to this, the Cummins and goings to Durham and government looks to be run by the selfish, the privileged, the hypocrites, and deniers. When the Times and the Telegraph turn on the government I think it's fair to say, there's problem with government.
In the beginning, we were all sideswiped by the ferocity of the virus and the draconian, global, response. We went along with BoJo. We had little in the public domain to work with, we didn't know what-from-which. Now, we've assimilated data, spoken to friends and colleagues around the world, compiled league-tables and made comparisons. We know this has been handled badly. World class? Oh yes! In a class of it's own; muddled, slow, confused and way behind the eight-ball. The overriding imperative; we have to clear up the mess. The only way out is tracking, tracing, testing and repeat. We have to bust-a-gut to get this right. There is no room for half-truths, exaggeration, lies, massaging numbers, fiddling and taking the public for mugs.
It's the only plausible exit strategy but...... we know, from Australia, on average, to track one case and their, subsequent, contacts, 64 tests are needed. With BoJo's target of 10k a day, I make that nearly four and a half million tests will be needed, each week. The management confusion defined by the horizontal relationships between PHE, the DH, NHSE/I, NHSX, Deloitte organising some testing and Serco (training the track and tracers), gives us;
Testing, a vital component, run by somebody,
who will try and keep up with T&T run by somebody else,
using Trackers trained by contractors,
aligning with an App, being worked on by who knows?
Hitting targets pulled out of a hat, by somebody.
Prioritisation, defined by the front-page of the newspapers...
This is not fit for purpose and breaks some simple management basics. A single mission - to lead the nation safely back to normal...
Accountable leadership
Clear lines of responsibility,
prioritisation,
understandable process and procedures
clear governance, timely and open reporting.
The answer? A department of CV-testing and an accountable, competent minister. Right now, all of these departments can duck responsibility and kick the can down the road. We need someone to actually, carry the can.
-
Wherefore to Barnard Castle? :-\
-
11,000 fines have been issued for people breaching guidelines on movement restrictions during lockdown already. That’s an awful lot of work Hancock just agreed to in order to review them. Or would it be more cost-effective just to reimburse the lot?
The Domnishambles continues...
-
The Domnishambles continues...
...you posted too soon, that's not what he meant to say (obv.):
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1265328468067311616?s=20
Govt source says Hancock did not announce a review of fines of people in lockdown - just meant that he would pass concern raised by Martin the vicar on to his colleagues - 2020 everyone
.
-
Given the damage to credibility this is causing, the question has to be why is he so indispensible?
It is obvious that you really dislike him, but I would think that the answer to the question here is obvious, he's really good at winning elections. Ok beating Labour last year was hardly a big ask but winning the Brexit vote was rather more challenging. Like Johnson, and indeed Trump, they are all extremely good at campaigning but, based on available evidence, absolutely terrible at government.
-
Brexit was a good bit about dishonest propaganda, dirty tricks, breaches of election law and leveraging the fact the remain leaning middle classes foolishly labelled a good lump of the population as idiots and racists (only fair for a small minority). Dom's popularist exceptionalism was always on the edges of acceptability and law.
-
Tried to stay out of this thread but a brief interjection to point out that The Times editorial today, headlined "Moving On" already has over 200 below the line comments expressing outrage at being patronised in this way. Not to mention they have printed 5 letters (the only 5?) In support of Cummings and none opposing him.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading the Times a lot of the time but this sort of patronising, elitist bullshit is exactly why I would never spend my own money on a subscription. When the chips are down it gets on its knees for the government and it's pathetic.
-
Tried to stay out of this thread but a brief interjection to point out that The Times editorial today, headlined "Moving On" already has over 200 below the line comments expressing outrage at being patronised in this way. Not to mention they have printed 5 letters (the only 5?) In support of Cummings and none opposing him.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading the Times a lot of the time but this sort of patronising, elitist bullshit is exactly why I would never spend my own money on a subscription. When the chips are down it gets on its knees for the government and it's pathetic.
I slightly disagree, although I do wonder about their leader article. Today the paper seems to have changed its tune on Cummings somewhat. I agree that yesterday they seemed pretty isolated in trying to justify his behaviour. All the papers have their downsides, the Times employs some really good writers, as well as some terrible ones. Matthew Parris used to be good about ten years ago, but now hes unbearable, whereas David Aaronovitch, Phillip Collins and several others are really good. The Guardian, for example employs the brilliant Jonathan Freedland and also a lot of utter bilge.
-
Given the damage to credibility this is causing, the question has to be why is he so indispensible?
Because he asked in advance and Johnson gave the go ahead is my guess. Johnson can’t admit to such a monumental lack of judgement, so has to back Cummings to save his own skin. It’s a lot more plausible than the party line.
-
Brexit was a good bit about dishonest propaganda, dirty tricks, breaches of election law and leveraging the fact the remain leaning middle classes foolishly labelled a good lump of the population as idiots and racists (only fair for a small minority). Dom's popularist exceptionalism was always on the edges of acceptability and law.
Yes that's the usual lefty mantra isn't it, "they only win because they're lying cheats, we were betrayed by the middle class etc etc".
Or perhaps, people like Cummings are plainly quite good at what they do.
I'd like to make it clear that I think he is a liar, Johnson should have sacked him, and that hes awful at the process of government. But he is good at elections.
-
He is also - a lot of the time- good at thinking, planning and strategising. Boris isn’t; he will be very exposed without him. And probably what Nic said too.
-
this sort of patronising, elitist bullshit is exactly why I would never spend my own money on a subscription. When the chips are down it gets on its knees for the government and it's pathetic.
You would have thought the opinion polls yesterday might give them a good indication that most people don’t want to ‘move on’ before Cummings has gone. 71% think he broke the guidelines and 59% that he should resign. Together with a 20 point drop in Johnson’s approval rating. But instead, as you say, the right wing press seems to think they can tell the public different. Is this the clearest example yet of them leading public opinion rather than representing it?
In other news my (Tory) MP replied to me yesterday saying he thought Cummings’ position was untenable. And yet he still hasn’t publicly expressed that opinion and in fact re-tweeted something defending Cummings the other day. Pathetic man.
-
I slightly disagree, although I do wonder about their leader article. Today the paper seems to have changed its tune on Cummings somewhat. I agree that yesterday they seemed pretty isolated in trying to justify his behaviour. All the papers have their downsides, the Times employs some really good writers, as well as some terrible ones. Matthew Parris used to be good about ten years ago, but now hes unbearable, whereas David Aaronovitch, Phillip Collins and several others are really good. The Guardian, for example employs the brilliant Jonathan Freedland and also a lot of utter bilge.
I know there are good writers and bad writers at all papers. Thats not the point. My point is that the Times editorial line is so clearly designed to try and smooth things over for the government its an embarassment, and people can see through it. Watch John Witherow get a honour in a few years time. Maitlis on Newsnight is how it should be done, and even the Mail is calling the government out. Whoever wrote that Times piece is a propagandist, not a journalist. Court jesters; they make me fucking sick.
Like many in the country this has angered me beyond belief and I would love Johnson or Cummings to walk down my road so i could tell them exactly what i think of them both. What we dont need is newspapers noshing them off instead in the hope of an honour down the line. Kudos to those doing their job and holding these charlatans to account. Nothing but disgust for those scrabbling around for a distraction.
-
this sort of patronising, elitist bullshit is exactly why I would never spend my own money on a subscription. When the chips are down it gets on its knees for the government and it's pathetic.
You would have thought the opinion polls yesterday might give them a good indication that most people don’t want to ‘move on’ before Cummings has gone. 71% think he broke the guidelines and 59% that he should resign. Together with a 20 point drop in Johnson’s approval rating. But instead, as you say, the right wing press seems to think they can tell the public different. Is this the clearest example yet of them leading public opinion rather than representing it?
In other news my (Tory) MP replied to me yesterday saying he thought Cummings’ position was untenable. And yet he still hasn’t publicly expressed that opinion and in fact re-tweeted something defending Cummings the other day. Pathetic man.
Worth screenshotting his response to you and tweeting it out yourself if you havent already.
-
Haven't read the Times stuff but have kept a close eye on the Telegraph and even some of their coverage is now heavily hinting that he should go. Lead article covering the large number of Tory MPs now saying he should go, another headline "Another lie" about his amended blog claiming to have predicted the pandemic, and a columnist calling for him to say sorry but stay; this might have washed 5 days ago, but it's too late now.
-
In other news my (Tory) MP replied to me yesterday saying he thought Cummings’ position was untenable. And yet he still hasn’t publicly expressed that opinion
Worth screenshotting his response to you and tweeting it out yourself if you havent already.
I’ve forwarded his email on to ‘the media’. Will see what comes of it...
Edit. Has been picked up by at least one paper, whether they will/can do anything with it who knows.
-
Given the damage to credibility this is causing, the question has to be why is he so indispensible?
It is obvious that you really dislike him...
No actually, I've no idea what he's like. Having not met him, I would naturally default to assuming he's a decent bloke. To be perfectly honest I had little interest in the story initially as at first it looked like the usual media witch hunt / Westminster gossip nonsense which we don't need in the middle of a crisis. That changed with his press conference.
I do dislike what he's doing, and by extension what integrity-destroying contortions his actions are forcing the government to do. At the risk of going over old ground, he gave his press conference from 10 Downing St. I'm sure other spaces were available, but as an unelected advisor he does it from the seat of the UK executive. Unusual. He then proceeds to give to the public the explanation that it is said is absolutely fine with the PM. To pick the most egregious example, he says he drove a 60 mile round trip with his family to check his eyesight was OK to drive. That, surely, is as transparent a lie as you can get. It is a direct challenge - either both he and the PM are full blown idiots who drive long distances to diagnose medical issues, and we are to believe we should be fine with that sort of judgement call from those in charge. Or he is sitting there at the heart of government live in broad daylight knowingly telling a ludicrous lie which no one in their right mind could possibly believe. My opinion is that its the second of these. You can theorise as to why he would do that, but to see this and then have it defended to the hilt by government who apparently *do* believe it is a very odd look. At the very least it raises questions of who exactly is holding power, and for what purpose.
he's really good at winning elections....
Maybe so historically. But I'm sure someone else would crop up sometime before the next GE in 4.5 years. Anyway, I doubt that distant election, or even the next local elections, are uppermost in his mind. He is not a Lynton Crosby character specially brought in at election time - he's chief political advisor to the PM. All the time. If his advice is indispensible to the degree of what we are seeing to shield him, then I would ask why our pandemic response has not been quite up to par. Given that he's a superforecaster, master of large projects, attends SAGE etc. Perhaps if this was explained clearly and truthfully we might all see that actually, of course we all agree that he is indispensible? As usual though, the route of bullshit piled on bullshit was chosen instead. At the clear risk of undermining all public health messaging up til now. That's the problem, not that I dislike him.
-
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1531630717011866
Pie has been let out
-
To pick the most egregious example, he says he drove a 60 mile round trip with his family to check his eyesight was OK to drive. That, surely, is as transparent a lie as you can get. It is a direct challenge
Yep, it's basically a big "fuck you" to the police. "Yeh, I broke the lockdown rules. What ya gonna do about it? My mate Johnson backs me up too so fuck you some more".
If I was the Chief Constable of Durham police I'd be incensed.
-
Brexit was a good bit about dishonest propaganda, dirty tricks, breaches of election law and leveraging the fact the remain leaning middle classes foolishly labelled a good lump of the population as idiots and racists (only fair for a small minority). Dom's popularist exceptionalism was always on the edges of acceptability and law.
Yes that's the usual lefty mantra isn't it, "they only win because they're lying cheats, we were betrayed by the middle class etc etc".
Or perhaps, people like Cummings are plainly quite good at what they do.
I'd like to make it clear that I think he is a liar, Johnson should have sacked him, and that hes awful at the process of government. But he is good at elections.
Ah, someone else who noticed that Labour’s failing for the last couple of decades, has always been the fault of the “Middle class” not thinking the way they “should”.....
-
The FT's legal writer goes through Cummings' statement line by line (If you have a spare 25mins).
https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1
Summary: Written by lawyers to explain, or explain away, all the various bits of evidence and close down loose ends. No surprise, but interesting nonetheless.
-
Ah, someone else who noticed that Labour’s failing for the last couple of decades, has always bien the fault of the “Middle class” not thinking the way they “should”.....
Bourgeois false consciousness.
-
The FT's legal writer goes through Cummings' statement line by line (If you have a spare 25mins).
https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1
Summary: Written by lawyers to explain, or explain away, all the various bits of evidence and close down loose ends. No surprise, but interesting nonetheless.
David Allen Green did the same live on twitter and came to the same conclusion. Along with every other lawyer I have heard opine on the subject, he also concluded that Cummings admitted to breaking the law. Cummings has to go, but not primarily because he broke the law.
He has to go for being instrumental in the inaction and and failed policies that have resulted in possibly the worst response worldwide to the greatest crisis of a generation.
60,000 people are dead who should be alive and more will follow. Many suffering painful, lonely, unnecessary deaths because he and others have failed at their job.
-
Rather bathetic, and I wouldn't normally link to this nnewspaper, but quite revealing:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/27/daily-star-dominic-cummings-mask-coronavirus-boris-johnson-adviser#img-2
-
Dido Harding: ”If you have one of the symptoms of coronavirus you must immediately self-isolate and book a test. Do not leave home for any other reason. If you’ve been in contact with an infected person, NHS test and trace will instruct you to self-isolate, even if you don’t have symptoms. You must follow the instructions.”
Hancock: ”It’s your civic duty to follow the instructions.”
This would have already been a big ask for people five days ago. What chance of anyone following instructions now?
-
Also, Hancock said “This is important. If you’re a contact of somebody who’s tested positive and you’re instructed to self-isolate, your household members don’t have to isolate - they can carry on under the normal guidelines”.
This doesn’t fucking make sense. So you get a call and are told to isolate. You go home to isolate. But members of your household just go into work as normal the next day while you’re waiting for your test results to come back? Then if you end up testing positive your household members wait for a call for them to isolate themselves.
That’s not breaking the chain - it’s just chasing contacts 24 or 48hrs after potential infections have happened. Or am I missing something?
-
Emily Maitlis shunted off Newsnight tonight. Apparently the BBC apology wasnt enough for the suits. I despair, we're being played. And its so obvious.
-
I was musing about this while out running. DC has been a right arsehole about this. If he actually gave a crap about Boris and the Tory party as a whole, he would have done the decent thing and resigned. As it now stands, he put Boris in a very difficult position, either sack him and be seen to be bowing to the left wing press, or not sack him and suffer the current consequences.
-
Cummings doesn’t care about the Tory party. That’s why he’s disliked by so many of its members and backbench MPs. He’s like a virus himself using the Tory party as a vector in order to achieve his goals. And I think Johnson is being played by him just as much as the rest of the country is.
-
Cummings doesn’t care about the Tory party. That’s why he’s disliked by so many of its members and backbench MPs. He’s like a virus himself using the Tory party as a vector in order to achieve his goals. And I think Johnson is being played by him just as much as the rest of the country is.
Have you heard this rumour about Bozo supposedly having once got a bit squiffy and coming on to Cummings wife, up to and including naked willy helicoptering?
Obviously no clue of the veracity, just love the thought that Bozo lives in fear of “that” Spectator article coming out...
Edit:
Original tweet of rumour (by former Spectator journalist) now deleted, but it came out of this time/era (allegedly):
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-touching-charlotte-edwarde-dominic-cummings-wife-mary-wakefield-638727 (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-touching-charlotte-edwarde-dominic-cummings-wife-mary-wakefield-638727)
I know, I know, rumour bad etc.
It’s mildly amusing.
-
h
Emily Maitlis shunted off Newsnight tonight. Apparently the BBC apology wasnt enough for the suits. I despair, we're being played. And its so obvious.
Supine.
-
I watched that Maitlis newsnight last night and thought it was pretty fair comment to be honest. I was rather surprised to find out anyone had objected.
The reporters extended piece showed in detail how contradictory Cummings account of events is, and how he did break the guidelines by any reasonable interpretation a number of times.
Listened to some of the committee questions to Johnson today, but too annoying to continue. It's always total piffle, no grasp of the most basic elements of detail or any attempt at appearing like he might give a shit about running the country.
Sadly, unless some enterprising journalist has more details on Cummings, I think it'll blow over by next week.
-
Brexit was a good bit about dishonest propaganda, dirty tricks, breaches of election law and leveraging the fact the remain leaning middle classes foolishly labelled a good lump of the population as idiots and racists (only fair for a small minority). Dom's popularist exceptionalism was always on the edges of acceptability and law.
Yes that's the usual lefty mantra isn't it, "they only win because they're lying cheats, we were betrayed by the middle class etc etc".
Or perhaps, people like Cummings are plainly quite good at what they do.
I'd like to make it clear that I think he is a liar, Johnson should have sacked him, and that hes awful at the process of government. But he is good at elections.
Ah, someone else who noticed that Labour’s failing for the last couple of decades, has always been the fault of the “Middle class” not thinking the way they “should”.....
Or them being betrayed by some section of the electorate. Happily, I can't see Starmer coming out with that sort of thing. I may be wrong, but he does actually seem like an effective politician
-
Emily Maitlis shunted off Newsnight tonight. Apparently the BBC apology wasnt enough for the suits. I despair, we're being played. And its so obvious.
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1265709657089343488?s=19
-
Also from Carole Cadwollas twitter feed - the Government is paying for sponsored articles in the Mail... you know the ones that look like real articles but have a little sponsored bit right at the bottom.
£60k a pop a few years back.
-
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1265592505724256257
As James O’Brien pointed out. We’ve had tens of thousands of people buried without proper funerals.
We’ve now got, according to the FT, the highest excess death rate in the world.
The country is in uproar because the government won’t fire it’s advisor whom blatantly broke the rules.
Ministers are outright lying that they also would test their eyesight by driving.
Testing numbers have been artificially inflated (admitted now by government) - when I swabbed both my throat and nose, that was two tests, not one.
The government is using taxpayer money to pay for positive articles in the Daily Mail.
But, the chancellor is posting about the great news that Nando’s is reopening...
-
Brexit was a good bit about dishonest propaganda, dirty tricks, breaches of election law and leveraging the fact the remain leaning middle classes foolishly labelled a good lump of the population as idiots and racists (only fair for a small minority). Dom's popularist exceptionalism was always on the edges of acceptability and law.
Yes that's the usual lefty mantra isn't it, "they only win because they're lying cheats, we were betrayed by the middle class etc etc".
Or perhaps, people like Cummings are plainly quite good at what they do.
I'd like to make it clear that I think he is a liar, Johnson should have sacked him, and that hes awful at the process of government. But he is good at elections.
Ah, someone else who noticed that Labour’s failing for the last couple of decades, has always been the fault of the “Middle class” not thinking the way they “should”.....
Or them being betrayed by some section of the electorate. Happily, I can't see Starmer coming out with that sort of thing. I may be wrong, but he does actually seem like an effective politician
Sneer away. Corbyn and his shadow cabinet being the worst Labour line up I can remember is unrelated to the incredibly dangerous Tory shift to popularism. Corbyn at best was looking at a heavily hung Parliament and was never going to be in charge with his mandate (still the social media dirty tricks were pretty effective, especially those circulating amongst the current and ex forces groups). In contrast Boris is in charge with a huge mandate and needs his advisor so much he is prepared to undermine the public respect for a pandemic public health response. The Times leader prints bullshit support and the independent state broadcaster, the BBC removes Matis for doing her job as well as I've seen it done and in that bypassing all proper organisational process.
In my view it's terrible luck Boris came to power with Corbyn as the leader of the opposition but Boris and his cabinet of crooks, stooges and incompetants were always the real problem. Sure Dom is very good at what he does but that is mostly bending rules or ignoring them.... if our democracy was more robust most of his tools would be removed from his toolbox. We are sleepwalking to disaster when such a government seemingly faces no realistic accountability. The checks and balances of Parliament, the civil service, the judiciary, the press and public institutionsations currently seem effectively powerless.
In the meantime the FT shows the scale of their failure with this virus. I think the risks post virus are much greater as we have a hamstring economy heading full speed to the cliff edge of hard Brexit. So excuse me if I think blaming northern ex Labour leave voters for Brexit and Boris seems ludicrous, just like in the US with Trump, the establishment has let this happen.
https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0
-
@James - well summarised
(How were the test results?)
-
@James - well summarised
(How were the test results?)
Both me and my partner were negative, thanks. Though we only ever received one result each. So it could still be that either my nose or tonsils had COVID but they didn’t send the results of both tests...
-
I had a look on my local Tory MP's (Andy Bowie) Facebook page, and he said he's giving hs opinion on the matter, then copied and pasted DC's statement. A friend in Sheffield (South?) said their local Tory MP had done the same. Wonder if this command has been passed down from on high (maybe even by DC himself).
https://www.andrewbowie.org.uk/news/response-dominic-cummings-story?fbclid=IwAR0zuyhJ4l7KA5EgvvmsCPq1_0HD4gem52LTc3mpTIoBsJxZu5jEsGhWJEs
-
I had a look on my local Tory MP's (Andy Bowie) Facebook page, and he said he's giving hs opinion on the matter, then copied and pasted DC's statement. A friend in Sheffield (South?) said their local Tory MP had done the same. Wonder if this command has been passed down from on high (maybe even by DC himself).
https://www.andrewbowie.org.uk/news/response-dominic-cummings-story?fbclid=IwAR0zuyhJ4l7KA5EgvvmsCPq1_0HD4gem52LTc3mpTIoBsJxZu5jEsGhWJEs
My MP (Simon Fell) was on the fence. “I neither condone or support his actions...”.Though he dis respond to my email saying that, if he were in that position he would resign.
-
My MP is rabid leaveophile Philip Davies. I'm not sure what relationship he had with Vote Leave but he's certainly a member of the ERG (or at least was a member, we don't seem to talk about them any more). He prides himself as being unwhippable and unswervingly committed to the interests of his constituents and I'd wondered what he'd do about this.
Of course, he's defensive of the PM and soft in his language, but one can't help but begrudgingly credit him for calling for him to go. Personally, even if he does go, he'll soon be back after a suitable period of exile, whether it be as a senior adviser/consultant/head roustabout.
“Over the last few days I have given Dominic Cummings the space and time to come to the conclusion that he should do the honourable thing and resign his position.
“Dominic has always prided himself on being anti-establishment, but now has to accept that he is part of the establishment.
“Anyone who listened to his account of how he weighed up the family situation he was in at the time can have sympathy for the dilemmas he faced, and I don’t doubt that he genuinely feels that his actions were within the law and the rules. I also deplore the nasty witch-hunt he and his family have faced from many people over a sustained period of time.
“However, rightly or wrongly, it is clear that as far as the overwhelming majority of the public are concerned they feel that there is now one rule for them and one rule for those in authority. That cannot be allowed to stand.
“People in the UK believe in fair play and that everyone should abide by the rules - not least those who played a hand in drawing them up - and whatever Dominic Cummings may say or believe they feel that has not happened here.
“Politics is all about trust, and when that trust has evaporated it is impossible to win back. The reality is that Dominic Cummings no longer has the trust of the overwhelming majority of the public - including those he once prided himself in giving a voice to.
“We cannot have a situation where good Ministers like Douglas Ross lose their jobs over this but Dominic Cummings retains his.
“It is clear that even if one takes a generous and sympathetic view of his actions, as I am inclined to do, his continued presence in the government is causing damage to it and is proving a huge distraction to the work of it.
“It is admirable of the Prime Minister to be loyal to his staff and to seek to defend and support those who work for him. Dominic Cummings should now repay that loyalty to the Prime Minister by resigning his position for the good of the Prime Minister, the government and the country”
-
I emailed my MP last weekend that I thought Cummings behaviour was a breach of the guidance in 3 counts.
I also told her I couldn’t visit my dad in his care home after the lockdown began.
I told her that I couldn’t visit him in hospital while he was dying.
She didn’t bother to acknowledge or reply.
Here’s to you, Mary Robinson. Your silence makes you appear frankly contemptuous of your constituents.
My uncle’s (online) funeral is in an hour or two.
-
I emailed my MP last weekend that I thought Cummings behaviour was a breach of the guidance in 3 counts.
I also told her I couldn’t visit my dad in his care home after the lockdown began.
I told her that I couldn’t visit him in hospital while he was dying.
She didn’t bother to acknowledge or reply.
Here’s to you, Mary Robinson. Your silence makes you appear frankly contemptuous of your constituents.
My uncle’s (online) funeral is in an hour or two.
Sorry for your loss, that’s truly shit.
The arrogance of some MPs is awful. I hope people have long memories come the next election...
-
Condolences JR. It puts it in perspective. Without moving on too swiftly, this is on the usual topic:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52835982
In a statement, Durham Police said they view Mr Cummings' 50-mile round trip to Barnard Castle with his wife and son as "minor" because there was no apparent breach of social distancing rules during their visit.
The force said it had "no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident", since this would amount to "treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public."
Carte fucking blanche to do non social-distance-breaking non-fineable minor breach 50 mile round trips to Stanage??
-
Testing numbers have been artificially inflated (admitted now by government) - when I swabbed both my throat and nose, that was two tests, not one.
I have now been "tested" 6 times according to the statistics. Yet, regardless of whether I test positive or negative, none of my results will ever appear in the totals of positives or negatives because they are part of a study, rather than done for health reasons. But they have to be included in the daily totals or people might realise we still haven't been close to 100k tests on any day yet.
-
Sorry to hear that Mr JA. Shitty news - in terrible circumstances. Hope it went ok.
-
Was I meant to move into a hotel? Was I supposed to go back to the flat of another MP when I had nothing apart from a couple of changes of clothes?
Did I run the risk of potentially infecting the friend whose flat it was?
A comment from another MP (Peter Gibson, Conservative) who travelled from London to the North east on a Train (pre-lockdown) whilst displaying symptoms. He was staying in a friends flat as he had no London residence.
He was told to travel home & self-isolate & said his normal mode of transport was a train (which was apparently therefore recommended to get himself home).
It seems morally wrong, but not illegal at the time I don’t think.
However what gets me is that he uses the justification of not infecting his friend, but is happy to (I assume) travel through London, get on a train & travel the length of the country whilst potentially infective. Spare one to infect the many?
Edit - I’m not meaning to have a go at this guy in particular. More pointing out that everyone seems to think they always act with the upmost care. Clearly he didn’t think about what he was saying as it just makes him look like a dick in my eyes...
-
An old Navy friend reminded me of this today (you’d often find a copy pinned to the bulkhead, in a Senior Rates mess).
She’s right, it is even more apt this evening.
Top Down Leadership.
“ It's a long time and another life when I last saw this but it is still relevant today!
Sailors will understand.
In the Beginning was the Plan, and then came the Assumptions, and the Assumptions were without form, and the Plan was without substance.
Darkness was upon the faces of the men and women.
and the men and women went unto their Leading Hands and said,
this is a crock of shit and it stinks,
and the Leading Hands went unto their Petty Officers saying,
it is a pail of dung and we can't live with the smell,
and the Petty Officers went unto the their Chief Petty Officers saying,
it is a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it,
and the Chief Petty Officers went unto the Warrant Officer saying,
it is a vessel of fertilizer and none may abide its strength,
and the WO then went to the Divisional Officer saying,
it contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong,
and the Divisional Officer went to the First Lieutenant saying,
it promotes growth and it is very powerful,
and the First Lieutenant went unto the Captain and said,
this new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the Men and Women with very powerful effects,
and the Captain looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good, and the Plan became Policy,
and that, my friends, is how shit happens. ..”
-
Breaking news:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/government-rejected-radical-lockdown-england-care-homes-coronavirus
-
I emailed my MP last weekend that I thought Cummings behaviour was a breach of the guidance in 3 counts.
I also told her I couldn’t visit my dad in his care home after the lockdown began.
I told her that I couldn’t visit him in hospital while he was dying.
She didn’t bother to acknowledge or reply.
Here’s to you, Mary Robinson. Your silence makes you appear frankly contemptuous of your constituents.
My uncle’s (online) funeral is in an hour or two.
Really sorry to hear that, my condolences. I just had a look at Mary Robinson's Twitter feed. She posted a letter saying that she was 'disappointed' that people had felt aggrieved by Dominic Cummings behaviour.
I daresay a few are now rather disappointed in her behaviour as well. She's expended more effort on gushing about how pleased she is about markets and car showrooms opening.
-
Thanks Toby. She seems very superficial.
-
Condolences JR. Sadly, know just how you feel.
Really sorry to hear that, my condolences. I just had a look at Mary Robinson's Twitter feed. She posted a letter saying that she was 'disappointed' that people had felt aggrieved by Dominic Cummings behaviour.
That's not what she said though Toby. To quote:
Mr Cummings should have informed the Prime Minister of his decision to travel and explanations regarding his actions should have been provided much sooner. It is hugely disappointing that many people have felt let down by his decisions and by the impression that the rules regarding lockdown were not being properly obeyed, at least in spirit if not in practice.
https://twitter.com/MaryRobinson01/status/1265270118084415489?s=09
As in, she's disappointed in Cummings, not the people who feel let down. It is poorly worded though.
-
Can you point me to any words critical of Cummings? She wishes he had communicated his intentions to the PM and explained himself sooner. That’s an error in communication, not in travelling when infected and going on a jaunt because he suspected he was unfit to drive (what??).
She is disappointed that people feel let down in regards to the spirit of the guidelines. As opposed to the practice, the reality of what they prescribe.
When someone expresses regret that another person ‘feels’ unhappy about a thing, it is frequently not an apology or expression of regret over the thing, merely a view that they wished there were a different reaction.
I see no meaningful expression of regret for, or censure of, Cummings’ actions in travelling.
-
That's not what she said though Toby. To quote:
Mr Cummings should have informed the Prime Minister of his decision to travel and explanations regarding his actions should have been provided much sooner....
Just to pick up on this line in the tweet, which seems to be taken as a given i.e. this was somehow a secret for a bit. How likely do people really think it is that he *didn't* inform the PM? Are we to believe he just ran out of work and did one for two weeks without mentioning anything to his employer? Even if he didn't say specifically he was going to Durham before he went, are we to believe that the government / PM was completely unaware of his whereabouts for any significant length of time? My "Great British common sense" says that sounds like bollocks. Even if it was true, and the first they heard of it was when the Guardian / Mirror first approached them for comment, they no-commented it for many weeks before the story became public. I wonder who advised that? Probably some chief advisor. I wonder which chief advisor advised the PM not to sack his chief advisor? In fact I wonder if some of these MP's tweets are partially drafted by any sort of chief advisor? Cummings is his own judge and jury, and unsurprisingly he has provided himself with an explanation which he believes exonerates himself. The end (he hopes).
Even The Spectator are publishing articles decrying this - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-isn-t-fit-to-lead The same ultra right wing, previously edited by Boris Johnson, Spectator, that has Mary Wakefield, the wife of Dominic Cummings, as a current commissioning editor. This is cutting through. Obviously we should all just move on.
If we were to move on though we surely would notice that the start of the Test-Track-Isolate system was brought forward a few days. It is now our "civic duty" to isolate if instructed. In terms of messaging, could there have ever been a worse possible moment to bring this announcement forward to, than now? Who on earth is advising the government? Oh yeah, I forgot.
That is not to mention that we are now at roughly the same amount of daily new cases and daily deaths as the day we entered lockdown (from daily briefing slides - inaccuracy of numbers accepted). Lockdown was effective in controlling the spread of the virus. If TTI is to effectively replace lockdown then it needs to work. The app that was meant to be the panacea is now no longer talked about, the tracing is being outsourced to Serco, and the messaging has been torpedoed from the start. What could possibly go wrong?
-
Nigel, the idea that DC and the PM are not in constant close communication does not merit consideration imo. Knew? More like authorised. Not impossible that he popped into GSK office in Barnard Castle. I expect they would have plenty to talk about
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/glaxosmithkline-aims-to-make-1b-doses-vaccine-booster-for-multiple-covid-19-partners
-
Can you point me to any words critical of Cummings?
I can only re-quote from her letter:
It is hugely disappointing that many people have felt let down by his decisions and by the impression that the rules regarding lockdown were not being properly obeyed, at least in spirit if not in practice.
My emphasis. I.e. she's disappointed in his decisions, not that people have felt let down by them. It's also decisions in the plural, so not limited to just not informing the PM of where he was. It's poorly worded as I said, but I take that to mean she is critical of his decisions.
I can see how it could be read differently but I think that's dependent on the reader, I.e. she's not as explicit as she could have been, so it's easy to fit your reaction to your own level of outrage.
Nigel - agree it's generally an utter farce and there's a lot of obfuscation going on, although I remain suspicious that a single adviser could have such a level of influence and control. He's not omnipotent! More likely it's Bojo and team trying to deflect from their own incompetence and lack of integrity now than trying to protect DC.
-
Just to pick up on this line in the tweet, which seems to be taken as a given i.e. this was somehow a secret for a bit. How likely do people really think it is that he *didn't* inform the PM? Are we to believe he just ran out of work and did one for two weeks without mentioning anything to his employer? Even if he didn't say specifically he was going to Durham before he went, are we to believe that the government / PM was completely unaware of his whereabouts for any significant length of time? My "Great British common sense" says that sounds like bollocks. Even if it was true, and the first they heard of it was when the Guardian / Mirror first approached them for comment, they no-commented it for many weeks before the story became public.
DC is on record saying that he spoke to BoJo by phone on the Tues or Weds after the Friday he went up to Durham, to inform him. He said that they were both ill with covid-19 at the time of the call.
-
I can only re-quote from her letter:
It is hugely disappointing that many people have felt let down by his decisions and by the impression that the rules regarding lockdown were not being properly obeyed, at least in spirit if not in practice.
My emphasis. I.e. she's disappointed in his decisions, not that people have felt let down by them. It's also decisions in the plural, so not limited to just not informing the PM of where he was. It's poorly worded as I said, but I take that to mean she is critical of his decisions.
Hi Bradders, that is as you say, your interpretation. It is not what she actually wrote.
She wrote that 'it is disappointing that people felt let down by his decisions'. No doubt, it's been a nightmare for hm gov.
She absolutely does not write that she feels let down. Those words are simply not written, though I expect she would be happy for you to draw that conclusion. Excepting the gentle censure of ..
Mr Cummings should have informed the PM of his decision to travel and explanations regarding his decision to travel should have been provided much sooner
.. can you point me to any words that she actually uses to criticise Cummings? Bar implying that really, the only fault was a lack of timeliness in letting people know about his movements, I can't see any.
In the context of the massive double standards of this case, I hope she also feels disappointment that a good proportion of her constituents will see these weasel words for the disingenuous double speak that they really are.
-
I am probably being a bit harsh but if you analyse it carefully, you'll see it is an elegant piece of fence sitting which invites the perception that she is somewhat critical whilst absolutely not saying that, nor deviating from the gov line.
A bit of politics, all things to all people, open to more than one interpretation and impossible to pin down.
-
I am probably being a bit harsh but if you analyse it carefully, you'll see it is an elegant piece of fence sitting which invites the perception that she is somewhat critical whilst absolutely not saying that, nor deviating from the gov line.
A bit of politics, all things to all people, open to more than one interpretation and impossible to pin down.
Yes, agree with you, you read it one way, I read it another.
-
I agree with JJR. Like when someone says "Well I'm sorry you feel that way about what I've done, but...." Which at first impression would seem like an apology for dong something, but blatantly isn't.
-
I am probably being a bit harsh but if you analyse it carefully, you'll see it is an elegant piece of fence sitting which invites the perception that she is somewhat critical whilst absolutely not saying that, nor deviating from the gov line.
A bit of politics, all things to all people, open to more than one interpretation and impossible to pin down.
I don't know about it being elegant but otherwise I agree. It's typical professional political bullshit. I saw what Theresa May of has said to her constituents on the news. She might have been a rather poor PM but at least she's honest.
Nigel, I generally agree, although I'd wager it's pretty possible that Johnson wouldn't have cared very much about exactly where Cummings was at that time as he went into hospital not that long afterwards. He was probably mainly worried about his health and the imminent birth of his son.
-
She might have been a rather poor PM but at least she's honest.
:o
-
When I checked BBC earlier today the top 4 UK news stories were:
1. Statistics watchdog calling out the test numbers false accounting.
2. Govt now ignoring their own alert level system as it doesn’t fit with their lockdown relaxation (All 4 CMOs vetoing lowering from level 4 to 3).
3. Quarantine u-turn now in the making.
4. Parliamentary voting system chaos and discrimination.
What an utter shambles.
-
You missed Prof Fergusson telling the lords it’ll bumble along at these levels until sept - and CV19 is leaking out of hospitals and care homes into the wider public.
-
I'm sure Johnson et al are relieved to see the goings on Stateside taking a bit of front page space, and temporarily distracting everyone from the shit show that is their government.
Has any explanation been given for the contact tracing app being brushed under the carpet? I've heard several scientists talking about how it would be way more effective, and way cheaper, than using people. Is testing just proving too difficult?
-
I may be reading too much into a single sentence from Matt Hancock during Fridays 5pm briefing about the isle of white pilot. But I’d guess it’s because people are refusing to self isolate when the app asks them to. Perhaps there are too many false alerts, perhaps people just need an actual person to tell them to stay home.
Really good deep dive into the SAGE minutes by the FT, with a focus on why the govt made several calls that initially seemed nonsensical.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/06/01/1591001732000/Making-sense-of-nonsensical-Covid-19-strategy/
-
I'm sure Johnson et al are relieved to see the goings on Stateside taking a bit of front page space, and temporarily distracting everyone from the shit show that is their government.
Has any explanation been given for the contact tracing app being brushed under the carpet? I've heard several scientists talking about how it would be way more effective, and way cheaper, than using people. Is testing just proving too difficult?
I don't understand. The App is to help trace contacts isn't it? Whether contacts are traced by bluetooth phone interactions or by interviews and looking up CCTV, payment card usage etc etc, it still needs the same amount of testing to see which contacts are COVID19 +ve. If tracing is delayed because there is no app to help, that means more not less testing is needed.
What seems deranged to me is that once traced, contacts are just being asked to isolate. They are only tested if and when they develop symptoms. I thought the point of this was to get ahead of outbreaks and quash them. That necessitates identifying virus shedders who are pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic so that their contacts can be tested and isolated and so on.
The UK approach seems totally at odds with https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e
-
I may be reading too much into a single sentence from Matt Hancock during Fridays 5pm briefing about the isle of white pilot. But I’d guess it’s because people are refusing to self isolate when the app asks them to. Perhaps there are too many false alerts, perhaps people just need an actual person to tell them to stay home.
It's absolutely bonkers that our government is banking on just asking people to isolate. I'm not suggesting going as far as China, who actually sealed people physically in their houses, but every other country with a similar system has a pretty severe penalty for infringement: imprisonment or a bloody massive fine. Clearly the situation demands this otherwise people won't bother.
-
Indeed. Why are the contacts being told they HAVE to be tested. That way you catch it.
Week and a half ago I drove past two large outdoor testing stations in the middle of the afternoon (Manchester and Bolton) and they were both dead. People working there but no cars for testing. We would appear to have capacity...
-
I'm sure Johnson et al are relieved to see the goings on Stateside taking a bit of front page space, and temporarily distracting everyone from the shit show that is their government.
Has any explanation been given for the contact tracing app being brushed under the carpet? I've heard several scientists talking about how it would be way more effective, and way cheaper, than using people. Is testing just proving too difficult?
I don't understand. The App is to help trace contacts isn't it? Whether contacts are traced by bluetooth phone interactions or by interviews and looking up CCTV, payment card usage etc etc, it still needs the same amount of testing to see which contacts are COVID19 +ve. If tracing is delayed because there is no app to help, that means more not less testing is needed.
What seems deranged to me is that once traced, contacts are just being asked to isolate. They are only tested if and when they develop symptoms. I thought the point of this was to get ahead of outbreaks and quash them. That necessitates identifying virus shedders who are pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic so that their contacts can be tested and isolated and so on.
The UK approach seems totally at odds with https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-how-to-do-testing-and-contact-tracing-bde85b64072e
I meant testing of the app
-
I see the BMJ are in full support of the government position...
Um...
Or, not...
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2102 (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2102)
-
[quote author=stone link=topic=30554.msg610451#msg610451 .
What seems deranged to me is that once traced, contacts are just being asked to isolate. They are only tested if and when they develop symptoms. I thought the point of this was to get ahead of outbreaks and quash them. That necessitates identifying virus shedders who are pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic so that their contacts can be tested and isolated and so on.
[/quote]
This question has been asked a couple of times by the daily media. Both times the scientists answered that in the period during which a contact is pre symptomatic after catching the virus from a known positive test, they themselves are still highly? likely to test negative, is there are lots of false negatives in that population - enough that in that population they need everyone to assume they are infected and isolate even if they get a negative test result. Presumably, the logic goes that you can't really realistically expect people to do that and therefore it is better not to give them the test.
-
I can't disagree with any of this really:
Keir Starmer has accused Boris Johnson of causing a collapse in public confidence over the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis, saying No 10 will be directly responsible if the infection rate starts to rise again.
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, the Labour leader launched a stinging attack on the the prime minister, accusing him of “winging it” over the easing of the lockdown and making an already “difficult situation 10 times worse”.
He also questioned whether the timing of some decisions over the relaxation of the lockdown rules had been taken “to try to deflect attention away” from the Dominic Cummings affair – an episode, he said, that showed Johnson was too weak to sack his chief adviser.
Keir Starmer warns PM: get a grip or risk second wave of coronavirus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/02/keir-starmer-warns-pm-get-a-grip-or-risk-second-wave-of-coronavirus?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Really good deep dive into the SAGE minutes by the FT, with a focus on why the govt made several calls that initially seemed nonsensical.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2020/06/01/1591001732000/Making-sense-of-nonsensical-Covid-19-strategy/
Don't those calls still seem nonsensical? Contrast with how Mongolia went about COVID19 response https://medium.com/@indica/covid-underdogs-mongolia-3b0c162427c2
I think we need to have a long hard look at what cultural/political/whatever factors have made us as a nation so utterly shite on this. And then change -massively.
-
Many of them do, but most of them folllow on logically from the initial position of SAGE that containment wasn’t possible. In fairness to them, at the time they could have been right.
If you believed that, then efforts to lockdown were just economically painful ways to guarantee everyone died in the second wave.
But a strategy of mitigation also means there’s no sense in building up certain PPE stocks or test/trace capacity. So a late switch of strategy finds you with insufficient resources to do all the things you know you SHOULD do, and desperately scrabbling to catch up.
I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent, but really most of what has happened has resulted from that one error of judgement right at the start.
The thing that has depressed me the most about subsequent months is how poorly our system of contracting out govt responsibilities to SERCO, Deloitte etc has performed. It really has been a shambles and the whole system needs a very hard reassessment.
-
The thing that has depressed me the most about subsequent months is how poorly our system of contracting out govt responsibilities to SERCO, Deloitte etc has performed. It really has been a shambles and the whole system needs a very hard reassessment.
Not surprising, as they have no existing infrastructure, expertise and experience, unlike localised occupational health. Cummings - as well as recent administrations in general- has built his whole career around destroying local structures and accountability. His time in DofE was a massive exercise in attacking Local Authority delivery of education, with predictable results.
It is the normal story of privatisation where companies with a profit motive and little incentive to see whole picture are performing poorly. Ideology, meet pandemic.
-
Totally agree, but I'm not so quick to lay the blame at recent administrations in particular. This has been going on since Blair/Brown. It seems to be a whitehall disease...
-
Many of them do, but most of them folllow on logically from the initial position of SAGE that containment wasn’t possible. In fairness to them, at the time they could have been right.
If you believed that, then efforts to lockdown were just economically painful ways to guarantee everyone died in the second wave.
But a strategy of mitigation also means there’s no sense in building up certain PPE stocks or test/trace capacity. So a late switch of strategy finds you with insufficient resources to do all the things you know you SHOULD do, and desperately scrabbling to catch up.
I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent, but really most of what has happened has resulted from that one error of judgement right at the start.
The thing that has depressed me the most about subsequent months is how poorly our system of contracting out govt responsibilities to SERCO, Deloitte etc has performed. It really has been a shambles and the whole system needs a very hard reassessment.
That's because SAGE believed in less than ideal modelling and were not listening to the too few members who knew about fighting outbreaks. Most of mainland Europe seem confident the lockdown route was the way to go and that recovery was to be expected, even those hit early and hard in a flu peak have done better than us. Why assume the worse while you can still fight for much better? In the UK cascaded covid cock ups, the best data indicates we have only infected 7% of the population so far... 15 times the deaths to go then. There is still no proof herd immunity will even work... yet there is a strong hope that containment will be rescued by medical advances (vaccine or ither treatments to reduce mortality).
It's morally reprehensible not to protect workers at the front line of this horrendous trauma even if you don't give a shit about more than slowing the spread. The viral load/dose issues almost certainly means risks are higher for them. We now know the extra risks for BME staff (a much higher proporton in the NHS and care than in the general population). Plus even for Cummings style inhuman machinations it's hardly like we have masses of space capacity in the health workforce that we can afford deaths permanent health issues and mass mental trauma.
I think posters here who openly admit they can't stand the government have been broadly fair in discussing evidenced based failure. As one of those I'll happily repeat the financial response is good so far (way better than I expected) and lockdown timing was clearly the fault of SAGE and not Boris. As such I'm disappointed you: would unfairly malign those posters: and say most things arose from one error when so many errors have happened. Maybe most deaths arose from that one mistake (I'd say failures in care home action must be equal at least) but there is more to this ongoing government fiasco than the headline numbers. The latest news is Parliament will be like some mad satirists theme park with queues through the corridors to vote and those MPs forced to self isolate denied a vote on behalf of their constituents... plus a bit more boundary change gerrymandering given they have the power to do so.... the threat of Boris to UK democracy should not be underestimated.
Why on earth did you expect better from contracting out? It was one of the most predictable mistakes they made.
-
So a late switch of strategy finds you with insufficient resources to do all the things you know you SHOULD do, and desperately scrabbling to catch up. I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent, but really most of what has happened has resulted from that one error of judgement right at the start.
I think that strategy switch has been clear to anyone paying attention from early on, and personally I would have cut the govt a lot more slack if they'd just been honest about it at the outset. I understand the argument for not admitting every mistake at a time when the govt needs to maintain public confidence but what has followed on from that decision has been an exercise in reputation management over and above any concern for public health as far as I can see (prioritising NHS capacity by pushing the problem unchecked into care homes is just one example). There has been not a shred of humility or contrition from any govt minister throughout the epidemic and instead they keep insisting they're following a clear strategy which is working well. The consistent manipulation of data to support this argument is also unforgivable to me. Well-intentioned mistakes can be forgiven, but constant deception and misinformation just leads to a collapse in public trust - which is exactly what's happened.
-
Many of them do, but most of them folllow on logically from the initial position of SAGE that containment wasn’t possible. In fairness to them, at the time they could have been right.
If you believed that, then efforts to lockdown were just economically painful ways to guarantee everyone died in the second wave.
But a strategy of mitigation also means there’s no sense in building up certain PPE stocks or test/trace capacity. So a late switch of strategy finds you with insufficient resources to do all the things you know you SHOULD do, and desperately scrabbling to catch up.
I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent, but really most of what has happened has resulted from that one error of judgement right at the start.
The thing that has depressed me the most about subsequent months is how poorly our system of contracting out govt responsibilities to SERCO, Deloitte etc has performed. It really has been a shambles and the whole system needs a very hard reassessment.
Wuhan had a totally out of control mess of an outbreak (as we have had) but they then got ahead of it, cleared it up and stopped it taking off in the rest of China. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/house-was-fire-top-chinese-virologist-how-china-and-us-have-met-pandemic
Best explanation I've seen for why SAGE had such a roll over attitude is that neoliberal mind rot has imbued our whole nation with the deeply held ideology that the state can't do anything.
-
Meanwhile - it seems Boris was wearing an earpiece in today’s PMQ’s... according to twitter...
https://twitter.com/andyconner67/status/1268177326187196417?s=21
-
Not confirmed as covid yet but it wouldn’t be a shock if it is. You really couldn’t make this up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303
-
I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent...
Fair enough Stu, but if we put covid to one side for a second and look at pure politics, they have just yesterday held a vote on whether to keep the virtual parliament, or return to voting in person. This was done in person and therefore automatically excluded anyone shielding or performing care duties i.e. a lot of MPs who would have definitely voted against. It was also biased against MPs from Scotland and NI (not Tory strongholds) because of current travel difficulties. Unsurprisingly given all this the government won the vote 261 to 163. https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/794
That's 424 out of approx. 626 voting MPs. Of course even if every MP could have voted online the government may have won anyway as they have a majority of 80, but they went for loading the deck instead. There are now constituencies in the UK with no effective representation in parliament because the MPs there are following the UK rules on shielding etc. The new situation of in-person voting also goes against their own UK rules on working from home if you can - the virtual system worked. It has also received a rebuke from the EHRC as discriminatory. Not to mention that in the 21st century they have to form a queue a mile long and it takes 45 minutes for one vote. Or that they recently all received £10K to allow them to work from home.
Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed it was in voters’ interests to get parliament back up and running as legislation had been “clogged” with “no detailed, line-by-line consideration of bills that will affect people’s lives”. This is the same guy who lied to the Queen in order to shut parliament for an unprecedented 5 weeks only a few months ago, when there was also some quite important stuff happening. Found unlawful by the Supreme Court.
As an added extra on the same day the ONS had a go at them for fiddling stats.
Whatever the above is, its not competent or benevolent, to me at least. As Kier Starmer said at PMQs, even if you want to support the government, they are making it very difficult to.
-
I know lots on here want to believe the govt are incompetent and malevolent...
...
Whatever the above is, its not competent or benevolent, to me at least. As Kier Starmer said at PMQs, even if you want to support the government, they are making it very difficult to.
I don't think that the current government is malevolent in that I don't think they're actively willing the deaths of thousands of people, but I think that they're virtually inarguably incompetent. I really don't think that one mistake really sums it up. Appointing a third rate, massively inexperienced cabinet before the crisis, who then bicker with each other about whose departmental interests should take precedence or who should be held responsible for the latest screw up, was perhaps the first error. A showman prime minister close to morbid obesity with a shockingly poor grasp of any details... They've repeatedly tried to pander to a libertarian ideal of minimal state intervention in public life when that's exactly what is needed in spades. We've barely had a proper lockdown at all compared to most badly affected European countries, and now even that's being eased too early.
I'm not opposed to the conservative party; I'd vote for them if they were any good, as I would almost any party. However this lot are truly dire.
-
As an American reading and sifting through all of this, it's somewhat refreshing to know that we are not alone in our ability to show mass incompetence at the national level. That said, I think it's a toss-up as to whether the UK or the US comes out of 2020 looking like the more inept. :'( :popcorn: :'(
Your covid results are currently worse than ours(per capita), but that could change. We have the advantage of way more space, so it could be awhile before we really see the full results.
Basically we have Trump, the GOP, and too many undereducated macho police.
I think ATM what we have going for us is the potential for some significant political change. When Covid waves 2 and 3 strike, the boomers are either gonna die or be too afraid to leave the house, leaving the politically charged youngsters to vote.
On the other hand, those results could legitimately lead to civil war... :devangel:
-
As an American reading and sifting through all of this, it's somewhat refreshing to know that we are not alone in our ability to show mass incompetence at the national level. That said, I think it's a toss-up as to whether the UK or the US comes out of 2020 looking like the more inept. :'( :popcorn: :'(
Your covid results are currently worse than ours(per capita), but that could change. We have the advantage of way more space, so it could be awhile before we really see the full results.
I wonder if that's affected by population density though, vast areas of the USA are very sparsely populated, the more densely populated coastal cities seem to have been hit very hard. It's hard to compare really. I think you're right about the incompetence race. BJ and Trump are both doing pretty badly.
-
I don't think that the current government is malevolent in that I don't think they're actively willing the deaths of thousands of people, but I think that they're virtually inarguably incompetent.
Unfortunately the end result is the same.
Focussing just on the example I gave, if requiring MPs to attend parliament in person causes transmission of the virus and an MP falls seriously ill or dies as a result, that was clearly avoidable. SAGE may well be somewhat culpable for the overall covid response, but this would be nothing to do with them as the advice is clear - work from home if you can. The government had a 3 line whip on this. Democratically and scientifically it is just wrong. Add in opening schools before TTI is proven to work, and announcing things such as BBQs on a Thursday evening in the middle of a glorious forecast (but don't have one until Monday!) and it does look as if they don't really care.
As a demonstration of the disconnect with reality, they are talking about air bridges to countries with low infection. For the past few days we have had more deaths (not sure on new infections) than the rest of the EU27 combined. We are a country with high infection, several EU countries have even said they will not allow people from the UK in until later in the year. They know all this but still won't level with people.
-
The ones that do want Brits are desperate for the tourist income knowing it's a risk. Even I was shocked that we now have more daily deaths than the rest of the EU 27 put together ( a population of more than 400 million).
-
(Rant brewing...)
The problem with our (UK - OK, English) CV19 approach is that there is no strategy. Normally - you have an end goal/aim and you determine what you do to achieve this - your strategy. Within this there are a set of goals/aims/milestones whatever you want to call them.
This seems apparent with everything. EG. Testing. Our strategy seems to be to get to 100k then 200k tests a day. OK - thats improtant, but surely thats an aim within a strategy... what is the larger strategy here? to test the entire population? to test people coming into the country? to test a city once a week for a month? It really isnt clear! OF COURSE testing is vital to understanding and managing the outbreak and lockdown - but only if your strategy is sensible! Classic example of this is releasing patients from hospital to care homes without testing! Why?
Lets take PPE. Whats the strategy there?
TTI - ditto - 'do it for everyone' - er why? better localised where its important maybe? Built from the bottom up rather than top down..
Everything - seems to be strategy less... we're fighting fires instead of preventing them...
The only aspect where there seems to be a strategy - and policies are being made and exectuted to achieve that is for businesses...
Got to do some work but may rant more later...
-
There are now constituencies in the UK with no effective representation in parliament because the MPs there are following the UK rules on shielding etc.
Johnson didn't quite seem to grasp the irony of performing a u-turn on this in PMQs yesterday (by allowing votes by proxy) while at the same time accusing Starmer of u-turns. His performance yesterday was risible - he may as well have just said "Mummy, this boy is being mean to me".
-
John Crace spot on on PMQs as usual
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/03/no-hiding-place-for-boris-at-pmqs
In the meantime I'll watch this news from Roy Lilley with interest.
The least I can do...
News and Comment from Roy Lilley
It was late. We'd been to a conference. We we starving. I pulled up outside a restaurant, my passenger nipped out; '... see if they had a table'... '... sorry, they were fully booked'. I could see through the windows, the white table cloths, the twinkling candles and the empty chairs. Stay here... I swept past the manicured Bay Trees in the terracotta pots and pushed through the doors. 'D'you have a table for two?' Yes sir, right here... We parked and went back in. The waiter was gobsmacked to see me with the woman he had just refused. Nothing was said. We sat down, went through the card. My colleague, was black. West Indian, born and bred here, educated here, medical school here and a public health doctor here. Sadly, she died a few years ago.
That was the first time, in my white, suburban bubble, racial prejudice had touched my life. I ran a business, I recruited talent, not skin colour. I was a councillor, a member of a health authority, what we now call BAME colleagues were abundant and valued. It never dawned on me they were leading two lives. A life with a thin veneer of equality and the real-world life of queues, bus seats, shops, pubs with an ugly undercurrent that I had never seen... until the night of the restaurant. We talked about that evening. She told of her life; early years, career, work and struggle. Because she was black. How it was still a struggle for her kids. Time and again, stopped in the street for no reason, other than they were black. Later, at the OU, I met two delightful women, celebrating their Masters in healthcare. If I were a social demographer I'd call them Waitrose women. John Lewis people! I asked them about their ambitions... they didn't think they could get beyond middle management in the NHS... despite their new qualifications. Because? Because they were black.
When the nation started noticing more BAME colleagues were dying we asked the reasonable question... why? HMG needed to know if all BAME people were affected. There is an issue about which and what jobs are most at risk. We need to know if the clinical approach should be different and is the risk so high, black and ethnic colleagues need to be shielded and what the impact of that would be on rota, staffing and employment. We needed to dig into, why?
Public Health England were assigned the task... on tight deadlines. By all accounts, they scraped-home. Delivering the final report on Sunday 31st May. By Tuesday, when the report was published, it had become useless. Read it. Frankly it is no more than a teenager could do, with a lap-top and Google. It is a succession of graphs, numbers, unanswered question, flam-flam and gobbledygook.
In answer to the question why are more BAME colleagues dying of CV-19, the answer the report gives us... because they are BAME. If this report were an item of foot-ware, it would be slippers. If it was an offensive weapon it would be a cotton-bud. If this was a serious academic study it would shame the professions from whence it came. Except... it is none of those things. It is simply, incomplete. It's a eunuch report. A vital bit missing. Between the Sunday deadline and the Tuesday publication, it was censored, a chapter removed and the report rejigged. Chunks of commentary and insight from ethnic groups and organisations, telling us back people are poorer: poor housing, poor-pay, poor access to services; still subject to discrimination; front-line exposure in vital services, vulnerability... were cut out. All the reasons that are inflammatory of public policy, an embarrassment for politicians of all flavours, that shame us and make it difficult to look in the mirror... were dumped.
PHE knows this. My message to PHE is; publish the missing pages. You owe it to every BAME person living in this country. A country defined by the White Cliffs of Dover. Publish it PHE, or be damned. And, if you won't, someone, send it to me and I will. If you made a contribution to the report and it was left out, send it to me and I'll publish it.
It's the least I can do.
-
Not confirmed as covid yet but it wouldn’t be a shock if it is. You really couldn’t make this up
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303
Missed this post Ali, I must have been writing. Alok Sharma is 52, BAME, and, being frank, not a waif. Fingers crossed it isn't actually covid for his sake. And for the sake of those he came in contact with in the House of Commons.
Even I was shocked that we now have more daily deaths than the rest of the EU 27 put together ( a population of more than 400 million).
Its quite something for a relatively small island nation.
-
Alok Sharma is 52, BAME, and, being frank, not a waif. Fingers crossed it isn't actually covid for his sake.
Don't worry it's just hay fever! Profuse sweating being one of the classic symptoms of course...
-
Quite a post from Lilley there! Will be interested to see how/if that develops.
One event which has attracted little interest is Suella Braverman’s tweet defending Dominic Cummings within 24 hrs of the news about his trip:
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1264174355975671810
Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does. The
@10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.
Surely it is wholly inappropriate for the Attorney General, a key role to be conducted apolitically, to make political statements in support of individual cases of unlawful behaviour? She thinks not, which surely calls into question her understanding of and fitness for her job.
Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and Justice secretary, clearly takes a different view to Braverman:
After the revelations emerged over the weekend, I was glad to see Mr Cummings give an explanation as to why he acted as he did, and this has been rightly questioned by the media.
Durham police have investigated the situation and have concluded that whilst there might have been a minor breach, they will take no further action. You will appreciate that owing to the operational independence of the police and my constitutional duty as lord chancellor to uphold the rule of law, it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on the merits of an individual case.
I am, however, acutely conscious as to the strength of feeling on this issue, which I completely understand. This has left a deep impression on both me and colleagues in parliament and the government.
This is not a trivial issue in view of the importance of her job.
-
Jolyon Maugham is on the case:
https://goodlawproject.org/news/the-attorney-generals-conduct/
-
Surely it is wholly inappropriate for the Attorney General, a key role to be conducted apolitically, to make political statements in support of individual cases of unlawful behaviour? She thinks not, which surely calls into question her understanding of and fitness for her job.
I wrote to my MP (Nigel Evans; Deputy Speaker) about DC and SB. The reply pertained only to DC so I've followed up with another.
The DC response was better than I expected (I wasn't told it was closed or to move on) but my expectations were low ("strength of feeling" etc.).
https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1268521863078166528?s=20
:tumble:
-
Byline Times on how press support has mainly gone to the big players with healthy reserves while small publishes struggle..
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2020/6/2/exclusive-35m-covid-cash-fund-dominated-by-big-media-while-small-publishers-struggle
-
One event which has attracted little interest is Suella Braverman’s tweet defending Dominic Cummings within 24 hrs of the news about his trip:
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1264174355975671810
Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does. The
@10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.
Surely it is wholly inappropriate for the Attorney General, a key role to be conducted apolitically, to make political statements in support of individual cases of unlawful behaviour? She thinks not, which surely calls into question her understanding of and fitness for her job.
Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and Justice secretary, clearly takes a different view to Braverman:
After the revelations emerged over the weekend, I was glad to see Mr Cummings give an explanation as to why he acted as he did, and this has been rightly questioned by the media.
Durham police have investigated the situation and have concluded that whilst there might have been a minor breach, they will take no further action. You will appreciate that owing to the operational independence of the police and my constitutional duty as lord chancellor to uphold the rule of law, it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on the merits of an individual case.
I am, however, acutely conscious as to the strength of feeling on this issue, which I completely understand. This has left a deep impression on both me and colleagues in parliament and the government.
This is not a trivial issue in view of the importance of her job.
This was covered immediately after the story in several things I read (New Statesman possibly)?
As an AG comment like that would have prejudiced potential legal proceedings against Cummings as I understand it.
-
Doctor quits NHS over Dominic Cummings' refusal to resign
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/04/doctor-quits-nhs-over-dominic-cummings-refusal-to-resign-dominic-pimenta-second-wave-covid-19?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
I wonder if this will make any impact.
The Times has a very critical leader article about Boris Johnson's refusal to admit that there have been issues with the pandemic response.
-
I wonder if this will make any impact.
Doubt it. They've clearly decided to ride this one out for better or worse.
-
Doctor quits NHS over Dominic Cummings' refusal to resign
Yeh I saw his tweet at the time and wondered if he’d follow through with it. Very sad outcome. I wouldn’t blame others for following him though. As it stands, unless the story gains a lot of traction I can’t see a single resignation making any difference. He’s young as well so I hope he makes a success of whatever he goes on to do.
-
Lockdown was effective in controlling the spread of the virus. If TTI is to effectively replace lockdown then it needs to work. The app that was meant to be the panacea is now no longer talked about, the tracing is being outsourced to Serco, and the messaging has been torpedoed from the start. What could possibly go wrong?
'I can assure you that World beating Test and Trace will be fully operational by 1st June' -Johnson to Starmer at PMQs 2 weeks ago
4th June - 'Test and Trace not fully operational until September or October'
Chief exec of Serco - “If it succeeds … it will go a long way in cementing the position of the private sector companies in the public sector supply chain. Some of the naysayers recognise this, which is why they will take every opportunity to undermine us.”
Come on naysayers, stop talking Britain down! Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do to allow Serco to cement their place in the public sector supply chain. Answer - 3 to 4 months grace on a promise of a world beating TTI system. Not like we need it now anyway is it?
-
I wonder how anyone else feels about the mooted suspension of Sunday trading hours? Personally I've thought for a long time they're no more than an anachronistic pain in the ass and I'd be all for ditching them anyway. As to how much good it'll do in the crisis at the moment, I'm less certain...
-
I wonder how anyone else feels about the mooted suspension of Sunday trading hours?
I agree it’s unlikely to increase people’s overall spend at the moment - if the funds aren’t there then a few extra hours opportunity on Sunday isn’t going to change that. It may be a good thing in terms of extra hours available to shop workers? (as long as there’s no obligation to work them and pay is uplifted accordingly for a Sunday).
Personally, I also get pissed off that I can’t do a big shop on the way back from the wall or crag on a Sunday sometimes, but on balance I think the restrictions should stay. I don’t think it’ll be a temporary change, and my fear is that it’ll just be another thing that normalises weekend working for no uplifted pay in the long run (across the board - not just for shop workers).
-
It’s just another cheap. Political. Hit. One from the orchestrated PR unlockdown machine. No strategy - no real reasons - but it gets some headlines and makes people think we may be progressing.
-
A BBC news feature on what a world class test, track, trace and treat system looks like.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000jy50/our-world-south-korea-how-to-fight-coronavirus
-
Sunday trading laws are a blunt instrument that fails to achieve its supposed aim. The shops may only be open 10-16.00 but the staff are still working full shifts, coming in before the store opens, staying after the store closes and working full shifts restocking shelves in an empty store.
Weekend working for supermarket workers is already normalised. If you want to help the workers, then give them additional mandatory time off each week and/or additional pay for working on Sundays. Don't do it by using Sunday trading laws to pretend you are protecting workers then still have them in for full length shifts on a Sunday. It inconveniences the consumer without benefit to the staff. The timing is a cheap PR hit but Sunday trading laws should be scrapped for good.
In terms of reducing transmission of the virus, anything that reduces the number of people in an enclosed space at the same time can only be a good thing.
-
I wonder how anyone else feels about the mooted suspension of Sunday trading hours?
It may be a good thing in terms of extra hours available to shop workers? (as long as there’s no obligation to work them and pay is uplifted accordingly for a Sunday).
I have to work every fourth weekend for no extra. When I worked in shops, we didn't get any extra for Sundays, I'm not saying that everyone should, just worth saying that an awful lot of people work on Sunday anyway
It’s just another cheap. Political. Hit. One from the orchestrated PR unlockdown machine. No strategy - no real reasons - but it gets some headlines and makes people think we may be progressing.
Frankly I'd rather this than opening pubs too early or something which would be far worse. There are no such regulations in the US and it doesn't seem to be the end of the world. Other details of US working conditions are far worse, obviously.
-
Hi Toby a bit of creativity in managing the economic response seems sensible but I do notice the contrast between your last two sentences.
Sunday trading laws are there to protect employees. Employment protection legislation is notoriously weak in the US. Where people have concerns relates to where this might be going. US style protections are not a destination many people want for themselves. As a short term measure, fine. Longer term, are we moving towards an erosion of employment rights? Given the composition of this government, that is perfectly possible.
-
I have to work every fourth weekend for no extra. When I worked in shops, we didn't get any extra for Sundays, I'm not saying that everyone should, just worth saying that an awful lot of people work on Sunday anyway
I don’t know enough about the breakdown of which particular shops/businesses pay extra for Sundays. 20yrs ago (the last time I have any direct knowledge from) supermarkets used to - has that now changed?
I understand there are a lot of roles for which weekend working is unavoidable and therefore the norm (healthcare, frontline workers etc). Some of those jobs will have that factored into the higher salaries already (yours maybe? I don’t know) - others (care work?) sadly won’t, but should. In my area - construction related - I know for a fact no trades would get out of bed at the weekend unless they were getting at least time and a half or more often double time. People often work weekends out of choice to make a lot of £££ and all parties benefit.
Anything that potentially further erodes employment protections or leads to more normalisation of weekend work for regular pay (particularly in sectors where it’s for profit and not out of necessity) should be resisted IMO. I don’t know enough about Sunday trading to know if this is the case but my gut tells me it won’t benefit employees.
-
I wonder how anyone else feels about the mooted suspension of Sunday trading hours?
I'm with Tomtom - its pure distraction. Would be best ignored, except you can bet your bottom US dollar no employees will benefit.
Matt Hancock this morning expressing that he was "sure" that locking down earlier than March 23rd would not have saved any lives. Didn't have any figures for people who had been tracked and traced so far by our world beating Serco call centre system. Confirmed the "essential" NHSX app is now non-essential. Had no figure for the amount of people tested (as opposed to tests done) - this figure has been "temporarily unavailable" for over 2 weeks now. Thankfully he did confirm that its because the Office for National Statistics are on the case - presumably they are sending crack teams of primary school teachers into Serco and DHSC to teach people how to add up? Although when your track record involves counting gloves individually, and single wet wipes as a piece of PPE it is unfortunately probably necessary. Confirmed that they have met their care home testing target - which was to "deliver" a test for all residents. By deliver he does literally mean deliver i.e. the postman has popped it through the letterbox.
Didn't we hear last week that the PM had now "got a grip" on this - where is he? Too busy with Brexit?
-
Sunday trading laws are there to protect employees. Employment protection legislation is notoriously weak in the US. Where people have concerns relates to where this might be going. ...
Hi Jonathan I thought Sunday trading laws were for religious reasons, originally, IE so that people have time to go to church before work at eleven?
Obviously that's not needed for most people now, and most employees will start earlier anyway.
I sympathize with the slippery slope to US working practices, but my guess is that wholesale change is unlikely as our union culture is much stronger.
-
Didn't we hear last week that the PM had now "got a grip" on this - where is he? Too busy with Brexit?
Too busy playing tennis according to the Sunday Times! He's fucking useless anyway, he's probably best out of the way. Although if the alternative is Matt Hancock or Cummings....
-
I have to work every fourth weekend for no extra. When I worked in shops, we didn't get any extra for Sundays, I'm not saying that everyone should, just worth saying that an awful lot of people work on Sunday anyway
I understand there are a lot of roles for which weekend working is unavoidable and therefore the norm (healthcare, frontline workers etc). Some of those jobs will have that factored into the higher salaries already (yours maybe? I don’t know) - others (care work?) sadly won’t, but should.....
but my gut tells me it won’t benefit employees.
No, being a physio is well paid compared to care work but it's absolutely shit compared to many healthcare workers. Especially when we're often doing work which we are professionally accountable for with very sick people and demands a huge skillset. I'm not whining though, it's enough, and I chose it!
I think that SDM made a good point above that Sunday trading normal hours spreads people out more, and more of a seven day culture would ease busyness on leisure facilities and entertainment industries etc
-
No, being a physio is well paid compared to care work but it's absolutely shit compared to many healthcare workers. Especially when we're often doing work which we are professionally accountable for with very sick people and demands a huge skillset. I'm not whining though, it's enough, and I chose it!
I think mentally I separate out those jobs which pay above minimum wage and that you study/train for and go into knowing the working conditions/shift patterns. Like nursing, police, doctors etc. I’m not saying all these are fairly paid for what they do and I’m not saying this mental separation is the right way to see it, but there is potentially some salary weighting already in there for unsociable hours. Again, not arguing at all that a lot of these shouldn’t be paid more! (Or that care workers aren’t skilled workers who have trained for that matter!)
I see the above differently from e.g. shop and care workers who are usually on minimum wage and therefore is clear to see whether they are or aren’t getting additional for unsociable hours. The lowest paid should be the first ones to get extra for weekends/evenings IMO. Not sure if that makes sense?
I think that SDM made a good point above that Sunday trading normal hours spreads people out more
Yes absolutely - temporarily during Covid could be a good thing. Long term I’m not convinced it would be good for employees.
Edit: ...although just thinking more about the spreading out people argument why stop at just shops? Why not schools, offices, workshops, warehouses, to get productivity going 24/7? Slippery slope??
-
Re: Care Workers. Working for the council I get above the living wage as a base hourly rate, plus shift allowance for late/overnight and weekends, double time on Bank Holidays. No idea if this is replicated in the private sector.
-
Sunday trading laws are there to protect employees. Employment protection legislation is notoriously weak in the US. Where people have concerns relates to where this might be going. ...
Hi Jonathan I thought Sunday trading laws were for religious reasons, originally, IE so that people have time to go to church before work at eleven?
Originally yes, but that is what they do now, in effect?
We can add teachers to the list of Sunday workers, most will spend a fair chunk of the day marking and planning. Every night before school is a work night.
-
Not exactly Covid but on my facebook feed lots of people seem to be using the excuse of Covid and social distancing to take a pop at Black Lives Matter protests, from knowing them and their previous postings it's not exactly a surprise, but does suggest that this may not quite be the metoo C change moment I hoped it might be.
-
Yeah I saw a post from an acquaintance on Facebook saying how the government can now not be blamed in the event of a second wave due to the protests.
-
Not exactly Covid but on my facebook feed lots of people seem to be using the excuse of Covid and social distancing to take a pop at Black Lives Matter protests, from knowing them and their previous postings it's not exactly a surprise, but does suggest that this may not quite be the metoo C change moment I hoped it might be.
I would think it fairly likely that these acquaintances, if they're anything like those of mine who post similar things, wouldnt be on board with Me Too even now though? There is a section of society who cant be reached on issues of social justice I suspect. What a depressing thought.
-
Not exactly Covid but on my facebook feed lots of people seem to be using the excuse of Covid and social distancing to take a pop at Black Lives Matter protests, from knowing them and their previous postings it's not exactly a surprise, but does suggest that this may not quite be the metoo C change moment I hoped it might be.
I would think it fairly likely that these acquaintances, if they're anything like those of mine who post similar things, wouldnt be on board with Me Too even now though? There is a section of society who cant be reached on issues of social justice I suspect. What a depressing thought.
yep depressing thought but I think it's a fairly true observation.
-
This may have been posted before and is a few years old, but nicely sums up that feeling.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-dont-know-how-to-explain-to-you-that-you-should_b_59519811e4b0f078efd98440
-
...lots of people seem to be using the excuse of Covid and social distancing to take a pop at Black Lives Matter protests...does suggest that this may not quite be the metoo C change moment I hoped it might be.
Not helped by a PM and Home Secretary playing to their base with soundbites about “thuggery” and “mob rule”. Every time I hear Patel speak I just cringe. It’s like she wants to use adult words and phrases she’s heard other people use before but doesn’t know what they mean or how to construct a coherent sentence with them so just sticks them in randomly anyway.
-
She does not have the monopoly on that I’m afraid.
-
I wonder if this will make any impact.
Doubt it. They've clearly decided to ride this one out for better or worse.
We (NHS staff and those in healthcare) are there for the people.These are the values of the NHS and us working in it.
Such a shame that this government does not share the same values.
-
Not exactly Covid but on my facebook feed lots of people seem to be using the excuse of Covid and social distancing to take a pop at Black Lives Matter protests, from knowing them and their previous postings it's not exactly a surprise, but does suggest that this may not quite be the metoo C change moment I hoped it might be.
I've heard a couple of people complain about the protests today, the sorts who usually don't pay any attention to any news whatever. I'm sure that the same people would vehemently deny that they possess any racial prejudice.
-
Happened to be listening to the radio when PMQs was on today. Keir Starmer sounded appropriately angry about Johnson's assertion last week that he's proud of the government performance, as well he might; but I thought Starmer sounded calm and professional throughout, whereas Boris Johnson plainly avoided several questions and totally flustered the whole thing, sounding irritable, petulant and as though he actually didn't have a clue on any modicum of details.
As I've said before I'd happily vote for a competent conservative politician, but this man is anything but competent, and this is becoming more and more obvious. Six months ago he was their electoral golden ticket, is he now sliding towards being an electoral liability?
-
I’m becoming more convinced by the day that Johnson won’t be in post by the next election. I think he’ll be kept there to ride out the worst of the pandemic and ‘get Brexit done’ by 1st Jan then ditched for someone else (Gove or Sunak?) in time for 2024.
PMQs has always been a farce in terms of lack of direct answers. It’s used more to try and get a decent soundbite for the 6 o’clock news as far as I can tell. If you want to see Johnson’s inadequacies properly laid bare I can recommend watching/listening to the recent liaison committee hearing he appeared at. Less opportunity to bluster his way around questions and his lack of knowledge of basic details was shocking. Just one example - he was asked about the case of a couple with ‘no recourse to public funds’ due to their immigration status and his answer showed he didn’t understand his govts own immigration or benefits system. No wonder he’s tried so hard to avoid the committee and why he is so reliant on Cummings.
-
Every day another drip of usually meaningless unlockdown news.
Beer gardens, now social bubbles (that actually are very limited), wonder what will be dripped out today to dominate the media news cycle.
-
Scary daily case numbers in Texas.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/texas/
-
Every day another drip of usually meaningless unlockdown news.
Beer gardens, now social bubbles (that actually are very limited), wonder what will be dripped out today to dominate the media news cycle.
Although the social bubbles change is massive for me as I live on my own, and it means that I can go to see my parents who I don't think I've seen since Christmas. It's going to be amazing for couples who live in separate places as well.
-
It's going to be amazing for couples who live in separate places as well.
Pffft, if the couples who live apart that I know are any sample they've been visiting each other for a long while now, even those who were following the rules strictly at the start...
-
Every day another drip of usually meaningless unlockdown news....now social bubbles (that actually are very limited), wonder what will be dripped out today to dominate the media news cycle.
What I found most depressing listening to the press conference last night was how this bubble concept was THE announcement Johnson was making, and yet even as he was announcing it he had to look to the scientific advisers to confirm whether or not people could stay overnight. That’s not a trivial detail in this change. So either they hadn’t come up with a policy on overnight stays or Johnson hadn’t read the policy before he did the press conference.
-
My money is on b) not bothered reading.
-
My money is on b) not bothered reading.
Are you suggesting Johnson isn’t a details man?! How dare you.
-
He's not been an anything man so far. Just when he I think he can't sink any lower in my estimation, bam!
-
World beating inadequacy. Right at the front of a small (but sadly competitive) field.
-
He seems worse than usual, I think.
I read somewhere that he’s been avoiding committees and briefings. His behaviour reminds me of somebody suffering from Depression. I remember blustering on, when I was ill, some years ago; whilst actually really not being in the game.
He might genuinely be way out of his depth, aware and deeply unhappy.
Or, he might be a total wanker.
His haggard appearance, of late, seems suggestive.
-
I'm no fan of Johnson, so not making excuses for him, but I do wonder if he's suffering lingering effects of the virus that aren't being publicly acknowledged.
-
I'm no fan of Johnson, so not making excuses for him, but I do wonder if he's suffering lingering effects of the virus that aren't being publicly acknowledged.
I thought he was well known for always being absent (prior to covid infection) and that his way of operating was to play an upper class bumbling fool who was also a man of the people (as he rugby tackles Germans during a football match and calls ping pong wiff waff) I just assumed that he can't play the comedy card during briefings where deaths are being discussed and he's doing his best "concerned" act.
-
Classic in the media today about the TTI figures. Govt (and the BBC) praising 30k people tracked. Sky news - and guardian saying 1/3 were unable / unwilling to be traced...
-
Dido sounded very convincing in the presser today.
Until you see what the figures might actually mean 😱 Jeez - I know I don’t like the government but stuff like this really doesn’t help...
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-data-on-test-and-trace-scheme-raises-worrying-questions-12004924
-
I'm no fan of Johnson, so not making excuses for him, but I do wonder if he's suffering lingering effects of the virus that aren't being publicly acknowledged.
He has been:
- Largely absent
- Workshy
- Oblivious of the major details of his own policies
- Incapable of completing a coherent sentence
- Incapable of telling the truth
- Incapable of recognising/acknowledging his own failings (64,000 dead so far and he is proud of his response)
Has he been suffering from the after effects of covid-19 for the past 15 years?
-
He has been:
- Largely absent
- Workshy
- Oblivious of the major details of his own policies
- Incapable of completing a coherent sentence
- Incapable of telling the truth
- Incapable of recognising/acknowledging his own failings (64,000 dead so far and he is proud of his response)
Has he been suffering from the after effects of covid-19 for the past 15 years?
Quite possibly! Can you get pre-effects?
I was agreeing with Matt that he actually seems worse than usual, and suggesting another possible reason. It could just be that the pandemic magnifies his flaws and limitations.
-
He has been:
- Largely absent
- Workshy
- Oblivious of the major details of his own policies
- Incapable of completing a coherent sentence
- Incapable of telling the truth
- Incapable of recognising/acknowledging his own failings (64,000 dead so far and he is proud of his response)
Has he been suffering from the after effects of covid-19 for the past 15 years?
Quite possibly! Can you get pre-effects?
I was agreeing with Matt that he actually seems worse than usual, and suggesting another possible reason. It could just be that the pandemic magnifies his flaws and limitations.
He appears to be floundering.
I don’t actually believe he isn’t aware of it. I don’t think he expected this. He probably thought he could have the glory of being PM and leave the work to others, stand at the head “getting Brexit done”. He probably thought his backers really had a plan for that. Now he’s facing something totally unprecedented, that he cannot bluff, that is going to put a massive dent into the economy and quite probably exacerbate all the negatives of Brexit. He knows he’s going to get the blame, he can already see his polls tanking. He’d have to be truly psychotic to not be affected by it all.
Wrong man, in the wrong job, at the wrong time.
Can’t see history being kind to him.
-
He has been:
- Largely absent
- Workshy
- Oblivious of the major details of his own policies
- Incapable of completing a coherent sentence
- Incapable of telling the truth
- Incapable of recognising/acknowledging his own failings (64,000 dead so far and he is proud of his response)
Has he been suffering from the after effects of covid-19 for the past 15 years?
Quite possibly! Can you get pre-effects?
I was agreeing with Matt that he actually seems worse than usual, and suggesting another possible reason. It could just be that the pandemic magnifies his flaws and limitations.
He appears to be floundering.
I don’t actually believe he isn’t aware of it. I don’t think he expected this. He probably thought he could have the glory of being PM and leave the work to others, stand at the head “getting Brexit done”. He probably thought his backers really had a plan for that. Now he’s facing something totally unprecedented, that he cannot bluff, that is going to put a massive dent into the economy and quite probably exacerbate all the negatives of Brexit. He knows he’s going to get the blame, he can already see his polls tanking. He’d have to be truly psychotic to not be affected by it all.
Wrong man, in the wrong job, at the wrong time.
Can’t see history being kind to him.
Longing for the halcyon days of tossing off a thousand words or so of xenophobic childish bullshit for the telegraph after a boozy lunch and getting paid fifty grand for it, just in time for some adultery and some equally lucrative after dinner speaking doing one of his two jokes.
I was all up for giving him the benefit of the doubt in march, now he's a fucking embarrassment and he needs to go.
-
In fact, it appears that I'm not the only one who holds the above opinion, this is worth reading: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/06/why-i-broke-boris-johnson
It's by one of his former advisors.
-
...he's a fucking embarrassment and he needs to go.
The trouble is, as much as you, me and now the majority of the British public think this recent events have shown where the power lies. Johnson is just the useful idiot, but the symbiotic relationship probably means him and Cummings come as a package. And I suspect Covid is just seen as an inconvenience on the way to finishing off their no-deal Brexit wet dream. So we’re stuck with them until at least 1st Jan unfortunately.
-
...he's a fucking embarrassment and he needs to go.
The trouble is, as much as you, me and now the majority of the British public think this recent events have shown where the power lies. Johnson is just the useful idiot, but the symbiotic relationship probably means him and Cummings come as a package. And I suspect Covid is just seen as an inconvenience on the way to finishing off their no-deal Brexit wet dream. So we’re stuck with them until at least 1st Jan unfortunately.
If I were a betting man, I'd put a fiver on Sunak or Gove to be PM in a years time
-
If I were a betting man, I'd put a fiver on Sunak or Gove to be PM in a years time
I’m becoming more convinced by the day that Johnson won’t be in post by the next election. I think he’ll be kept there to ride out the worst of the pandemic and ‘get Brexit done’ by 1st Jan then ditched for someone else (Gove or Sunak?) in time for 2024.
I agree. My money is on Sunak as he’ll be perceived as being associated less in the public’s mind with the Vote Leave campaign and therefore can blame any fallout from Brexit on others.
-
If I could be arsed, I'd love to trawl back through this thread and find all the predictions made by the collective, and see what the success rate is.
-
If I could be arsed, I'd love to trawl back through this thread and find all the predictions made by the collective, and see what the success rate is.
It’s not in a thread called Shootin’ the shit for nothing 😃
-
If I could be arsed, I'd love to trawl back through this thread and find all the predictions made by the collective, and see what the success rate is.
Like a Covid UKB enquiry? You’ve got the whole summer to do it so no excuses! Isn’t this what football people do as a hobby? Endless armchair discussions and predictions...
-
If you did then I predict you’d find mine were all correct. Except maybe this one. I did predict bojo getting worse and being hospitalised, plus a few others things.
-
You’re a climber. You should be bringing this round to a grade debate.
-
You’re a climber. You should be bringing this round to a grade debate.
V Fucking Awful (minus) 6 bollocks.
-
It’s like grading rubble...
-
By the way I wasn't intending that as a criticism of people making predictions. I know its just interesting conversation. I genuinely thought it would be interesting to see how good people have been at predicting the madness of the last few months unfold
-
If I could be arsed, I'd love to trawl back through this thread and find all the predictions made by the collective, and see what the success rate is.
Like a Covid UKB enquiry? You’ve got the whole summer to do it so no excuses! Isn’t this what football people do as a hobby? Endless armchair discussions and predictions...
Football is way easier to predict than this. All these unpredictable rogue players. Boris Johnson is the Bruce Grobbelar of politics.
-
Football is way easier to predict than this. All these unpredictable rogue players. Boris Johnson is the Bruce Grobbelar of politics.
And Cummings the Diego Maradona?
-
If you did then I predict you’d find mine were all correct. Except maybe this one. I did predict bojo getting worse and being hospitalised, plus a few others things.
Ah, so you’re one of these superforecasters we keep hearing about. Cummings has jobs for people like you. Just take this thread along to the interview and he’ll snap you up. Have you written any blog posts supporting eugenics recently?
-
Football is way easier to predict than this. All these unpredictable rogue players. Boris Johnson is the Bruce Grobbelar of politics.
And Cummings the Diego Maradona?
Too much flattery there...
Boris is a Thomas Brolin (promised so much but was ultimately just fat and lazy)
-
The Sunday Times has a long piece by Tim Shipman which is absolutely laying into Johnson, intimating that sage members are considering resigning due to his indecision and attempts to blame scientists,and multiple Conservatives comparing his performance to Theresa May....
-
If you did then I predict you’d find mine were all correct. Except maybe this one. I did predict bojo getting worse and being hospitalised, plus a few others things.
Ah, so you’re one of these superforecasters we keep hearing about. Cummings has jobs for people like you. Just take this thread along to the interview and he’ll snap you up. Have you written any blog posts supporting eugenics recently?
No need for superforecasting when you can rewrite history like they’re doing! Cummings is now advertising for an army of people to retrospectively edit all his blog posts. And govt papers probably.
-
Football is way easier to predict than this. All these unpredictable rogue players. Boris Johnson is the Bruce Grobbelar of politics.
Grobbelaar was good at his job! Plus he was a serious performer who pretended to clown around, rather than a clown who...etc
-
By the way I wasn't intending that as a criticism of people making predictions. I know its just interesting conversation. I genuinely thought it would be interesting to see how good people have been at predicting the madness of the last few months unfold
As for the smart Leavers, who are like rich folks staying in trailers in a rain-soaked Festival of Dumb and trying not to get their chinos muddy, do you really trust your leaders to steer you through the course ahead? Boris, with his well known inability to grasp of detail. IDS, whose attempt to reform the benefits system reached about 150,000 people after six years of effort. Gove, with his flagship policy of creating new schools in areas that didn't need them, the radical destroyer whose own boss described him as "a bit of a Maoist". Steve "blue sky thinking" Hilton who wanted to close jobcentres, abolish maternity leave and alter the weather. Government by TED talk isn't my idea of fun. And, erm, Priti Patel and Penny Mordaunt.
You might want to divorce the principle from the personnel, but you can't. These are the people we'll have running the most complex and intricate challenge the government has faced in decades. Feeling lucky?
Okay so I was wrong about Steve Hilton. And whilst IDS might not be a player, his universal credit system most certainly is a big part of the game.
My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.
That sort of statement is perfectly of its time. It might not age well, however.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-
My other half is reading Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test' and this morning pointed out the following standard psychological assessment tool called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist of personality traits and behaviours:
1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Cunning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioural controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behaviour
12. Early behavioural problems
13. Lack of realistic long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility
I'm sure if he'd been born to different circumstances or his actions caught up with him the final three would also apply.
-
Football is way easier to predict than this. All these unpredictable rogue players. Boris Johnson is the Bruce Grobbelar of politics.
Grobbelaar was good at his job! Plus he was a serious performer who pretended to clown around, rather than a clown who...etc
But was involved in a match fixing trial and while not convicted he was judged to have "acted in a way in which no decent or honest footballer would act and in a way which could, if not exposed and stamped on, undermine the integrity of a game which earns the loyalty and support of millions".
-
My other half is reading Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test' and this morning pointed out the following standard psychological assessment tool called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist of personality traits and behaviours:
1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Cunning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioural controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behaviour
12. Early behavioural problems
13. Lack of realistic long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility
I'm sure if he'd been born to different circumstances or his actions caught up with him the final three would also apply.
Im sure you're only half joking but I don't see it. I get slightly irked with the way that the popularisation of psychology has led to diagnoses being dished out all over the place. A bit like the whole autism one, if someone's a bit quirk they must be autistic. If someone likes being tidy they must be ocd. I suspect bj is far below the level of most of those traits required to be anywhere near being labelled as a psychopath. I'm sure psychopaths everywhere will be cross with you for Trying to tar him with their brush!
-
Have you written any blog posts supporting eugenics recently?
Haven’t written any blog posts no, but I’ve always been a fan of Annie Lennox.
-
Im sure you're only half joking but I don't see it. I get slightly irked with the way that the popularisation of psychology has led to diagnoses being dished out all over the place. I suspect bj is far below the level of most of those traits required to be anywhere near being labelled as a psychopath.
Of course I'm only half joking(!), and I agree with your examples of diagnosing autism and OCD based on one tiny facet of a person's behaviour. But the whole discipline of psychology is based around studying human thoughts and actions so with someone like Johnson you have a long history of behaviour patterns to go off (from teachers' school reports, to testimonies from his family and old work colleagues/employers, to articles he's written, interviews he's done, masses of TV footage etc etc). I just find it interesting that he appears to tick many of the boxes to some degree. He does need a proper diagnosis to be sure though - is Nic keen?
-
My other half is reading Jon Ronson's book 'The Psychopath Test' and this morning pointed out the following standard psychological assessment tool called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist of personality traits and behaviours:
1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Cunning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioural controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behaviour
12. Early behavioural problems
13. Lack of realistic long-term goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility
I'm sure if he'd been born to different circumstances or his actions caught up with him the final three would also apply.
Im sure you're only half joking but I don't see it. I get slightly irked with the way that the popularisation of psychology has led to diagnoses being dished out all over the place. A bit like the whole autism one, if someone's a bit quirk they must be autistic. If someone likes being tidy they must be ocd. I suspect bj is far below the level of most of those traits required to be anywhere near being labelled as a psychopath. I'm sure psychopaths everywhere will be cross with you for Trying to tar him with their brush!
As with Autism, Psychopathy has a spectrum. We will all have traits but some people have a lot more. As a generalisation most politicians are going to be Sociopathic as they are making decisions that for the whole of society rather than for individuals. As an example the decision to empty hospitals of care home patients, who ever gave the go ahead for that is pretty Sociopathic.
-
Im sure you're only half joking but I don't see it. I get slightly irked with the way that the popularisation of psychology has led to diagnoses being dished out all over the place. I suspect bj is far below the level of most of those traits required to be anywhere near being labelled as a psychopath.
Of course I'm only half joking(!), and I agree with your examples of diagnosing autism and OCD based on one tiny facet of a person's behaviour. But the whole discipline of psychology is based around studying human thoughts and actions so with someone like Johnson you have a long history of behaviour patterns to go off (from teachers' school reports, to testimonies from his family and old work colleagues/employers, to articles he's written, interviews he's done, masses of TV footage etc etc). I just find it interesting that he appears to tick many of the boxes to some degree. He does need a proper diagnosis to be sure though - is Nic keen?
He just seems a bit too dim to be a psychopath!
-
There are plenty of Psychopaths who are not very bright, however they tend to think they are more intelligent than the rest of society. That’s why they come unstuck.
-
Haha, there's me demonstratingy lack of knowledge of psychology whilst trying to diagnose someone
-
This is a good one. Govt awards largest PPE supply contract (£108m) to a minuscule company called Crisp Websites t/a Pestfix. Number of bidders...you guessed it...ONE.
https://goodlawproject.org/news/over-100-contracts/
-
Interesting. I deal with Pestfix for supply of various materials and speak to their owner a few times a year. I'll await the outcome with interest.
-
Glad to see Due Diligence rigorously applied.
Bet they can't believe their luck!
-
Interesting. I deal with Pestfix for supply of various materials and speak to their owner a few times a year.
Is that this guy who was desperately trying to source stuff on LinkedIn?
https://mobile.twitter.com/PaddingtonShort/status/1268585647666868225
-
No, not him.
-
No, not him.
Ah, but has he got any Ferries?
-
I’ll ask him next time I need to contact them about small mythical flying female characters, along with whether he likes dags.
-
Hard hitting letter in the Guardian from earlier this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/17/public-health-england-is-not-fit-for-purpose
-
So tracing app U turn and Dominic “game of thrones” Raab showing what an ignorant twat he is over taking the knee.
What’s the dead cat that’s going to come out at 4:30pm?
My moneys on something to do with pubs or restaurants opening.
-
My partner works in the brewing industry. What might (?) not be obvious is that most of her customers just aren't opening because it would be business suicide to get ready without further clarity from HM gov. I suspect a lot aren't going to make it tbh
Without knowing circumstances they are getting ready for, there is no point opening. And no one wants to be the first boozer open with the least appealing drinkers descending en masse.
-
I just don’t see how it’s going to work for the vast majority of places if they are only going to be allowed to operate at <50% of their usual capacity. Maybe it will work for some fine dining places and pubs with absolutely massive gardens?
-
I just don’t see how it’s going to work for the vast majority of places if they are only going to be allowed to operate at <50% of their usual capacity. Maybe it will work for some fine dining places and pubs with absolutely massive gardens?
I'm sure wetherspoons will open anyway, put in some cursory measures and it'll be a total bunfight-clusterfuck. However, they'll make a killing.
-
From what I’ve read in a large Japanese contact tracing study: health/carehomes were the environment were 50% of cases were transmitted - Bars and Restaraunts were next...
Thanks can see it working for large outdoor seating areas - but not elsewhere. Oh and when winter comes?? This could be done - but be part of our ‘reinventing the high street’ type plans of banning cars and letting tables spread where they were.
Or the sector shrinks - prices go up to represent the fewer customers that can be accommodated etc...
-
What’s the dead cat that’s going to come out at 4:30pm?
No need today is there, what with Macron and Vera Lynn helping the cause? Maybe some additional teaser about air bridges.
-
wetherspoons will open ... they'll make a killing.
Oof
-
Thanks can see it working for large outdoor seating areas - but not elsewhere. Oh and when winter comes?? This could be done - but be part of our ‘reinventing the high street’ type plans of banning cars and letting tables spread where they were.
Buy companies manufacturing outdoor heaters and down jackets. (should probably be in the COVID & economy thread)
-
My partner works in the brewing industry...most of her customers just aren't opening because it would be business suicide to get ready without further clarity from HM gov. I suspect a lot aren't going to make it tbh
Without knowing circumstances they are getting ready for, there is no point opening.
Looks like at least one has given up waiting for govt to make a decision and just opening anyway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53094134
And govt has the cheek to blame anyone but themselves for schools not having a coherent opening strategy. Seems schools are not the only ones lacking clear guidance.
-
Product of chaotic communication. I think it is easy to underestimate what is involved in reopening. One barrier currently is that vast amounts of out of date barrels need to be poured into the drains which can only be done with United Utilities consent as this causing quite a lot of delays. It looks like they aren't keen for thousands of gallons of alcohol fumes to hit the sewers at the same time. Lager isn't too bad but cask ales have much shorter life spans.
Premises have to be prepared, planning for social distancing implemented, beer ordered and stocked allowing for lead times, staff off furlough, staff training and so on. It can't be done in a handful of days.
-
Lager isn't too bad but cask ales have much shorter life spans.
They got any nearly of date kegs going cheap? I'm sure I could put a dent in one, in the garden with a couple of carefully selected families..
-
Quite a few places have been doing good online deals on takeaway beer. Just do a search.
Back to the UK government and C19
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/over-1000-deaths-day-uk-ministers-accused-downplaying-covid-19-peak
-
Just do a search.
Thanks, never thought of that. I'd be lost without you.
-
Just do a search.
Thanks, never thought of that. I'd be lost without you.
:lol:
Or simply walk or cycle past a few pubs. Many of them, especially in the peak seem to have become a sort of off licence - takeaway - ice cream shop hybrid at the moment.
-
Fair cop but It was clear in the last couple of weeks that several of my beer drinking friends had missed the fact you can still get draught beer from some microbreweries. In Nottingham, Black Iris is doing well with this.
Back on international politics there is the small matter of a billion in gold..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/20/fate-of-1bn-in-venezuelan-gold-hangs-in-balance-at-high-court
-
Amazing that Johnson was apparently going to wage war on obesity after his near death experience with covid 19, yet is now opening pubs before gyms. It's probably rather debateable whether opening either is a great idea, but any gym I've ever been to is far more physically distanced than a scrum at a bar on a Friday night. I fear to think what they'll be like after 3 months of being closed. They certainly won't be slimming the population down to withstand the second wave better.
-
Seems doubly silly when you consider that alcohol severely impedes peoples rational decision making processes. I doubt social distancing will be in the forefront of their minds after they've had a bit too much to drink.
-
...any gym I've ever been to is far more physically distanced than a scrum at a bar on a Friday night.
Not to mention once there’s music and a few people in a pub/bar it’s usually necessary to shout to be heard. Patrick Vallance said yesterday that is likely to be a factor in why there’s been so many outbreaks in meat processing plants - noisy machines making it necessary to shout. Or will everyone just sit at their table in silence sipping drinks through straws underneath masks, which seemed to be the vision the scientific advisers had based on the mitigation measures they were stressing to maintain?
-
...any gym I've ever been to is far more physically distanced than a scrum at a bar on a Friday night.
Not to mention once there’s music and a few people in a pub/bar it’s usually necessary to shout to be heard. Patrick Vallance said yesterday that is likely to be a factor in why there’s been so many outbreaks in meat processing plants - noisy machines making it necessary to shout. Or will everyone just sit at their table in silence sipping drinks through straws underneath masks, which seemed to be the vision the scientific advisers had based on the mitigation measures they were stressing to maintain?
I quite like doing topless sweaty body slam type chest bumps when I send a problem down the bouldering wall, so I can see why that's go to stay shut for a while. Pubs however, I tend to face in the same direction as everyone else, just text rather than talk, and worry about hand hygiene constantly.
-
I heard NHSX has developed a Makaton app so we can have socially silenced pubs, plus a furlough sized support fund for all the GDPR fines for data mishandling.
Fair enough that we can’t have cricket just yet because it uses a ball. At least we can watch the footy!
-
The NHS is about as good at resourcing, especially with technology, as Boris Johnson is likely to be at climbing Hubble.
-
The NHS is about as good at resourcing, especially with technology, as Boris Johnson is likely to be at climbing Hubble.
But, Johnson would probably claim he had climbed Hubble.
-
With an un-named passerby who was going for an eye test as belayer probably.
-
The NHS is about as good at resourcing, especially with technology, as Boris Johnson is likely to be at climbing Hubble.
But, Johnson would probably claim he had climbed Hubble.
Or a world beating plan to ensure UK lead the way for record numbers of ascents, including repeat links, planned future links and links in the post.
-
The NHS is about as good at resourcing, especially with technology, as Boris Johnson is likely to be at climbing Hubble.
But, Johnson would probably claim he had climbed Hubble.
Or a world beating plan to ensure UK lead the way for record numbers of ascents, including repeat links, planned future links and links in the post.
... Or fail to climb a diff and then eulogize in parliament about how proud he is of his performance, and that he'll do a 9c next week.
-
The NHS is about as good at resourcing, especially with technology, as Boris Johnson is likely to be at climbing Hubble.
But, Johnson would probably claim he had climbed Hubble.
Or a world beating plan to ensure UK lead the way for record numbers of ascents, including repeat links, planned future links and links in the post.
... Or fail to climb a diff and then eulogize in parliament about how proud he is of his performance, and that he'll do a 9c next week.
...as a five point plan.
But only if the tests are met and he’ll tell you what the tests are after he’s decided if they have been met...
-
Meanwhile over the pond
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/24/americans-coronavirus-covid-19-cases-increase
-
And it's coming up to Independence Day weekend, and be summer "vacations" soon, I'm fearful for them.
I'm almost certain election will get postponed, watch him.
-
Meanwhile over the pond
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/24/americans-coronavirus-covid-19-cases-increase
Amid the increase in cases, the Trump administration is ending funding and support for 13 testing sites in states including Texas this month
:wall:
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mpLJkAGEfGLTyYsKJJBFPlKAB89NJSgL5z44QM8b_8xHS1moHuZqV42CR6ggufzBYeB_pzIUuJYsljyN48buaQPkFGhg-HrtMMdFoMAVua3FCUKIElXZwxO7L3q6sPu77pBOGAy8q32HEd2q4meJI_IlyS6lwyF-KjX5-OsH2MNIanJC3lE71K0dFto2xin4xfNMfPyrxCLEB-MpbNIs8BBcuFi32JhB5jrtZ28kuNIgAykZ2q-X2SAjvcFjqrK2MyP8Uhgv5L-qpB9nL4CnvBMhUE9KMTpOvMwaWgChebYVlV9g19OC2kyX3ZyZw2QQFyPd6QFr2kvdov7qdTgsTFRRXl5VyXKtFweA9dkqdkSirzJtC0kJzEJfB94OxSqaz7o6yaDVFWBm2ePEXqjgBFSuSLHxU-f5Icg-CRr5OoueLrjTo1CLxZxwBeUrncVc7exVY2i_RvioME3u0Y-UhkciWOTXopu2IAtxLY7TOSWjvrNMyHHJiTawiMPYoto53qVR1wyhJPOrE2GUEiWivV_jEBn9GwIEkTcUpkADKAM4tAGYwtTcAwY9Bofbna4L3aspaAKqyO2nLEWoTk4aW1rpcFlJcjF5YDsrJe4HecqBxx3g9grK4LIYNz3Sl6YcxhRfESc8hA1EkeBqf5BHm9P79Zz8hPBdOzbSI6lvgUO1fTN2arqHYofKo44r=w680-h352-no?authuser=0)
As someone put it: 'the US has built herd immunity to both common sense and science'.
-
It’s fucking gobsmacking how stupid their reaction has been. NYC was their equivalent of Lombardy/Italy to Europe... iow they have had their warning!!
-
I wondered this morning - not expecting to be right - if the growth in US cases might be mostly down to the growth in testing. It's not:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/HuxwPdFiD9TwSbJq1NqSdihFHX9W8A82SKxp-0diDRJemCSQuIChxIQ5Qz385-mtkll90k8z3suWjQ5hA1AAsR_Ouy8N-RULXLhAHp5jsUGH7pwjxh0tHMrlunpJ7jIsJo5B2IJF_7_scyg6zJnRdAYj9Sj-UX-SQlqLCkxAPJwoj8whhMynhlu-wv_S_oxx1TuAHkBHo4CI_VUBb-2MnAnhmnLPJSOsmsOWfWAjP8W3W8wjnaZrBRta-saGOGQd8RF42hntfObA9hi4YbIWxwovbkMUeAIUiNbX6p2LEKvQiV11KKV1FohwVJSQtYbE7k2-bRvV2xQDnHUxPt6m4imT_kPwITc09ym1D-wRTk0Acp9nZ8y8-KF3B1sUMjvGkxYs9ibw_LNdlyrG-piw6OrnQrDK1txL__t5zEcbhN6eA2OtktQudsE128D7MJ0Tkbt_6zhCgIgAH7n-vIUu0JSqeZHUHC3qvfD-o80Pra2aI5hw743VNqjieTykYgqTCglUIbzY4otsQCePiS7XhJz5B63NdDB4AhZjRIxottky835tfZi6Wtp_btKIsxCZoYIh1lDV67CMPAUmqb6TgaQy37rcxpQ918Rl4bUWSOyR6EXJK1rbwIUFOAr1_1Ehzr21o_QSvCV-nzItSbCN2ed0GLiII0Y5zX5eI1WwQzmyn5rdTlqomszzZjNv=w1197-h684-no?authuser=0)
-
Easy to point fingers across the sea, but given photos of beaches, I think we are far from out of the woods here.
-
Easy to point fingers across the sea, but given photos of beaches, I think we are far from out of the woods here.
Indeed. Though I think Ricky has one eye on the overdraft - thinking oh. Fuck.
-
Honestly, from what I was seeing three weeks ago, or more, I thought we’d be seeing a sharp up tick in cases.
We’re not yet.
Mostly, not entirely, in the US it seems to be a case of where the virus has only just penetrated. So, very much the first wave.
Except Florida, but that Governor seems to be a lying, delusional, prick.
-
Honestly, from what I was seeing three weeks ago, or more, I thought we’d be seeing a sharp up tick in cases.
We’re not yet.
I've been expecting this for a while based on the fact that a large number of people have gone back to normal and gave up on any observance of social distancing a long time ago.
If nothing else, I was expecting the virus to tear through that section of the population. But thankfully it hasn't.
I don't think we can explain why it hasn't based on what we think we know about the virus.
My layman's attempt at making sense of what is or is not the preventing the spread:
1) It isn't behavioural. As above, a large enough proportion of the population have been behaving as if there is no virus for the past 5 or 6 weeks now.
2) It isn't the weather. Look at how hard Houston and Florida are being hit.
3) It is unlikely to be explained by a mutation that had made it less infectious and or serious. With the limited travel occurring, it is unlikely that such a mutation would have taken effect all over Europe at a similar time without affecting America.
4) It seems unlikely that our understanding of the rate of spread and incubation period are way off given the amount of data we now have.
5) All I'm left with is that our understanding of the number of people who have had it and/or the number of people who are immune to it are way off. I am cautiously optimistic that there are higher levels of immunity in the population than our current numbers predict.
I could be wrong, (and there is no guarantee that any immunity will be long lasting), but immunity levels are the area where our understanding is weakest and it seems the most likely explanation for why the behavioural change hasn't led to a second peak.
-
They’re not dropping off though are they.. (new cases)
I think the govt has so far just about got away with easing things - but we won’t find out properly for a couple of weeks yet I guess. They’re obvs cutting restrictions based on predictions of decline.. so it’s a gamble.
The hard part will be getting everyone to comply when we have to restrict things again.
-
New projections out today.
Not so hopeful. Interesting that they’re now adding a projection for universal mask usage.
However, based on the easing, they’re no longer predicting functionally zero by August 1st, as they were and without mask use, a second wave in October.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom (https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-kingdom)
-
5) All I'm left with is that our understanding of the number of people who have had it and/or the number of people who are immune to it are way off. I am cautiously optimistic that there are higher levels of immunity in the population than our current numbers predict.
I could be wrong, (and there is no guarantee that any immunity will be long lasting), but immunity levels are the area where our understanding is weakest and it seems the most likely explanation for why the behavioural change hasn't led to a second peak.
To oversimplify, Sunetra Gupta or Neil Ferguson? We will find out in time. :devangel:
-
5) All I'm left with is that our understanding of the number of people who have had it and/or the number of people who are immune to it are way off. I am cautiously optimistic that there are higher levels of immunity in the population than our current numbers predict.
I could be wrong, (and there is no guarantee that any immunity will be long lasting), but immunity levels are the area where our understanding is weakest and it seems the most likely explanation for why the behavioural change hasn't led to a second peak.
To oversimplify, Sunetra Gupta or Neil Ferguson? We will find out in time. :devangel:
A couple of days ago, I was starting to lean toward DR Gupta.
However, I think the one place you can find reliable* figures would be the ONS.
Their computer says no.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-coronavirus-cases-no-longer-falling-ons-figures-show-bzt2dvgf3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1593102079 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/uk-coronavirus-cases-no-longer-falling-ons-figures-show-bzt2dvgf3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1593102079)
* For a given value of reliable, somewhere between that of the sun rising tomorrow and a Boris Johnson marriage vow.
-
How the ONS data is reported pisses me off. Basically the sample size is too small - so the positive and negative changes in the prevalence in the population are 10-30 people in their 25000 sample who are tested every week or so. Last week it dropped to 11 people - this week its up to 14. The week before it was 19. So its basically a household having it or not... If its a big change - sure I’d be with it - but at the moment its too small a number of results can skew the numbers so much.
Now with the reporting - when it drops the changes are trumpeted - when it rises (as today) it kind of creeps out in the news with a gentle warning...
-
I've been expecting this for a while based on the fact that a large number of people have gone back to normal and gave up on any observance of social distancing a long time ago.
If nothing else, I was expecting the virus to tear through that section of the population. But thankfully it hasn't.
While plenty of people do seem to be taking a more 'relaxed' view of social distancing we're certainly aren't anyway near back to normal in terms of social contact - people at work are socially distanced, public transport still quiet (outside London?) pubs aren't open (yet!), distancing in shops still working on the whole, no night clubs, sports crowds etc, most people aren't having parties/large gatherings indoors.
2) It isn't the weather. Look at how hard Houston and Florida are being hit.
One possible cause of increase in southern states discussed on FiveThirtyEight is that the hot summer weather there actually moves more people indoors for the air conditioning.
More or Less this week discussed impact of lockdown easing from mid May and found no evidence of any spike in cases, possibly indicating that its actually not that easy to transmit outdoors.
None of this to say that we shouldn't still be very cautious - the next set of easings may be taking us into areas where transmission is much easier?
-
A day of contrasts in info, though.
CDC think there are vastly more people infected/recovered than previously thought.
If that’s true here, then that would also mitigate against a rapid climb on the second wave.
There must be plenty of vulnerable people still in the pool, but possibly the route to them is more circuitous than it was in January. Sheesh! 6 months already (assuming the conservative, late, introduction date).
https://time.com/5859790/cdc-coronavirus-estimates/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=health_covid-19&linkId=91880756 (https://time.com/5859790/cdc-coronavirus-estimates/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=health_covid-19&linkId=91880756)
-
Honestly, from what I was seeing three weeks ago, or more, I thought we’d be seeing a sharp up tick in cases.
We’re not yet.
I've been expecting this for a while based on the fact that a large number of people have gone back to normal and gave up on any observance of social distancing a long time ago.
If nothing else, I was expecting the virus to tear through that section of the population. But thankfully it hasn't.
I don't think we can explain why it hasn't based on what we think we know about the virus.
My layman's attempt at making sense of what is or is not the preventing the spread:
1) It isn't behavioural. As above, a large enough proportion of the population have been behaving as if there is no virus for the past 5 or 6 weeks now.
2) It isn't the weather. Look at how hard Houston and Florida are being hit.
3) It is unlikely to be explained by a mutation that had made it less infectious and or serious. With the limited travel occurring, it is unlikely that such a mutation would have taken effect all over Europe at a similar time without affecting America.
4) It seems unlikely that our understanding of the rate of spread and incubation period are way off given the amount of data we now have.
5) All I'm left with is that our understanding of the number of people who have had it and/or the number of people who are immune to it are way off. I am cautiously optimistic that there are higher levels of immunity in the population than our current numbers predict.
I could be wrong, (and there is no guarantee that any immunity will be long lasting), but immunity levels are the area where our understanding is weakest and it seems the most likely explanation for why the behavioural change hasn't led to a second peak.
Or, the virus doesn't rely spread outside, regardless of social distancing or not, and the real test will come when people are socialising back indoors. Which might not be until the autumn.
-
Or, the virus doesn't rely spread outside, regardless of social distancing or not, and the real test will come when people are socialising back indoors. Which might not be until the autumn.
Or next weekend if it’s wet and everyone is inside the pubs!
-
RE: Pubs. My neighbour owns/runs a bar up the road. Small - width of a usual Victorian terrace shop front. Space for a couple of tables outside, bifolds through to bar running down the side and some tables upstairs too.
He's opening - but points he's noted are, ONLY table service/ordering. No standing at the bar drinking/ordering. No music (live or otherwise) presumably to keep the shouting down. His take is that there are going to be groups of young men going bar to bar getting quite disappointed that they can't do exactly what they want to do.
He'll have to employ one extra person during the day. Normally its one person in there during the quiet daytimes - but he'll need someone at the bar - and someone doing the table service. He didnt think one person could do it all...
Final point - which has again gone under the radar. ALL his suppliers want payment up front. For everything, from bog rolls to kegs. This is because of (a) the risk to them and (b) the suppliers suppliers demanding the same terms. This - he said - was going to create alot of difficulties for some operators who didnt quite have the reserves he had. I would wager this is the case for many businesses opening up around now...
-
That's all great Tom but:
1. There's a high chance it'll all go to s**t after 5 pints and i pity the poor bar staff having to sort it out
2. Do you think Wetherspoons are going to be as diligent?
-
Yeah I wasn’t thinking about swanky micro pubs in MCR being the problem!!
-
That's all great Tom but:
1. There's a high chance it'll all go to s**t after 5 pints and i pity the poor bar staff having to sort it out
2. Do you think Wetherspoons are going to be as diligent?
(I'm not in favour of them opening BTW - just reporting what my neighbor said)
-
His take is that there are going to be groups of young men going bar to bar getting quite disappointed that they can't do exactly what they want to do.
This was the key bit of what tomtom was saying isn’t it? There’ll be groups of half-cut people out and about that haven’t pre-booked and are just trying to get in anywhere. Spoons, swanky bars, the lot. Bouncers are gonna be suffering all manner of abuse and violence way beyond what they already deal with. Or maybe that’s just being too much of a doomster and a gloomster and Great British common sense will shine through. We’ll have a whole new post-Covid drinking culture. Haha
-
Yeah I wasn’t thinking about swanky micro pubs in MCR being the problem!!
I don't think it'll be pretty. The 'strip' up the road has 8-10 bars/pubs on it (I've not been to most of them) and on a sunny evening it spills out across the pavements etc..
Anyway - as long as Boris gets his bustle back eh... (face palm emoticon etc..)
-
I think bars should be allowed to open if they want to. Yes there may be some issues at the big town center ones but a vast majority are not like that and this will allow them to hopefully get some sort of income coming in.
All the pubs where i live wont have the issue your talking about so why penalise them due to a minority group, a minority who seem to be the issue anyway as they instead head to the beach/forest/moorland/park etc with cases of cheap beer and get pissed. The police need to help the ones that are going to have an issue and also shut down the ones that are letting it happen.
-
Looks to me as if Downing Street just want to move on from Covid now. Job done.
No more daily briefings, no functioning app, still no release of data on how many individuals are getting tested, 25% of people testing positive not contacted or refusing to self-isolate, no idea how quickly people are contacted if they do manage to get through. And if lockdown easings mean it does all go to shit somewhere the virtually bankrupted local authorities have to pick up the pieces.
No 10: "It is a matter for local authorities to manage numbers, alongside emergency services and Public Health England...should we see case numbers increase we" (by which they of course mean someone else) "will introduce local lockdowns"
Yet the new parallel track and trace system doesn't feed the information back to them at a local level sufficiently to do this.
-
Final point - which has again gone under the radar. ALL his suppliers want payment up front. For everything, from bog rolls to kegs. This is because of (a) the risk to them and (b) the suppliers suppliers demanding the same terms. This - he said - was going to create alot of difficulties for some operators who didnt quite have the reserves he had. I would wager this is the case for many businesses opening up around now...
Makes you wonder where he goes for his supplies... I can speak about one 750 pub chain who definitely don't do this, payment is as per normal. With quirky beers from microbreweries things may be trickier for the supplier of course.
-
No 10: "It is a matter for local authorities to manage numbers, alongside emergency services and Public Health England...should we see case numbers increase we" (by which they of course mean someone else) "will introduce local lockdowns"
Straight from the Donald playbook. He let responsibility lie with state governors wrt securing PPE, imposing lockdowns and dealing with unrest. Trying to avoid being unpopular and responsible.
-
On the subject of opening bars....
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-close-bars-limit-restaurant-dining-due-explosion-covid-19-n1232233 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-close-bars-limit-restaurant-dining-due-explosion-covid-19-n1232233)
-
Easy to point fingers across the sea, but given photos of beaches, I think we are far from out of the woods here.
Never mind the beaches, wait until the beer swilling, sweaty red faced clowns come out to march on July 12th...
-
Hopefully it rains on their parade.
-
Bloody stupid, cussed, ideologically hamstrung, wankers.
https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a (https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a)
-
Bloody stupid, cussed, ideologically hamstrung, wankers.
https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a (https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a)
For those who can’t read the paywalled article here’s a twitter thread explaining it
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1277960112691273728?s=21
Basically the govt is releasing less than half of the regional CV19 test data to local authorities. Hence situation in Leicester snuck up on everyone (except in govt).
-
Bloody stupid, cussed, ideologically hamstrung, wankers.
https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a (https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a)
For those who can’t read the paywalled article here’s a twitter thread explaining it
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1277960112691273728?s=21
Basically the govt is releasing less than half of the regional CV19 test data to local authorities. Hence situation in Leicester snuck up on everyone (except in govt).
Thank you, completely forgot the paywall.
I was too busy thumping my head against the real wall.
-
I think bars should be allowed to open if they want to. Yes there may be some issues at the big town center ones but a vast majority are not like that and this will allow them to hopefully get some sort of income coming in.
All the pubs where i live wont have the issue your talking about so why penalise them due to a minority group, a minority who seem to be the issue anyway as they instead head to the beach/forest/moorland/park etc with cases of cheap beer and get pissed. The police need to help the ones that are going to have an issue and also shut down the ones that are letting it happen.
I totally disagree, how many things are the police supposed to do? Quarantine, closing pubs , illegal raves... and the burgeoning fraud industry around flogging fake cures etc as well as the normal crime, and riots, protesters....
Lots of pubs will be a total nightmare, guaranteed.
-
The police need to help the ones that are going to have an issue and also shut down the ones that are letting it happen.
I totally disagree, how many things are the police supposed to do?
Apparently 75% of police call outs/presence don’t actually involve a crime. They’re also increasingly being used to pick up the slack in other areas which have been underfunded e.g. mental health incidents, social services etc. The same is true of the ambulance service I believe. They’re being told to prepare for 4th July as if it’s New Years Eve!
-
They’re being told to prepare for 4th July as if it’s New Years Eve!
I bet the police are fuming. It's a completely stupid idea to open up on a Saturday night, just so Boris can feel like he's the good time goon funster that he wants to be, whilst actually being really quite an unpleasant person.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of politicians get into it because they want to make people's lives better, and / or the country more prosperous.
I also believe that Johnson is an exception, I really don't think he gives a shit and just wants people to love him as he womanises his way into old age.
-
My neighbour (bar owner) is opening in Monday because of this. As are several local bars apparently.
-
I firmly believe that the vast majority of politicians get into it because they want to make people's lives better, and / or the country more prosperous.
I also believe that Johnson is an exception, I really don't think he gives a shit and just wants people to love him
100% agree with this.
My neighbour (bar owner) is opening in Monday because of this. As are several local bars apparently.
It’ll be an interesting experiment tomorrow. I wonder if the smaller places not opening will concentrate people trying to get into the ones that do open and exacerbate the problem? There’s also the danger of people seeing pubs opening as a signal to arrange a load of house parties, causing an even bigger problem, albeit out of sight.
-
It’ll be an interesting experiment tomorrow. I wonder if the smaller places not opening will concentrate people trying to get into the ones that do open and exacerbate the problem? There’s also the danger of people seeing pubs opening as a signal to arrange a load of house parties, causing an even bigger problem, albeit out of sight.
I acknowledge that restrictions have to be lifted but the implementation owes everything to BJ wanting to be popular by having a big jamboree everything open in one weekend event rather than what they should have done which was drip in lifting restrictions on business over a week or two. They should perhaps have opened restaurants first and allowed pubs to serve alcohol if served at tables with a sit down meal. As it stands they'll have absolutely no idea which factor they should limit in the inevitable event of increased outbreaks.
The government are about as far from being guided by science as you can imagine.
Interesting experiment is right on the money; an experiment in government by focus group (which the government spends millions a week on) and trying to please conservative voters in both Surrey and up north.
-
whilst actually being really quite an unpleasant person.
Steady on now!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/03/coronavirus-us-daily-case-increase-fauci-trump
Talking of unpleasant people who cause dire consequences
-
whilst actually being really quite an unpleasant person.
Steady on now!
From Jonathan Freedland's article in the guardian today:
To the untrained eye, the choice of a Saturday for the great unlocking might seem a tad rash, when, I don’t know, Monday was available to ease people in gradually. That point was put to Boris Johnson on LBC this morning, but he couldn’t offer even an approximation of an answer. Which leaves us to conclude that his government of geniuses picked Saturday solely because of the pleasing headlines that the Fourth of July suggested – rather forgetting that this is the day when Americans celebrate their escape from the rule of a dysfunctional London elite headed by a man with more children than you could count and prone to gibbering in public.
I think I was being quite restrained in comparison, its not as though I came right out and said that I think Boris Johnson is a c**t.
-
At the risk of sounding like a curtain twitcher(!)...a car with three middle aged blokes in just came to pick up two other guys on our street (father and son who live separately). All dressed in jeans and shirts - no guessing where they're heading. Not much point in social distancing measures at the pub if 5 blokes from different households are all sharing a lift to get there!
-
At the risk of sounding like a curtain twitcher(!)...a car with three middle aged blokes in just came to pick up two other guys on our street (father and son who live separately). All dressed in jeans and shirts - no guessing where they're heading. Not much point in social distancing measures at the pub if 5 blokes from different households are all sharing a lift to get there!
A place near me have printed a "First Beer Back" cut-out Instagram frame and are asking people to take pics and tag them.
-
The pub that is across the road from where I live had a police riot van outside at half 6 this evening....
-
I think I was being quite restrained in comparison.
I was, in fact, commenting on your remarkable restraint.
-
I think I was being quite restrained in comparison.
I was, in fact, commenting on your remarkable restraint.
My take is that the pandemic has exposed the worst of Johnson and Trump. They are men without idealogy or conviction except in their own egos. They are enraged that a global event has stolen away their plans; whether for a glorious flag waving Brexit or a glorious flag waving MAGA campaign. They have both compromised their response to the virus and effectively sacrificed their own populations to further their own political ends. Not only are they ineffective governors, they are morally bankrupt and deserve the worst karma that the universe has to offer. Sadly, rich powerful men rarely get what they deserve.
-
Read this interview with Anthony Costello since last post, it rather echoes what I was saying, here's a quote if you don't want to read it all:
Do you agree with Sir David King, chair of Independent Sage, that the government has lost all moral authority?
Did the government ever have much moral authority? The whole English response, almost from the beginning, has been an unfolding tale of individualism and new Conservatism, which has damaged public health. Now you have this bizarre situation where you’ve suddenly got this mysterious body called the joint biosecurity centre, which is going to be in charge of data and nobody knows who they are or where they’re getting it from. You’ve got Public Health England (PHE) being marginalised and, I would think, abolished, and the Sage (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), which is now wary of the politicians, not really being listened to. So it’s a very odd situation.
Former WHO director Anthony Costello: 'Opening pubs before schools says something about our priorities'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/05/anthony-costello-world-health-organization-independent-sage-coronavirus?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
-
Thanks Toby, might also be worth quoting this part of the interview:
At the moment we’re at about 65,000 excess deaths, according the Financial Times. I honestly think we could have prevented about 50,000 of them, if we’d gone early like South Korea. I think Sage got it wrong, PHE got it wrong, and Boris Johnson got it wrong.
-
Leicester East MP claims there was an 11 day delay before informing the local response.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/05/government-errors-leicester-covid-19-spike
-
Leicester East MP claims there was an 11 day delay before informing the local response.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/05/government-errors-leicester-covid-19-spike
I'd prefer to hear what you think offwidth, I know we all post links quite a bit but actually discussing it is more interesting.
Although I'm not sure many people think that Johnson is even doing an adequate job at the moment. He's probably going to have to change the Huawei policy too, which makes his earlier decision look a bit foolish.
Bet it'll be Sunak as leader by the next election, unless Gove stabs him in the back.
-
BJ is the stooge to push a no deal brexit through - then disposed of and Sunak put in charge. Next Spring/Summer I recon.
-
I'd prefer to hear what you think offwidth.
Bet it'll be Sunak as leader by the next election, unless Gove stabs him in the back.
I think it's almost beyond farce they could lockdown a city after such an information delay and it's no surprise the Mayor is seperately furious. All that time lost to local health staff, when they could have been getting on with work to prevent further infection.
Sunak lives amongst jackals and is well down the perceived food chain. He will almost certainly be a victim of any early Boris departure (given the way things are going that might even be early next year). Tory MPs removed their hero Maggie so they won't blink at doing the same to Boris if he looks like enough of a liability (and an opportunity for the more talented than the current cabinet to obtain good jobs).
-
More foot in mouth work from Boris
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/06/anger-after-johnson-appears-to-blame-care-homes-for-their-high-death-toll
-
Sunak lives amongst jackals and is well down the perceived food chain. He will almost certainly be a victim of any early Boris departure (given the way things are going that might even be early next year). Tory MPs removed their hero Maggie so they won't blink at doing the same to Boris if he looks like enough of a liability (and an opportunity for the more talented than the current cabinet to obtain good jobs).
Very unlikely. MPs are not idiots however much you disagree with them. Rishi Sunak has better approval ratings than either party leader and is widely considered to have done well in the crisis. They all know this and that he'd possibly be a stronger challenge to Labour headed by Keir Starmer.
However, what they also know is that however poor Boris Johnson is at government, he's a powerful campaigner and many, many people like him. That's not to be underestimated.
-
I think you are naive about Tory MP ambition and how that plays out and underestimating racial bias in the very old and very white Tory membership. You need to think on how they replaced Thatcher who was incredibly popular 'amongst the troops' and a pretty good campaigner for John Major. I will offer a gentleman's pint on my view that Sunak won't be the next Tory leader. I'll give you odds of 4 to 1 which seems nice and generous since the bookies are offering around 4:1 on him as next PM (Starmer currently around 2:1).
-
I think you are naive about Tory MP ambition and how that plays out and underestimating racial bias in the very old and very white Tory membership. You need to think on how they replaced Thatcher who was incredibly popular 'amongst the troops' and a pretty good campaigner for John Major. I will offer a gentleman's pint on my view that Sunak won't be the next Tory leader. I'll give you odds of 4 to 1 which seems nice and generous since the bookies are offering around 4:1 on him as next PM (Starmer currently around 2:1).
Sunak to be next Tory leader (PM or otherwise) at 4/1? Done. Ill have a pint/a tenner on that as you prefer!
-
Marina Hyde:
“A number of pubs are now beginning the process of contacting people who spent “Independence Day” with them. Please take a moment to enjoy the bathos. A few months ago, government ministers were honking daily that we were going to invent our own world-beating test and trace app, a state-of-the-art public health strategy that has now been delegated to the manager of the Fox and Hounds in Batley.”
Funny, albeit tragically on the money.
-
I think you are naive about Tory MP ambition and how that plays out and underestimating racial bias in the very old and very white Tory membership. You need to think on how they replaced Thatcher who was incredibly popular 'amongst the troops' and a pretty good campaigner for John Major. I will offer a gentleman's pint on my view that Sunak won't be the next Tory leader. I'll give you odds of 4 to 1 which seems nice and generous since the bookies are offering around 4:1 on him as next PM (Starmer currently around 2:1).
If Rishi Sunak screws up big time somehow perhaps you will be right. Thatcher was ousted partly because of her increasing unpopularity, as well as Europe. I think you underestimate the conservative membership, many people possibly including myself, wondered if a church going elderly conservative (in all senses of the word) group could elect a serial womaniser and intellectual lightweight to be leader, but they did. Also don't underestimate the selective blindness in racial prejudice, to some extent I bet all of us are guilty of this. The membership you refer to are happy to cheer for Mario Itoje at England rugby matches or any other non white sports man or woman. In every aspect other than skin colour Rishi Sunak is a text book Conservative politician. Born in Hampshire, educated at Winchester and Oxford...
The problem with criticising the conservative membership for being very old and white is that far more of the population who will vote are old and white than anything else I would guess, so they appear to be quite good at choosing people who win elections.
-
The party bias against woman at the time bit I'd agree with, but the average level of racism now in my view still exceeds the sexism then (in a curently much older membership). The intellectual lightweight phrase comes across as dishonest mansplaining and recycling the crap from some sexist enemies she had in her party. From a humble background she won a chemistry scholarship to Oxford in 1943 as one of the very few of her gender at that time in a properly difficult subject. She was incredibly sharp. She might not have been an exceptional policy specialist but she aligned herself with people who were (from theory to practical implementation) and I've never heard of anyone who said she was anywhere near being too stupid to understand any of her massively complex brief. I disagreed politically with almost everything she did, marched in protest against some of it, but after Attlee she is by far the most informed transformational PM we had in modern times. I need to wash my hands now having been forced to type that.
-
I think Toby was referring to Bojo as the intellectual lightweight not Maggie. Unless I’ve missed the fact she was also a womaniser.
-
I think you are naive about Tory MP ambition and how that plays out and underestimating racial bias in the very old and very white Tory membership. You need to think on how they replaced Thatcher who was incredibly popular 'amongst the troops' and a pretty good campaigner for John Major. I will offer a gentleman's pint on my view that Sunak won't be the next Tory leader. I'll give you odds of 4 to 1 which seems nice and generous since the bookies are offering around 4:1 on him as next PM (Starmer currently around 2:1).
Sunak to be next Tory leader (PM or otherwise) at 4/1? Done. Ill have a pint/a tenner on that as you prefer!
It was not an open offer, it was for Toby. You can tempt me into similar if you come up with some other scenario where we differ so much on the odds. I'll happily buy you a pint any time we next meet in a BMC meeting.
-
I think Toby was referring to Bojo as the intellectual lightweight not Maggie. Unless I’ve missed the fact she was also a womaniser.
My profuse apologies to Toby... I need to start wearing glasses... and I'm suitably punished by feeling even more dirty defending Maggie.
-
I think Toby was referring to Bojo as the intellectual lightweight not Maggie. Unless I’ve missed the fact she was also a womaniser.
My profuse apologies to Toby... I need to start wearing glasses... and I'm suitably punished by feeling even more dirty defending Maggie.
:lol: indeed she was on the team that developed Mr Whippy ice cream was she not? Whatever you think of her, she had political conviction and an interest in people and policy, Boris is only interested in himself.
I think you are naive about Tory MP ambition and how that plays out and underestimating racial bias in the very old and very white Tory membership. You need to think on how they replaced Thatcher who was incredibly popular 'amongst the troops' and a pretty good campaigner for John Major. I will offer a gentleman's pint on my view that Sunak won't be the next Tory leader. I'll give you odds of 4 to 1 which seems nice and generous since the bookies are offering around 4:1 on him as next PM (Starmer currently around 2:1).
Sunak to be next Tory leader (PM or otherwise) at 4/1? Done. Ill have a pint/a tenner on that as you prefer!
It was not an open offer, it was for Toby. You can tempt me into similar if you come up with some other scenario where we differ so much on the odds. I'll happily buy you a pint any time we next meet in a BMC meeting.
Ok I bet you Sunak is leader of the conservative party within a decade.
-
Good, you're on. Win win for me of course.. I'd be utterly delighted to see a moderate BAME Tory leader.
-
The Tory party likes winners. Whether Rishi will look like one after a deep recession is not clear. He is obviously more in charge of his portfolio and more statesmanlike than Boris but the Tories will want a leader in tune with mood of the country. Boris served that role well; whether he will be able to reprise it is doubtful but not crystal clear either.
-
I think he is stitched up already. He is giving out money like Father Christmas right now... yet plenty are falling through the cracks and are really struggling and their stories are getting more attention. Wait and see how he looks when the true scale of the economic and employment mess becomes obvious, let alone if he survives to later when he is asking for money back to pay the debt.
-
I think he is stitched up already. He is giving out money like Father Christmas right now... yet plenty are falling through the cracks and are really struggling and their stories are getting more attention. Wait and see how he looks when the true scale of the economic and employment mess becomes obvious, let alone if he survives to later when he is asking for money back to pay the debt.
You may be right, I can already see that the eat out to help out scheme is going to result in a weapons grade screw up when businesses can't get the money from government quickly enough and go broke. Of course its possible that a system is already in place for this, but I'd bet that it isn't and a whole load of people are currently racking their brains trying to figure out how the hell it's going to work. BUT, I think that Rishi will avoid being blamed for this. Your earlier point about a non white conservative leader being good from a broadly left wing perspective might be dangerous; the Conservative party have had 2 more female leaders than Labour, but I'm not sure many would have said that either was a champion of compassionate conservatism as one might have speculated if relying on well worn stereotypes.
I listened to the Times red box podcast of pmqs yesterday, given that its probably right of centre both Tim Shipman and Matt Chorley were despairing of Johnson's performance, he sounded truly pathetic. I'm under no illusions that pmqs is of any importance to the wider population, but I'd imagine some Conservative MPs are beginning to wonder if they're being led by a donkey.
-
Eat out to help out will experience high levels of fraud I anticipate. Having worked (a long time ago) managing in catering - so much is cash (my restaruant owner used to take 20% of the weekly take from the till) or can be attributed to cash. Especially if your meal is less than £20 a head - easy to bump it up to the limit with a few sides thrown in etc... someone comes in for a coffee only - add a steak etc.. etc..
The home insulation scheme will do as little as the ones that have been running for the last 10 years or so... nice idea. Do nothing. Construction/building schemes/£££ are all good in idea - but also tend to help out sectors dominated by male employment....
Moan/grumble etc.. etc.. :)
-
With so many places being contactless payments only now, it wouldn't be hard to restrict the eat out scheme to card payments only if they want to cut down on fraud.
Whether they will actually think of that and set it up in time is another issue. Sunak hasn't been afraid of restricting aid packages to only those who are seen to be playing the game the right way so I wouldn't be surprised to see cash payments being ineligible.
Accelerating the death of cash might be one of the unintended positive consequences of covid-19.
-
Oh the irony.
The UK has the worst obesity rate in Europe. Obesity is among the highest risk factors (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047659) for developing critical illness following covid infection.
Here's a useful guide (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/08/chancellor-eat-out-scheme-get-value-for-money-rishi-sunak) to getting the most shit food for your money under the 'eat out help out' scheme. Tuck in Britain you nation of fat diseased slobs..
Chicken supreme pizza (with free salad): £12.19
Fries: £3.99
Bottle of Pepsi: £3.99
Total before discount: £20.17
£10.17 after discount.
If tackling obesity is an aim then perhaps the discount would be more wisely focused at some kind of healthy food joints.
-
Indeed.
Anyway - a card payment is only a card payment. Doesnt at all have to say say what its for... so someone spends £20 on a £10 pizza and (2 or 3 beers) and thats £10 from the chancellor please.
-
Well said Pete. Obesity is one of the biggest UK crises (if you excuse the pun) and the one least talked about. It's hardly as if Public Health England is itself not in crisis, with its leadership covering for Boris and the footsoldiers suffering the death of a thousand cuts, after the coalition Lilley 'reforms' moved them into austerity wrecked local councils. You do have to remember it's too complicated and urgent to target beter things (except they have been warned about what happens after furlough for months).
-
Accelerating the death of cash might be one of the unintended positive consequences of covid-19.
Positive? I am not so sure. There are people at the bottom - not necessarily fraudulent- end of the economy who are dependent on cash transactions. Card data is also data, privacy implications unavoidable.
-
The home insulation scheme will do as little as the ones that have been running for the last 10 years or so...
They usually just result in inflated prices for the accredited firms participating in the scheme so both homeowner and taxpayer get well and truly ripped off!
The UK has the worst obesity rate in Europe. Obesity is among the highest risk factors for developing critical illness following covid infection. If tackling obesity is an aim then perhaps the discount would be more wisely focused at some kind of healthy food joints.
That was my first thought. And how is it ok to use taxpayer money to basically bribe people to eat out who might be staying away from restaurants for good financial or covid safety sense. Why not focus on getting gyms and health centres back open safely and discount them instead?
The job retention bonus also seems a dud. If there's no work for the next 5/6 months then keeping someone on just to get £1k back in January isn't gonna swing it. But will be a nice little windfall for companies that were bringing people back anyway.
-
Yep the £1k for employers seems mostly wasteful. If they'd targeted it at small businesses - let's say for e.g. less than 5 employees - then I can see how it may help those employers choose to keep on a staff member.
The obesity thing is a bugbear of mine. People self-destroying their health don't need extra financial help to keep on doing it. In fact this scheme is illustrative of the complete failure of all governments, sugar tax excepted, to do anything serious about obesity. There won't be a better opportunity than covid-19 to try to change people's health choices. Unless covid 2031 is even more lethal to the obese.
-
Rishi’s plans getting it in the neck From a range of experts on the 1pm bbc news... then ‘justified’ by the reporter...
-
Yep the £1k for employers seems mostly wasteful.
HMRC permanent secretary sounds like he agrees. But what do mere civil servants know eh? ("Fuck all" says Cummings). Sunak's justification this morning for the accepted 'dead weight loss' was that it was a policy that had to be implemented at speed. The initial furlough scheme I can understand had to be put in place rapidly with very little notice so just a blanket approach is forgiveable. But Sunak's known he was going to wind up the furlough scheme for months now, so surely there's been time to come up with a more targeted and less wasteful policy?
-
Accelerating the death of cash might be one of the unintended positive consequences of covid-19.
Positive? I am not so sure. There are people at the bottom - not necessarily fraudulent- end of the economy who are dependent on cash transactions.
Is there anything about cash that a vulnerable person depends on?
All I see cash as is an inefficient way of getting money from one bank account to another. Wages, pensions, benefits, company funds and public funds all go through bank accounts. Cash is an inefficient, insecure, time consuming, unhygienic middle man. Am I missing something?
Norway and other countries have gone effectively cashless and I'm not aware of it having caused any problems among the poorest people.
Card data is also data, privacy implications unavoidable.
This might become a problem in the future. I have been effectively cashless for at least 3 years and have not seen any negative consequences of it as of yet. If privacy is the primary concern, there are also alternatives to cash or card that are far more secure and entirely untraceable.
-
The UK has the worst obesity rate in Europe. Obesity is among the highest risk factors for developing critical illness following covid infection. If tackling obesity is an aim then perhaps the discount would be more wisely focused at some kind of healthy food joints.
That was my first thought. And how is it ok to use taxpayer money to basically bribe people to eat out who might be staying away from restaurants for good financial or covid safety sense. Why not focus on getting gyms and health centres back open safely and discount them instead?
I would like to see the eat out scheme more focused on healthier food/lifestyles but I'm not sure how you would achieve that without massively increasing the admin costs. It would be great for covid-19 to be used as an opportunity to improve healthy living and help the environment.
I don't see myself eating inside at a restaurant, going to a barber or going to an indoors climbing wall or gym while covid-19 is still an issue unless there is a big shift in our understanding and/or protection measures. I don't think adequate protection measures exist for any of the above based on our current understanding. The scheme may be enough to see me go to some local independents to eat outside that I might not otherwise have gone too.
The job retention bonus also seems a dud. If there's no work for the next 5/6 months then keeping someone on just to get £1k back in January isn't gonna swing it. But will be a nice little windfall for companies that were bringing people back anyway.
It will make a difference to the borderline cases. It's around a 15% saving on the average wage and I suspect is a much higher proportion of the average furloughed employee's wage. That will be enough to change the outcome for companies that expect the hurt to be temporary.
It's going to be poor value for money for firms in a better position where jobs would have been retained anyway. It's still £1000 going back in to the economy which may be seen as a win, regardless of who it is going to. It's not going to help people where their job still isn't viable but a lot of jobs wouldn't be saved by any scheme that has a realistic chance of being passed.
I would like to see schemes that are more targeted and more assistance to those who will be hardest hit with an effort for those who have fallen between the cracks of the initial schemes. It is possible that this is being introduced as the initial blunt instrument and that there will be better fine tuning later on. I won't be holding my breath though.
-
The term 'falling between the cracks' is easily over-used.
There are many people who through no fault of their own have 'fallen through the cracks' and missed out on covid financial support but are completely deserving of the same support as everyone else.
Then there are some other people, who many would still label as having 'fallen between the cracks', who I would label as having avidly searched out any hint of a crack and forced themselves through that crack with determination and a crowbar, to hide under society's floorboards in order to avoid contributing tax. The self-employed ltd. company sole trader who pays themselves a dividend instead of a wage, avoids NI contributions and contributes absolutely minimal income tax/corporation tax by writing off all possible gains against fictitious business expenses for their fictitious contracting/consulting/construction company. Yet they live in a society that benefits from modern transport infrastructure, law and order, hospitals, schools, local facilities. Obviously there are plenty of sole trader ltd. companies acting in good faith and contributing their fair share; but the ones who choose to act cynically are parasites on society imo. And I accept the line is blurry between independent entrepreneurial spirits defending hard-earned wealth from high taxes / and being a cynical parasitical muthafucka.
Some corporations and individuals with offshore wealth also act along similar lines, but many have at least some virtue of providing employment for others.
-
The latest one from the jobs WhatsApp groups I’m in from the one man limited companies is taking out the Covid bounce back loans (up to 50K for some) then folding their business next year so they don’t have to pay them back (they’re underwritten by the Government). Some are using them to buy extra houses etc..
-
To paraphrase a tweet I read - the government seems very willing to give people who can afford to eat out a tenner towards their meal - but had to be dragged and shamed by a footballer into continuing free school meal vouchers of £3 per pupil per day....
-
The term 'falling between the cracks' is easily over-used.
Yes, I want help for those who have genuinely fallen through the cracks.
Those who crowbarred themselves through dishonestly can go whistle and I hope anyone defrauding the help schemes ends up in jail.
-
The term 'falling between the cracks' is easily over-used.
There are many people who through no fault of their own have 'fallen through the cracks' and missed out on covid financial support but are completely deserving of the same support as everyone else.
Then there are some other people, who many would still label as having 'fallen between the cracks', who I would label as having avidly searched out any hint of a crack and forced themselves through that crack with determination and a crowbar, to hide under society's floorboards in order to avoid contributing tax. The self-employed ltd. company sole trader who pays themselves a dividend instead of a wage, avoids NI contributions and contributes absolutely minimal income tax/corporation tax by writing off all possible gains against fictitious business expenses for their fictitious contracting/consulting/construction company. Yet they live in a society that benefits from modern transport infrastructure, law and order, hospitals, schools, local facilities. Obviously there are plenty of sole trader ltd. companies acting in good faith and contributing their fair share; but the ones who choose to act cynically are parasites on society imo. And I accept the line is blurry between independent entrepreneurial spirits defending hard-earned wealth from high taxes / and being a cynical parasitical muthafucka.
Some corporations and individuals with offshore wealth also act along similar lines, but many have at least some virtue of providing employment for others.
We did this before Pete. From those sole trader crooks you know you cynically extrapolated to the majority. Most I know are the opposite (mainly science based). Plus the revenue are not completely stupid and would have adjusted the tax law if the problem was as large as you claim, as they did before, for sole trader (I owe quite a few in IT) working just for one company. In any case it takes massive brass to stick your name in local news story as having no money if you have loads.
-
I neither extrapolated to the majority, nor claimed the problem was large. The people doing it are available to me as I see them - I’m not dumb enough to think my availability bias means everyone’s doing it.
I think you’d see that if you read what I actually wrote OW, rather than reading what you think I meant.
And we’ve done that before too.
-
The government are about as far from being guided by science as you can imagine.
Interesting experiment is right on the money; an experiment in government by focus group (which the government spends millions a week on)
Of which at least one contract has been awarded without tender to another set of Cummings’ Brexiteer pals. There’s a theme emerging here and it stinks.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/firm-with-links-to-gove-and-cummings-given-covid-19-contract-without-open-tender?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
Hancock told the today programme this morning that the government won't mandate masks in offices. Expect masks to be compulsory in offices next week.
-
Hancock told the today programme this morning that the government won't mandate masks in offices. Expect masks to be compulsory in offices next week.
Well they'll announce that masks will be manadatory within a week, but won't actually make them mandatory for another 10 days after that.
-
The contract for 250m masks will be awarded without tender to a fast food entrepreneur who happened to be Gove’s best man. No contract will be produced to the public. They won’t be delivered and the £25m spent will be written off.
1990s sleaze and cronyism is back, and then some.
-
1990s sleaze and cronyism is back, and then some.
I slightly differ with you on this one. I think it's much worse now, nineties style was fiddling a few grand for a new moat or conservatory; now it's more like giving every job to a talentless brown noser like Grayling or Hancock and let a dangerous idealoge make all the decisions such as trashing the economy with a triple whammy of leaving the EU, censuring Huawei in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/coronavirus-contracts-government-transparency-pandemic
This article highlighted quite a few of these contracts:
£32m to PestFix to supply PPE which has not yet reached the NHS.
£18m to an employment agency to supply face masks
£100m to a confectionary wholesaler to supply PPE
£250m to a “family office” in Mauritius specialising in currency trading to supply PPE.
What a fucking farce.
-
Though I’ve just had 50 face masks arrive at in good time from a company set up in a month or so by two recent graduates (maskbros.co.uk).
Maybe it isn’t that hard?
The lack of transparency/clarity in the (non) bidding process isn’t great though..
-
I think it's much worse now, nineties style was fiddling a few grand for a new moat or conservatory; now it's more like giving every job to a talentless brown noser like Grayling or Hancock and let a dangerous idealoge make all the decisions such as trashing the economy with a triple whammy of leaving the EU, censuring Huawei in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis.
Agree. Back then it was all on the sly, and a bit of cash here and there. This is all done blatantly and openly and with it being under the auspice of "protecting the people" it looks like they are treating it as open season and just hemorrhaging money to anyone who they like.
-
Incident at my Sainsbury petrol station yesterday. They had no gloves. I pointed this out when paying and that it was a H&S issue for using the pumps. The assistant manager came out of the back and was pretty aggressive that the gloves are complementary there is no legal requirement to provide them and they couldn't get hold of any anywhere. I said this didn't negate the H&S issues nor the customer service. Anyone got any idea if there is a real big picture issue with obtaining disposable gloves or do I need to complain.
Sorry meant to post this on the main covid thread.
-
Incident at my Sainsbury petrol station yesterday. They had no gloves. I pointed this out when paying and that it was a H&S issue for using the pumps. The assistant manager came out of the back and was pretty aggressive that the gloves are complementary there is no legal requirement to provide them and they couldn't get hold of any anywhere. I said this didn't negate the H&S issues nor the customer service. Anyone got any idea if there is a real big picture issue with obtaining disposable gloves or do I need to complain.
Sorry meant to post this on the main covid thread.
You need whatever the guys who left their pads at Lees are smokin'.
-
We run a Physio practice and have had no problem sourcing gloves
-
Thanks Davo. I was thinking cheap disposable one use gloves not working gloves
-
Back on the thread topic... things are increasingly surreal in some republican states.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/16/georgia-governor-sues-mask-mandate-covid19
-
He seems like an utter thunderc*nt.
-
During his 2018 campaign for the governorship of Georgia, running against Democrat and African-American woman Stacey Abrams, Kemp held the office of Georgia secretary of state - in which role he was responsible for overseeing the conduct of the election: yes, the election in which he was running. There was very significant evidence of voter suppression. Kemp's wining margin was less than 2%.
-
https://twitter.com/pippan15/status/1267935819047854080?s=21
The graph on this tweet is fascinating. Basically the Republican Party is not a normal right of centre political party.
-
Even more interesting would be to see visualised on the graph which parties are currently in power.
-
Apparently it is the UK population's degree of 'alertness' which is primarily responsible for Covid transmission,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/18/return-to-normality-depends-on-how-alert-people-grant-shapps-coronavirus
Thank goodness the gov has nothing to do with it.
-
PHE increasingly in the firing line
https://www.ft.com/content/e149101a-1c93-4b0a-bc12-14ca8bf11b0e
-
Cummings and the ex Public Prosecutor.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/02/nazir-afzal-cps-met-and-durham-police-closed-ranks-over-cummings-case
-
PHE increasingly in the firing line
https://www.ft.com/content/e149101a-1c93-4b0a-bc12-14ca8bf11b0e
Do you agree they are to blame, or are you highlighting another example of our totally inept government throwing anyone they can under the bus to deflect blame?
-
Both... Public Health in England was really damaged by the Lilley reforms. PHE have made serious mistakes in the crisis and their leadership have shown too little independence from government. You expect a Boris led government to make stupid mistakes but not PHE.