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

22-04-2020 09:50AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, they should not. It was always too big - just an attempt to out-China China for the likes, and another example of not learning (or refusing to learn?) from more relevant European experience.

that's just childish rubbish to be honest.

CelticRambler wrote: »

The next débacle-in-the-making is the rush to promise a vaccine without going through the enhanced "due care and attention" process that coronaviruses need. Pushing any coronavirus vaccine into human clinical trials is always a delicate process, and doing so with SARS-CoV-2 at this stage is not being led by science, it's being done for purely political reasons.

so Cambridge University don't know what they are doing?

22-04-2020 09:53AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From this organisation showing that the Guardian is the most trusted newspaper in both hardcopy and digital formats.:

Today Pamco has also released for the first time data showing the level of trust in each of the national newspapers in print and online, based on 35,000 face-to-face interviews conducted each year by Ipsos Mori.

Of the national daily print newspapers, 89 per cent of people who said they read the Guardian trust what they read in the title, followed by 84 per cent who trust the i.

The Observer was the most trusted Sunday paper (89 per cent) while the Daily Star Sunday and the Sun on Sunday were the least trusted print newspapers (48 and 49 per cent respectively).

The Guardian and the i were also the most trusted digital newsbrands by their visitors, on 84 per cent and 83 per cent respectively, followed by the Independent and the Times (82 per cent and 81 per cent).

The Sun was the least trusted national newsbrand online (39 per cent) followed by Mail Online, trusted by 46 per cent of its readers.

sums it up nicely.

people who read the Guardian believe everything it says.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 09:56AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think they clearly knew about the scheme but it was decided to opt out coz Brexit.

But Hancock knew it was wrong and as health minister it was his neck on the block so he tried to explain it away in a way that made both the government not look like they put ideology ahead of practicality but also gave him cover.

In most cases the brush off works, example the lack of follow up on Johnson missing Cobra, and that should have been it, but for some reason this issue has stuck and people keep digging.

The answer is either Hancock department choose not to apply or it was taken at cabinet level.

Which 'truth' will they opt for as their story makes no sense.

I think like most of these things we'll have to wait for either toothless inquiries or political memoirs to unravel what went on. To be fair to Hancock i suspect he was personally in favour of maintaining eu cooperation but was overruled by his party superiors. Among other things this Peter Foster piece from early March claims Hancock was stopped from attending eu health minister gatherings where those procurement schemes would have been discussed. Wont expect the truth to emerge anytime soon if ever.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/01/downing-street-department-health-locked-row-access-eu-pandemic/

Peregrinus · 22-04-2020 10:00AM

theological wrote: »

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

At the moment we can't say who is worst-hit, per capita.

That is because different countries count deaths in a different way.

The daily figures most quoted in the UK are the NHS figures, but they only count people who die (a) in hospital, and (b) after having tested positive for CV19. People who die outside hospital, and people who die in hospital with symptoms of CV19 but without having been tested, turn up in the ONS figures, if CV19 is mentioned as a primary or contributory cause of death in the death certificate. But those figures only reflect deaths which have been registered, and it can take weeks for a death to be registered, which means that the ONS figures are always out-of-date. So people looking at daily figures - the kind of figures you need to answer the question "have we passed the peak?" - will look at NHS figures. NHS figure are good for identifying trends, peaks, troughs and so on, but not so good for calculating total casualties.

This isn't a cunning strategy to confuse and deflect by the UK government; it's just a by-product of the way the UK health services are organised and the way vital statistics are normally collected, and it wasn't designed with a view to producing real-time updates during a global pandemic.

Other countries collect statistics differently, and therefore in comparing the UK daily figures with those for France, Spain, etc, we may be comparing apples and oranges. Based on the published figures, and disregarding microstates where populations are tiny, the European country with the highest per capita rate of CV19 deaths is Belgim - 503 per million people, as compared with 243 per million in the UK. But it may be - I don't know the answer to this - that the Belgian figure includes deaths which are not taken into account in the UK figure. You'd have to investigate how Belgium compiles its figures in order to know whether you need make an adjustment for that.

The other point that needs to be factored in is that these are cumulative figures. They represent all deaths since CV19 became pandemic in the country concerned, meaning (a) in each country, they can only go up (even after the peak is passed, they keep going up) and (b) a higher figure in a particular country may just mean that the disease hase been pandemic there for longer. So if the UK has a lower figure than country X, it could be that the UK is on the same trajectory as country X, or a worse trajectory, but it just hasn't travelled as far along it - yet. Most or all of the countries which currently have a higher per capita death rate than the UK have also been experiencing the pandemic for longer than the UK.

TheCitizen · 22-04-2020 10:02AM

theological wrote: »

I'm referring to deaths. Not cases.

You can look at the graph I linked to. Lots of options there for drilling down.

I know you’re referring to deaths, that’s what I’m referring to. The UK don’t include deaths from Covid outside hospitals.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-04-2020 10:05AM

On the subject of EU procurement, the EU Commission website states the four schemes

The Commission launched four different calls for tender for medical equipment and supplies on 28 February (gloves and surgical gowns), 17 March (personal protective equipment for eye and respiratory protection, as well as medical ventilators and respiratory equipment), and 19 March (laboratory equipment, including testing kits) - with participation of up to 25 Member States.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response/public-health_en

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 10:09AM

theological wrote: »

I'm referring to deaths. Not cases.

You can look at the graph I linked to. Lots of options there for drilling down.

Yes, but they are linked. If you don't test how do you know who died from the virus? We will only really know once all countries has released their data and then compare. Your comparison of deaths per capita is useless, because you are trying to use a comparison so narrow to favour the UK.

Aegir wrote: »

I gave my opinion on how it would work. I would be very very surprised if "EU Bureaucrats" were running this, becuase they wold not have the expertise to do so. They certainly would not be able to manage the contract negotiation and award on behalf of each country.

So you gave your opinion on nothing more than your own opinion on how this system works? I see a flaw in the way you got to your conclusion.

Aegir wrote: »

why put nurses in a temporary hospital that is being barely used, when the permanent hospitals are working within capacity. Surely it is better to have the staff there than sat around idle waiting for patients to turn up?

You are ignoring the story of patients being turned away from being admitted at the Nightingale Hospital.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 10:16AM

On the FT article and their numbers, they aren't the only ones who got to that number it seems,

https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1252886168024371200?s=20

Leroy42 · 22-04-2020 10:17AM

theological wrote: »

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

What a tragically low bar you have set.

Professor Moriarty · 22-04-2020 10:25AM

Aegir wrote: »

sums it up nicely.

people who read the Guardian believe everything it says.

Of 35,000 people interviewed, The Guardian came out as the most trusted newspaper hard copy and online. Fact.

Answer this please. What news sources do you trust?

BonnieSituation · 22-04-2020 10:26AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think this means The Health Secretary has told me to stop telling the plain truth or no knighthood

I would guess that his original statement is true, he was directed by the Minister to deny it, so each sentence in the letter is technically true while giving the impression he is denying his original remark.

He already has the knighthood though.

22-04-2020 10:28AM

Enzokk wrote: »

So you gave your opinion on nothing more than your own opinion on how this system works? I see a flaw in the way you got to your conclusion. [\quote]

My opinion is flawed, yes. It is however based on 30 years of private and public sector procurement experience.

quote="Enzokk;113234852"] You are ignoring the story of patients being turned away from being admitted at the Nightingale Hospital.

I’m not ignoring it, I’m calling it journalistic semantics. Did the nightingale hospital actually turn them away, or did is simple issue a notice that it can’t take them?

If so, where did those patients go? I’m presuming they aren’t stuck in a trolley under a bridge somewhere (which the Guardian would love you to believe) but have been accommodated in other less stretched hospitals, the way the NHS handles this in a day to day basis.

Unless the Guardian actually shares the document they have seen we have no way of knowing.

I think we can agree that it makes sense to move patients to permanent hospitals rather than a field hospital.

22-04-2020 10:30AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of 35,000 people interviewed, The Guardian came out as the most trusted newspaper hard copy and online. Fact. [\quote]

35,000 people that read the Guardian.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Answer this please. What news sources do you trust?

None. I try and read several to get an even unbiased opinion. Something which the Guardian does not give.

Professor Moriarty · 22-04-2020 10:38AM

Aegir wrote: »

[

35,000 people that read the Guardian.

35,000 people don't read the Guardian. Anyway, if they don't read the paper, how can they give an opinion as to its trustworthiness? Why do 88% of readers trust the Guardian and less than half that number trust the Sun and the Mail?

None. I try and read several to get an even unbiased opinion. Something which the Guardian does not give.

So you don't read the most trusted newspaper in the UK. Which news sources give you an ability to form unbiased opinion?

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 10:40AM

Aegir wrote: »

I’m not ignoring it, I’m calling it journalistic semantics. Did the nightingale hospital actually turn them away, or did is simple issue a notice that it can’t take them?

If so, where did those patients go? I’m presuming they aren’t stuck in a trolley under a bridge somewhere (which the Guardian would love you to believe) but have been accommodated in other less stretched hospitals, the way the NHS handles this in a day to day basis.

Unless the Guardian actually shares the document they have seen we have no way of knowing.

I think we can agree that it makes sense to move patients to permanent hospitals rather than a field hospital.

Oh, you seem to think people were just discharged from hospital in a serious condition, taken to the Nightingale hospital and then rejected for admission. Do you think they were then driven around in a serious condition looking a hospital that can admit them? Or under a bridge? You poor person, you are so naive to think it works this way.

The hospital where they are admitted would phone the Nightingale hospital and enquire if they are able to admit this patient with these symptoms. They would then be told, no because the patient is too serious, or we don't have the space/staff to accept the patient. The patient would then....stay where they are and still be treated in the same hospital.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 10:50AM

Aegir wrote: »

35,000 people that read the Guardian.

Oh my God, seriously are you arguing that the 35 000 people they interviewed are all Guardian readers? Please tell me you are doing this deliberately. They interviewed 35 000 people in the poll, and within those 35 000, of those that read the Guardian 89% find it trustworthy.

That is not surprising, what is surprising is that more than half of The Sun and Daily Mail online readers find them untrustworthy. Their own readers are the ones that find them printing stories that cannot be trusted.

Seeing that The Sun and the Daily Mail are the most read newspapers/online media, if you have a sample of 35 000 people you would expect most to read The Sun and Daily Mail and to then have a negative view of the Guardian.

22-04-2020 10:54AM

Enzokk wrote: »

On the FT article and their numbers, they aren't the only ones who got to that number it seems,

https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1252886168024371200?s=20

FT claiming 500 deaths in the 6 counties

This cant be right

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 10:54AM

Aegir wrote: »

so Cambridge University don't know what they are doing?

Probably not as it is Oxford who are doing the vaccine trials. Which is great and they are just one of a number of worldwide institutions involved in the search. Problem with uk government is it tends to blurt stuff out prematurely as it is desperate to create a good narrative about it, as with the ppe from turkey last week, among testing targets and other things. So its great oxford are doing these trials and nobody doubts the calibre of their research team, but important not to get too far ahead too and create unrealistic expectations.

22-04-2020 11:10AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Oh my God, seriously are you arguing that the 35 000 people they interviewed are all Guardian readers? Please tell me you are doing this deliberately. They interviewed 35 000 people in the poll, and within those 35 000, of those that read the Guardian 89% find it trustworthy.

That is not surprising, what is surprising is that more than half of The Sun and Daily Mail online readers find them untrustworthy. Their own readers are the ones that find them printing stories that cannot be trusted.

Seeing that The Sun and the Daily Mail are the most read newspapers/online media, if you have a sample of 35 000 people you would expect most to read The Sun and Daily Mail and to then have a negative view of the Guardian.

I misread. Of the 35,000, 89% of those that said they read the Guardian trust it.

So it isn’t 35,000 people, or 89% of 35,000 it is 89% of people who read it.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 11:21AM

Deleted User wrote: »

FT claiming 500 deaths in the 6 counties

This cant be right

They are estimating it up to now, but the data released is only up to the week ending on the 10th April. Data is data and can be deceptive, but if you look at the weekly deaths for weeks 12, 13 and 14 this year compared to the last 5 years, then there is 243 extra deaths. But this has to be taken with a caveat, week 12 there was 287 deaths this year compared to the average of 320 for the last 5 years. They listed 9 deaths in that week due to coronavirus and if we add all the deaths for those 3 weeks and subtract them from the deaths this year then it will skew the numbers as this year was below the average but we know there was at least 9 deaths due to coronavirus listed.

So, basically, take week 13 and week 14 deaths and compare to the last 5 years and you get 276 extra deaths. That is only for those 2 weeks, add in the next 12 days and we could be at the 500 number in NI for the total so far. That is how I work out they got to the number.

22-04-2020 11:22AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Oh, you seem to think people were just discharged from hospital in a serious condition, taken to the Nightingale hospital and then rejected for admission. Do you think they were then driven around in a serious condition looking a hospital that can admit them? Or under a bridge? You poor person, you are so naive to think it works this way.

no, where the **** did you get that from?

Enzokk wrote: »

The hospital where they are admitted would phone the Nightingale hospital and enquire if they are able to admit this patient with these symptoms. They would then be told, no because the patient is too serious, or we don't have the space/staff to accept the patient. The patient would then....stay where they are and still be treated in the same hospital.

really?

do you have anything to back up that?

CelticRambler · 22-04-2020 11:24AM

Aegir wrote: »

so Cambridge University don't know what they are doing?

I'm sure they do - their vaccine development is being led by a vet. It's Oxford you have to worry about - they're the ones hoping a modified adenovirus with a coronavirus add-on will trigger antibody production in 18-55 year-olds. So pretty much nothing of relevance to Covid-19. But hey, if it gives Matt Hancock something to brag about, why not.

For comparison, the cautious Cambridge approach acknowledges the inherent problem with coronavirus vaccines:

“If you make antibodies against the spike, they can end up binding to it and helping the virus invade important immune cells known as monocyte-macrophages. Rather than destroying the virus, these cells can then end up being reprogrammed by the viruses, exacerbating the immune response and making the disease much, much worse than it would otherwise be.”

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 11:28AM

Aegir wrote: »

I misread. Of the 35,000, 89% of those that said they read the Guardian trust it.

So it isn’t 35,000 people, or 89% of 35,000 it is 89% of people who read it.

You cannot ask a Daily Mail reader if they trust the Guardian or the other way around as it obviously would be no. Why else would you rather read one paper? So you shouldn't focus on the 35 000 number, it is only to show how many people they interviewed. What you need to look at is how many of those readers trust the paper they read, and for the Guardian it is at 89% for the print edition and 84% on the online version.

The comparison to the Sun and Daily Mail is stark. 59% of Daily Mail readers trust the print edition and only 46% trust the online version. For the Sun it is worse, 46% of their readers trust the print edition and only 39% trust the online version. Those are the numbers to focus on.

22-04-2020 11:33AM

Enzokk wrote: »

You cannot ask a Daily Mail reader if they trust the Guardian or the other way around as it obviously would be no. Why else would you rather read one paper? So you shouldn't focus on the 35 000 number, it is only to show how many people they interviewed. What you need to look at is how many of those readers trust the paper they read, and for the Guardian it is at 89% for the print edition and 84% on the online version.

The comparison to the Sun and Daily Mail is stark. 59% of Daily Mail readers trust the print edition and only 46% trust the online version. For the Sun it is worse, 46% of their readers trust the print edition and only 39% trust the online version. Those are the numbers to focus on.

or alternatively, read a road spectrum and make your own opinion.

People believe what they want to believe, even that a trans gender, soon to transition nurse who wants to "Bantheclap" is actually a government plant designed to spread misinformation.

22-04-2020 11:34AM

I find the term "they have peaked", a very worrying and dangerous thought.

Monday we had 77 deaths the highest in one day so far. People will be saying we have peaked and then restrictions will be lifted, until that figure is dwarfed by the figure in a few weeks when everyone is out and about again.

We honestly won't know when a country has peaked until a few months have passed.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 11:37AM

Aegir wrote: »

no, where the **** did you get that from?

From your post,

"If so, where did those patients go? I’m presuming they aren’t stuck in a trolley under a bridge somewhere (which the Guardian would love you to believe) but have been accommodated in other less stretched hospitals, the way the NHS handles this in a day to day basis."

It was mentioned in the article the hospitals were looking to make space in their critical care wards. My assumption is because they had other coronavirus patients in the medical wards who may deteriorate and need further intervention that is done in ICU.

Remember how Johnson went from admission to hospital to the next day being moved to ICU? There was a bed open in ICU to facilitate this, and this is what the hospitals are trying to manage and ensure the patients that need to be receive assistance, whether from CPAP or a ventilator has access to this in the hospital.

Patients aren't sent to the Nightingale Hospital before they are serious,

NHS Nightingale London is our new hospital, which has been specially built to provide the best possible care for patients who have already been intubated and ventilated at a London hospital and require further intensive care treatment for COVID-19.

https://www.nightingale-london.nhs.uk/about-us

Aegir wrote: »

really?

do you have anything to back up that?

Experience and a little common sense.

theological · 22-04-2020 11:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the term "they have peaked", a very worrying and dangerous thought.

Monday we had 77 deaths the highest in one day so far. People will be saying we have peaked and then restrictions will be lifted, until that figure is dwarfed by the figure in a few weeks when everyone is out and about again.

We honestly won't know when a country has peaked until a few months have passed.

In terms of the current wave if you see the highest point and then you see that it is dropping day on day then yes it has peaked.

The priority after this wave has passed is to ensure that other waves will not peak to the same extent.

22-04-2020 11:42AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm sure they do - their vaccine development is being led by a vet. It's Oxford you have to worry about - they're the ones hoping a modified adenovirus with a coronavirus add-on will trigger antibody production in 18-55 year-olds. So pretty much nothing of relevance to Covid-19. But hey, if it gives Matt Hancock something to brag about, why not.

For comparison, the cautious Cambridge approach acknowledges the inherent problem with coronavirus vaccines:

TL:DR version

da Brits are doing it, must find criticism.

Leroy42 · 22-04-2020 11:46AM

theological wrote: »

In terms of the current wave if you see the highest point and then you see that it is dropping day on day then yes it has peaked.

The priority after this wave has passed is to ensure that other waves will not peak to the same extent.

Theo, the numbers are incomplete.

Nobody has a scooby do what the actual numbers are so there is simply no way to say whether the peak has hit or indeed past.

The only thing one can say is that it appears that those numbers have passed their peak. Thats it.

No other conclusion can be draw.

22-04-2020 11:49AM

Enzokk wrote: »

From your post,

you clearly have an isue with the English language then.

Enzokk wrote: »

It was mentioned in the article the hospitals were looking to make space in their critical care wards. My assumption is because they had other coronavirus patients in the medical wards who may deteriorate and need further intervention that is done in ICU.

Remember how Johnson went from admission to hospital to the next day being moved to ICU? There was a bed open in ICU to facilitate this, and this is what the hospitals are trying to manage and ensure the patients that need to be receive assistance, whether from CPAP or a ventilator has access to this in the hospital.

Patients aren't sent to the Nightingale Hospital before they are serious,

https://www.nightingale-london.nhs.uk/about-us

it has only ever been an overflow hospital to help if the main hospitals become overwhelmed. this has not happened.

Enzokk wrote: »

Experience and a little common sense.

so a guess then.

Nothing to do with the OPEL system?

But as the Guardian hasn't shared the document it claims to have seen, we will never know.

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

Comments