The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Professor Moriarty

devnull wrote: »

Comes across that way doesn't it.

The fact that they're still going on about not extending the transition period is madness to me. They need to focus on dealing with this crisis, domestic policy and sorting the country out after this first.

The UK Economy is already going to be fragile after this, having taken a big big shock from coronavirus, to have another one so soon is sheer lunacy. The government simply don't need the distraction from the virus.

Too much politics is being played in the UK really since this whole thing broke out rather than focusing on whats important. The whole saga with Johnson using the crisis to have a dig at Sadiq Khan was pathetic too.

Don't worry about the economy. Once Davies, IDS, Paterson et al get that 331 billion from the Chinese, Britain will have a glorious future.

easypazz

devnull wrote: »

Comes across that way doesn't it.

The fact that they're still going on about not extending the transition period is madness to me. They need to focus on dealing with this crisis, domestic policy and sorting the country out after this first.

The UK Economy is already going to be fragile after this, having taken a big big shock from coronavirus, to have another one so soon is sheer lunacy. The government simply don't need the distraction from the virus.

Too much politics is being played in the UK really since this whole thing broke out rather than focusing on whats important. The whole saga with Johnson using the crisis to have a dig at Sadiq Khan was pathetic too.

They have until end of June to request an extension or else its out by year end.

So BoJo is up against it.

If another wave of this comes around in the Autumn nobody will have an ounce of sympathy for them.

devnull

robinph wrote: »

They used the chart that was required to show what they were talking about in that article. That's not a conspiracy.

Why would they show a chart with a couple of big lines on the far right if they are taking about the cases slowing down, equally why would they show a chart with a curve flattening out if they were talking about big increases in numbers.

So what you are saying is that charts are being chosen based on fitting a narrative rather than being based on presenting and reproducing the data that was published in a way that can be considered neutral. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun, not the BBC.

Good data based journalism is based on analysing the graphs and then writing an article based on what the graph shows. What appears to have happened here is that the article has been written to fit a narrative and the graph that doesn't fit it has been thrown out in favour of one that does to push a narrative.

This is the kind of thing that you would expect to see in an opinionated tabloid article which is trying to influence and persuade, rather than on one which was trying to present the raw facts, analysing them and allowing the reader to make their own mind up.

The kind of tactic that you are endorsing is the very same kind of tactic that the Daily Mail and Daily Express have spent years using to whip up discontent in the UK, by selectively presenting data in a way that allows them to draw certain conclusions from it that allow them to push a false narrative.

Joe_ Public

The only way brexit could possibly matter right now is that if they continued to insist they didnt need an extension. Could they possibly be that reckless? Hard to rule out. Should clarify that now and park it.

Joe_ Public

Just to clarify because I'm not following the argument very clearly. Where specifically is the graph showing cases across England levelling off? I'm not seeing that, dont see a plateau, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

robinph

devnull wrote: »

So what you are saying is that charts are being chosen based on fitting a narrative rather than being based on presenting and reproducing the data that was published in a way that can be considered neutral. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun, not the BBC.

Good data based journalism is based on analysing the graphs and then writing an article based on what the graph shows. What appears to have happened here is that the article has been written to fit a narrative and the graph that doesn't fit it has been thrown out in favour of one that does to push a narrative.

This is the kind of thing that you would expect to see in an opinionated tabloid article which is trying to influence and persuade, rather than on one which was trying to present the raw facts, analysing them and allowing the reader to make their own mind up.

The kind of tactic that you are endorsing is the very same kind of tactic that the Daily Mail and Daily Express have spent years using to whip up discontent in the UK, by selectively presenting data in a way that allows them to draw certain conclusions from it that allow them to push a false narrative.

The point of the chart was to show that infections are rising more quickly in certain regions. That isn't trying to hide anything, that is trying to scare people into taking action if anything, especially in those regions.

They looked at the data and saw that it showed the rate in the regions growing more quickly than in London, so they produced a graph that showed that more clearly to highlight their point which wasn't as obvious from looking at the other style of graph.

There is absolutely no conspiracy there, just a different type of chart being used to highlight a point that wasn't clear from looking at the other one. Both charts are still linked in different articles about different points on the BBC website.

devnull

robinph wrote: »

Seems like they used the correct chart, the correct scale and removed the irrelevant data to their point that certain regions are getting worse and London is currently reducing their rate of infection.

Well if that is what you believe the graph shows then either you're misreading the graph or the BBC have got the graph wrong, because the government have now published the raw data which does not show a plateau, in fact, the most recent day shows that in the last day on record, more people were hospitalised in London than any other day so far.



Also, is this your version of a plateau and reducing infection in London?
2nd April - 950 cases
3rd April - 956 cases
4th April - 517 cases
5th April - 1214 cases

The only date that really shows a big downturn in infection is 3rd April and honestly, if you look at the data from every single day for the last few weeks, the 4th April very much looks like an outlier to be honest.

We will have to see what the coming days brings but it's far too early to be talking about plateaus at this stage. We might have a better idea by Wednesday, when all of the weekend data is accounted for., since deaths from the weekend which were reported today, won't show up in the stats until Tuesday.

robinph

devnull wrote: »

Well if that is what you believe the graph shows then either you're misreading the graph or the BBC have got the graph wrong, because the government have now published the raw data which does not show a plateau, in fact, the most recent day shows that in the last day on record, more people were hospitalised in London than any other day so far.



Also, is this your version of a plateau and reducing infection in London?
2nd April - 950 cases
3rd April - 956 cases
4th April - 517 cases
5th April - 1214 cases

The only date that really shows a big downturn in infection is 3rd April and honestly, if you look at the data from every single day for the last few weeks, the 4th April very much looks like an outlier to be honest.

We will have to see what the coming days brings but it's far too early to be talking about plateaus at this stage. We might have a better idea by Wednesday, when all of the weekend data is accounted for., since deaths from the weekend which were reported today, won't show up in the stats until Tuesday.

Now look at the numbers for the North West and Midlands which is what the whole point of the changed chart was.

Just guessing from the chart you've re-linked to, but the numbers for North West seem to have gone from 1000 to 2000 within two days, and the Midlands from around 2000 to 3000 in the same period.

Now is that a bigger rate of increase than going from 4000 to 4500 in London, or a lower rate of increase?
What point were they making with the log chart?

devnull

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Just to clarify because I'm not following the argument very clearly. Where specifically is the graph showing cases across England levelling off? I'm not seeing that, dont see a plateau, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

Because there isn't, it's completely false narrative

It appears to driven by paying too much attention logarithmic graphs which, by their very nature, mean that two values with 5cm vertical gap between them below one value on an axis may represent less cases than a 1cm increase above another value on an axis, giving an optical illusion that something is levelling off when it isn't.

A standard line graph is a better way of plotting and tracking the number of deaths and cases and if they are truly levelling off and none of those graphs have slowed any particular slowdown. There have been some bumps and variations and some slowdowns, speed ups and outliers along the way, but the trend is continuing.

The UK had it's highest number of cases so far in the last full reported day and every single region in the PHE statistics broke their records for number of patients admitted in one day as well on the same day - that's not levelling off.

devnull

robinph wrote: »

Now is that a bigger rate of increase than going from 4000 to 4500 in London, or a lower rate of increase?

Just guessing from the chart you've re-linked to, but the numbers for North West seem to have gone from 1000 to 2000 within two days, and the Midlands from around 2000 to 3000 in the same period.

What point were they making with the log chart?

By your own admission in your earlier posts, they were trying to make the point that London figures had begin to plateau despite the fact that the last reporting period in London saw over 1,200 new cases, the biggest rise in hospital admissions in a single day and the biggest number of admissions in a single day on record.

I do however agree with you that some of the other regions are growing quicker in day on day percentage terms, but I'm a bit reluctant to treat people as percentage figures because every person has a family, loved ones etc and talking about them as percentages rather than the number of people almost feels like we're treating them as metrics and figures rather than people who have a family and kids etc.

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

Because there isn't, it's completely false narrative

It appears to driven by paying too much attention logarithmic graphs which, by their very nature, mean that two values with 5cm vertical gap between them below one value on an axis may represent less cases than a 1cm increase above another value on an axis, giving an optical illusion that something is levelling off when it isn't.

A standard line graph is a better way of plotting and tracking the number of deaths and if they are truly levelling off and none of those graphs have slowed any particular slowdown. There have been some bumps and variations and some slowdowns, speed ups and outliers along the way, but the trend is continuing.

The UK had it's highest number of cases so far in the last full reported day and every single region in the PHE statistics broke their records for number of patients admitted in one day as well on the same day - that's not levelling off.

I mean, i would think new case load is directly proportional to testing efficiency anyway so not sure what anyone should be taking from it.

A Dub in Glasgo

As of yesterday the UK had tested 2,880 per million of population. Ireland is sitting at 6,119

devnull

UK has now confirmed that an antibody test could be as much as a month away

They're going to get nowhere near that 100k tests a day that they have outlined are they? More and more sure that they just simply gave a high figure they didn't really believe such as that with the target to be achieved a month down the line to give them some breathing room and take the immediate heat off them.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1247088674044628992

Can you really see them being able to scale antigen testing to 100k a day? As recently as a few days ago they were only testing 7k people with over half of them having two tests to make up not even 11k tests a day.

Joe_ Public

The antibody tests are different, aren't they? Nothing to do with the 100k figure which refer to swab tests purely. That was my understanding anyway.

Interesting to see the hse lads here yesterday talk very openly of the problems they're having with testing and shortage of labs and kits etc. That 100k figure going to be a monumental challenge.

devnull

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The antibody tests are different, aren't they? Nothing to do with the 100k figure which refer to swab tests purely. That was my understanding anyway.

There was a bit of confusion whether they are included or not, I've seen some articles say that the figure is including all tests, whereas others have said it just include the antigen swab tests.

Has anyone seen an article with a definitive statement from the Government or the NHS that confirms if they're counted or not?

Joe_ Public

devnull wrote: »

There was a bit of confusion whether they are included or not, I've seen some articles say that the figure is including all tests, whereas others have said it just include the antigen swab tests.

Has anyone seen an article with a definitive statement from the Government or the NHS that confirms if they're counted or not?

It never even occurred to me that the two were lumped in together. Would seem a bit disingenuous if so, but not sure.

Joe_ Public

Actually you could be right, as per this report of hancocks press conference:

"He said England would hit 100,000 tests a day, which would include antigen tests that show whether people are currently suffering from Covid-19, as well as antibody tests to see whether people have had the infection and recovered."

It makes sense now as 100,000 swab tests seemed pie in sky stuff. I find that quite discouraging tbh.

S.M.B.

I thought Hancock made it very clear during one of the daily briefs that the target included all types of tests.

Edit: it wasn't Raab, it was hancock

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We don't want your help with ventilators but we want you to help get our people back to Blighty...

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1246795565914107906

seems pretty reasonable, when you consider the amount of Irish and other EU nationals the UK is helping repriate.

https://twitter.com/IrelandEmbUSA/status/1245873083535314944

theological

devnull wrote: »

UK has now confirmed that an antibody test could be as much as a month away

They're going to get nowhere near that 100k tests a day that they have outlined are they? More and more sure that they just simply gave a high figure they didn't really believe such as that with the target to be achieved a month down the line to give them some breathing room and take the immediate heat off them.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1247088674044628992

Can you really see them being able to scale antigen testing to 100k a day? As recently as a few days ago they were only testing 7k people with over half of them having two tests to make up not even 11k tests a day.

Do you know any other country with an accurate antibody test yet?

I'm fine with criticism but it must be reasonable.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Do you know any other country with an accurate antibody test yet?

I'm fine with criticism but it must be reasonable.

But the UK is not some small, third rate, poor country. It is a world leader.

You shouldn't be continually giving them a free pass on the basis that others haven't done it.

Remember, you were all in favour of the UK basing all the plans on their own scientists, going agains the accepted wisdom based on some (unpublished afaik) data.

Where is the plan for the UK to develop it itself? They have some of the worlds biggest companies, universities etc.

Is it even trying or is it waiting for someone else to provide the solution?

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

seems pretty reasonable, when you consider the amount of Irish and other EU nationals the UK is helping repriate.

https://twitter.com/IrelandEmbUSA/status/1245873083535314944

Of course it is reasonable, nobody is arguing that it isn't. The unreasonable thing is the UK not stating that the EU are helping them. What is unreasonable is not partaking in EU procurement because it doesn't suit the Brexit agenda.

When Raab announced the 75m, did he mention that he would be utilising EU help and funds, or did he leave it to seem that it was purely UK?

devnull

Only 2 deaths reported in Scotland again (data). However this is with a caveat, like yesterday:

Please note: as highlighted by the First Minister today, these figures are not fully representative of developments this weekend as we continue to move to a new process for reporting deaths.

I would imagine we will see a fall in deaths and cases in other parts in the UK as well if recent trends have been anything to go by, followed by a sharp increase on Tuesday, so I wouldn't read too much into today's data - Tuesday, Wednesday and perhaps Thursday's data will give us a better idea of any overall trend.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the UK is not some small, third rate, poor country. It is a world leader.

You shouldn't be continually giving them a free pass on the basis that others haven't done it.

Remember, you were all in favour of the UK basing all the plans on their own scientists, going agains the accepted wisdom based on some (unpublished afaik) data.

Where is the plan for the UK to develop it itself? They have some of the worlds biggest companies, universities etc.

Is it even trying or is it waiting for someone else to provide the solution?

I'd prefer the tests to be working first. I agree with Public Health England on this. A bad test is worse than no test because it would actually cause people to be incorrectly assured and cause people to develop the virus.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I'd prefer the tests to be working first. I agree with Public Health England on this. A bad test is worse than no test because it would actually cause people to be incorrectly assured and cause people to develop the virus.

Them lads are too busy to make up new slogans.

Seth Brundle

devnull wrote: »

Only 2 deaths reported in Scotland again (data). However this is with a caveat, like yesterday:



I would imagine we will see a fall in deaths and cases in other parts in the UK as well if recent trends have been anything to go by, followed by a sharp increase on Tuesday, so I wouldn't read too much into today's data - Tuesday, Wednesday and perhaps Thursday's data will give us a better idea of any overall trend.

Weekend numbers won't be reported properly until tomorrow AFAIK.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I'd prefer the tests to be working first. I agree with Public Health England on this. A bad test is worse than no test because it would actually cause people to be incorrectly assured and cause people to develop the virus.

So what plans are in place for PHE to develop their own tests? Where is the drive to find a lasting solution? You were giving the UK a pass based on other countries not having it yet but you should be asking why the UK are not developing one themselves.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what plans are in place for PHE to develop their own tests? Where is the drive to find a lasting solution? You were giving the UK a pass based on other countries not having it yet but you should be asking why the UK are not developing one themselves.

It's obvious that these tests need to be created in collaboration with other countries because the antibody test depends on knowledge of the disease and other countries go ahead of the UK.

It's good that they are properly analysing and testing these tests to ensure that they work. Possibly these can be built on also.

It is an unfair criticism to ask why doesn't the UK have a working antibody test yet when it seems like nobody does. The kits that were tested would be dangerous to promote for wide scale issue until they are assured to work.

To that I say job well done in identifying this and not exposing the population to more risk.

devnull

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what plans are in place for PHE to develop their own tests? Where is the drive to find a lasting solution? You were giving the UK a pass based on other countries not having it yet but you should be asking why the UK are not developing one themselves.

I wouldn't have a lot of faith in PHE when it comes to testing.

Until very recently they were insisting that all of the testing goes through their main lab in Milton Keynes and were unwilling to use the commercial, university and other labs which were offering to assist with the testing, as they were more interested in keeping a tight control on everything, which has resulted in the UK's pathetic testing numbers whereas Germany were using as much lab capacity as they could get from reputable labs.

PHE later thankfully backtracked on that stance of wanting control to some degree it seems but I hope that they do not have the same attitude to antibody testing and are more focused on the bigger picture and working with other bodies and laboratories rather than ploughing their own furrow to keep control.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

It's obvious that these tests need to be created in collaboration with other countries because the antibody test depends on knowledge of the disease and other countries go ahead of the UK.

It's good that they are properly analysing and testing these tests to ensure that they work. Possibly these can be built on also.

It is an unfair criticism to ask why doesn't the UK have a working antibody test yet when it seems like nobody does. The kits that were tested would be dangerous to promote for wide scale issue until they are assured to work.

To that I say job well done in identifying this and not exposing the population to more risk.

So why did you ask what other countries had achieved, if you can't even hold one of the biggest countries in the world to account?

Of course they need to collaborate, although they didn't seem to think they needed to pay heed to other countries prior to the u-turn, a position you were more than happy to side with.

Surely they should have checked the test prior to announcing that not only would they have 3.5m, but then Hancock claimed they would have 17.5 soon. All before they had tested them? Did they not ask to see the data to show the reliability of the tests prior to ordering them? It would appear that they went with those test because they could get them and it meant more to say you were doing something that actually being right.

How can Hancock have stated the goal was 100k test a day when he had no idea is tests were even working. Why not say that? Why not say that they are working with international partners, like the EU, to try to get a test that works and that may take time?