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

RobMc59 · 23-04-2020 09:16AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sorry, i made the mistake saying they were german when it's actually a swiss firm. That correction made, what in your dismissive manner are you objecting to what the company ceo said?

Apologies,I didn't mean it like that.

23-04-2020 09:16AM

McGiver wrote: »

If FT is right then the death rate per capita is the second worst in Europe on par with Spain if we estimate their death outside of the hospitals, they do count some but not all, so let's use 40% extra on top of their numbers.

Spain - 0.639 per 1000 (care homes included, estimated)
UK - 0.621 per 1000 (care homes included, estimated)
Italy - 0.570 per 1000 (care homes included, estimated)
Belgium - 0.518 per 1000 (care homes included, actual)
France - 0.318 per 1000 (care homes included, actual)
Germany - 0.058 per 1000 (care homes included, actual)

To use the FT numbers you would have to use the same methodology they used for each country.

23-04-2020 09:30AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Sorry, i made the mistake saying they were german when it's actually a swiss firm. That correction made, what in your dismissive manner are you objecting to what the company ceo said?

A bit of info on Roche https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/roche-releases-recipe-after-public-pressure-while-european-commission-considers-intervention-due-to-coronavirus-test

As far as big pharma companies are concerned, if they tell you it will get dark tonight, check that it will.

robinph · 23-04-2020 09:35AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Except its not the same as all because the koreans had it under control from day one, if they didnt have to deal with that dooms day cult they could easily have been under 10k cases total.

I'd say there are probably additional confounding factors in play for every country other than China, South Korea and Italy in that other than the very first cases where each country could identify and trace, a week later multiple plane loads of cases arrive in their country and it's instantly beyond the point where you can easily keep up with the tracing.

China knew the street where it started from and then locked down the city. South Korea could identify the chain of exactly who and where the first 30 cases were and they were all linked together...until the "religious" cult started spreading it and Italy was confined to one region initially.

Most other countries have had a multiple points of infection coming into the country as the same time so unless you've shut down the borders before it reaches you there isn't a whole lot you can do at that point to actually stop it, just try to slow it down as best as possible.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 09:36AM

Aegir wrote: »

A bit of info on Roche https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/roche-releases-recipe-after-public-pressure-while-european-commission-considers-intervention-due-to-coronavirus-test

As far as big pharma companies are concerned, if they tell you it will get dark tonight, check that it will.

I guess you could pass that on to the uk government which has contracted the firm to ramp up its testing network. And what has any of that got to do with what the ceo said on newsnight?

Peregrinus · 23-04-2020 09:39AM

Aegir wrote: »

To use the FT numbers you would have to use the same methodology they used for each country.

Rob's figures represent an attempt to correct for different methodologies by adding in estimates for care home or out-of-hospital deaths in those countries which do not include them in the published figures.

However I think this is done using an assumption that the ratio of out-of-hospital deaths to hospital deaths (in those countries that don't count them) is the same as it is in the UK, per the FT estimate. If you think about it, this is not an assumption you can be hugely confident about, since the actual ratio in each country is going to be affected by a number of factors specific to that country.

The FT itself attempts to arrive at internationally comparable figures by taking the other approach; instead of estimating out-of-hospital deaths in countries that do not count them and adding them to the published total, it takes out of hospital deaths in countries that do count them (an actual count, not an estimate) and subtracts them from the official total.

This of course results in CV-19 deaths being undercounted in all countries, but at least the undercounting is systematic and not dependent on improbable assumptions, so this is likely to be a better basis for making cross-country comparisons.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 09:46AM

Whether the true death toll stands at 40,000 or 35,000 or 30,000 it's still incredibly sad and shocking. It's barely over a week ago that people here and elsewhere were standing over figures that suggested we'd be talking about a maximum of 20,000 by some date in August iirc. We'll probably never know the true figure anyway. Just that it will be 1000s more than it needed to be.

Zubeneschamali · 23-04-2020 09:59AM

theological wrote: »

A few interesting updates from the Politico London Playbook newsletter:

On testing:
professor John Newton, said the 100k capacity will indeed be reached within the next eight days. “We will certainly have the capacity,” he told ITV’s “Peston” show. “And then we will make access as easy as possible for everybody who needs a test to come and get it

This makes no sense. Why wait until you have the max capacity you think you'll need and then start rolling out testing?

Starmer called it in PMQs:

The First Secretary says that there is capacity for 40,000 tests a day and I think it is really important that we fully understand what he just said, because it means that the day before yesterday 40,000 tests could have been carried out, but only 18,000 tests were actually carried out. All week, I have heard from the frontline, from care workers who are frankly desperate for tests for their residents and themselves—desperate. They would expect every test to be used every day for those who need them. There is clearly a problem. Why are the Government not using all the tests available every day?

I think we know the answer. The alleged capacity is a theoretical number, and the real capacity in practice is less than half the theoretical number.

They are not going to hit 100,000 even in theory this month, and the stated goal is 100,000 actual tests. They might get to 40,000. Ok, 30,000.

Zubeneschamali · 23-04-2020 10:03AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

We'll probably never know the true figure anyway. Just that it will be 1000s more than it needed to be.

Of course we'll know. Total mortality this year minus 5 year average annual mortality = covid19 mortality.

Deaths are the one figure we can count on. Infections, recovery etc require testing, but deaths are deaths and always counted.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 10:16AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course we'll know. Total mortality this year minus 5 year average annual mortality = covid19 mortality.

Deaths are the one figure we can count on. Infections, recovery etc require testing, but deaths are deaths and always counted.

Is it that straightforward? What about those dying of other causes because they're not getting treatment they might otherwise have got? What about the numbers not dying in car/work accidents etc? Maybe those balance each other out, not sure.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 10:33AM

News websites are all running the story that there should be an investigation on whether the Cheltenham festival should have gone ahead. This time I can even link a non-Guardian link as well,

Coronavirus: Calls for inquiry on Cheltenham Festival go-ahead

There are calls for an investigation into whether the Cheltenham horse racing festival should have gone ahead, due to concerns it may have led to a high number of local coronavirus cases.

About 150,000 people attended the four-day event in March, which ended 10 days before lockdown measures began.

A former director of Public Health in the region said it should not have gone ahead, and lessons must be learned.

And before there are shouts of lefty bias BBC,

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1252908767957659648?s=20

robinph · 23-04-2020 10:39AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is it that straightforward? What about those dying of other causes because they're not getting treatment they might otherwise have got? What about the numbers not dying in car/work accidents etc? Maybe those balance each other out, not sure.

Whilst the deaths from accidents dropping off will be immediately visible, the numbers from undiagnosed conditions and just general health of the population could be decades away before those numbers would appear in the statistics and it won't be possible to make any analysis regarding those until decades again after that.

How long this situation goes on for and how much of an impact it ends up having even on things like lifetime activity and mental issues for the children going through it won't be figured out anytime soon. If everything is sorted tomorrow and we get back to our previous life then no major harm done, but what impact would a couple of years of social distancing have on the next generation. Nobody knows, and nobody is going to know for a very, very long time.

robinph · 23-04-2020 10:47AM

Enzokk wrote: »

News websites are all running the story that there should be an investigation on whether the Cheltenham festival should have gone ahead. This time I can even link a non-Guardian link as well,

Coronavirus: Calls for inquiry on Cheltenham Festival go-ahead

And before there are shouts of lefty bias BBC,

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1252908767957659648?s=20

Not clicking on a DM link, but whilst the numbers for Gloucestershire are probably higher than they should be with the rest of the country averages compared to the population density, the numbers for Bristol are lower compared with the rest of the country so that could make any difference seem worse than it actually is.

Whilst the local businesses in Gloucestershire no doubt do very well out of Cheltenham, I've no idea how far and wide the Cheltenham punters come from...other than there are loads from Ireland. Does a spike there actually link back to the horse event or is it actually a more dispersed population of race goers that are affected and are so more difficult to identify?

Is there an increased infection rate amongst horse betting types than other parts of the population?

Donald Trump · 23-04-2020 10:54AM

robinph wrote: »

Not clicking on a DM link, but whilst the numbers for Gloucestershire are probably higher than they should be with the rest of the country averages compared to the population density, the numbers for Bristol are lower compared with the rest of the country so that could make any difference seem worse than it actually is.

Whilst the local businesses in Gloucestershire no doubt do very well out of Cheltenham, I've no idea how far and wide the Cheltenham punters come from...other than there are loads from Ireland. Does a spike there actually link back to the horse event or is it actually a more dispersed population of race goers that are affected and are so more difficult to identify?

Is there an increased infection rate amongst horse betting types than other parts of the population?

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/curious-tale-of-one-countys-covid-19-caseload-39121412.html

You have to realise how a virus spreads. If 100 people who went to Cheltenham caught it there and brought it back to 100 different locations and reverted to their 9-5 jobs and family life, the virus would not then restrict itself to jumping to other "betting types"

robinph · 23-04-2020 11:05AM

Donald Trump wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/curious-tale-of-one-countys-covid-19-caseload-39121412.html

You have to realise how a virus spreads. If 100 people who went to Cheltenham caught it there and brought it back to 100 different locations and reverted to their 9-5 jobs and family life, the virus would not then restrict itself to jumping to other "betting types"

Absolutely, which is why for the likes of Cheltenham festival saying that the numbers of deaths/infections in Cheltenham are high is a relatively meaningless number if other than the bar staff the locals are not going to it.

If you had a village fete and then a month later there was an outbreak in that village then you could probably assume that the link was everyone in the village hanging out together at that event. Not sure the same applies for a big event with people coming from far and wide to one location, whilst the locals then run for the hills to get away from all the tourists.

You can make the case that Cheltenham happening was a stupid idea and will have increased infections in the population at large, I don't think you can reliably link Cheltenham happening to an increase in infections/ deaths in the Cheltenham local population though.

RobMc59 · 23-04-2020 11:14AM

robinph wrote: »

Absolutely, which is why for the likes of Cheltenham festival saying that the numbers of deaths/infections in Cheltenham are high is a relatively meaningless number if other than the bar staff the locals are not going to it.

If you had a village fete and then a month later there was an outbreak in that village then you could probably assume that the link was everyone in the village hanging out together at that event. Not sure the same applies for a big event with people coming from far and wide to one location, whilst the locals then run for the hills to get away from all the tourists.

You can make the case that Cheltenham happening was a stupid idea and will have increased infections in the population at large, I don't think you can reliably link Cheltenham happening to an increase in infections/ deaths in the Cheltenham local population though.

Allowing the European cup fixture with a massive influx of Madrid fans was also a mistake,I've heard rumours that this was responsible for the virus getting to Iceland as many from there follow liverpool.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 11:15AM

robinph wrote: »

Whilst the deaths from accidents dropping off will be immediately visible, the numbers from undiagnosed conditions and just general health of the population could be decades away before those numbers would appear in the statistics and it won't be possible to make any analysis regarding those until decades again after that.

How long this situation goes on for and how much of an impact it ends up having even on things like lifetime activity and mental issues for the children going through it won't be figured out anytime soon. If everything is sorted tomorrow and we get back to our previous life then no major harm done, but what impact would a couple of years of social distancing have on the next generation. Nobody knows, and nobody is going to know for a very, very long time.

Yeah, i can see all that right enough. But the question is estimating how many deaths from the virus which i think can arrive at a ball park figure but never an exact one. Whatever ultimately gets settled on i think you will have people disputing it on various criteria. But bottom line for me is it's shockingly high and higher than it needed to be owing almost certainly to fateful political decisions.

CelticRambler · 23-04-2020 11:28AM

Enzokk wrote: »

News websites are all running the story that there should be an investigation on whether the Cheltenham festival should have gone ahead.

You may remember that, back then, the UK government's (and theological's) position was doing "the right thing at the right time" and Patrick Valence went on the record as saying that the risk of transmission of the virus at this kind of event was relatively low, so the government's efforts should be directed elsewhere. :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 11:38AM

Boris Johnson actually interviewed Jenny Harries, deputy cmo of phe, on 13 March and asked her why other countries were closing down big sporting fixtures but they weren't. She said they were safe to go ahead with.

Here she is on March 10, batting away Rory Stewart's calls for school closures. A few days ago she was referring to the uk as an "exemplar of preparedness."

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1237310362992685057?s=20

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 11:41AM

The PPE order from Turkey? Seems like it is not going to materialize in full or be very late to get the whole 84 tonnes.

Turkish government steps in to fulfil UK order for PPE

A shipment of protective equipment brought to Britain by the RAF was supplied by the Turkish government after the UK’s plan to buy supplies from a private company descended into chaos.

Ankara rode to the rescue when the UK’s original supplier was found to be lacking the necessary export license, prompting delays and embarrassment for Boris Johnson’s government.

So the company the UK was trying to purchase PPE from didn't have an export license. The UK either were told it would be okay or they didn't do their own due diligence on the company. They then asked for help from the Turkish Government on Sunday to release the goods. That is where the delay came from. As you would expect, Turkey will not just allow PPE to leave their country if they are also dealing with the crises and the company isn't allowed to export goods.

So the UK tried to put pressure on Turkey by sending the aircraft on Monday but now it seems the bulk of the goods are from the Turkish Government and it was released to spare the blushes of the UK Government over this fiasco.

There were chaotic scenes in Istanbul on Tuesday, as British officials desperately worked with the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to source PPE to load on to an RAF plane after the initial order with a Turkish supplier for 84 tonnes of equipment failed to materialise.

UK ministers said the 84-tonne consignment of PPE included an order for 400,000 gowns, which are needed to make up for a critical shortage faced by healthcare staff.

But Downing Street declined to say how much PPE arrived on the flight from Istanbul in the early hours of Wednesday morning, only confirming that equipment was being tested before being sent to the front line.

VinLieger · 23-04-2020 11:46AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Boris Johnson actually interviewed Jenny Harries, deputy cmo of phe, on 13 March and asked her why other countries were closing down big sporting fixtures but they weren't. She said they were safe to go ahead with.

Here she is on March 10, batting away Rory Stewart's calls for school closures. A few days ago she was referring to the uk as an "exemplar of preparedness."

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1237310362992685057?s=20

Getting more and more of a feeling that Jenny Harries was a big pusher for the herd immunity plan

RobMc59 · 23-04-2020 11:50AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

You may remember that, back then, the UK government's (and theological's) position was doing "the right thing at the right time" and Patrick Valence went on the record as saying that the risk of transmission of the virus at this kind of event was relatively low, so the government's efforts should be directed elsewhere. :rolleyes:

You may have the expertise in that field Celtic but the general public trust what their government tells them.
If that guidance is found to be incorrect or people incompetent then hopefully that will come out in the wash and those responsible will be dealt with.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 11:51AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Getting more and more of a feeling that Jenny Harries was a big pusher for the herd immunity plan

God knows and good luck to them wading through all that murk. She's the most arrogant of the lot of them though and cant see anything she has to be so haughty about. Could ultimately see her as a very handy fall guy.

CelticRambler · 23-04-2020 11:57AM

RobMc59 wrote: »

You may have the expertise in that field Celtic but the general public trust what their government tells them.
If that guidance is found to be incorrect or people incompetent then hopefully that will come out in the wash and those responsible will be dealt with.

Ordinarily I would agree. Unfortunately, this government was put into office by the voting public despite overwhelming evidence that they could not and should not be trusted. And while the same administration continues to hide reports into its earlier conduct in other matters, I have little doubt that none of those responsible will be dealt with ... and won't be surprised if the voting public rewards them with yet another term in office.

S.M.B. · 23-04-2020 12:01PM

I think it's a bit of a jump to say that anyone who's actions and words have been questionable were pushers of the herd immunity plan. However, the fact that all these figures continue to simply justify their actions by saying they are 'following the scientific advice' is either naive or downright disingenuous.

I never want to hear the term 'the science' ever again, acting as if it's some singular truth that will lead us out of this horrible situation. The way they talk about it you'd swear it's a magic eight ball that they ask questions like "Should we close the schools this week?" to get a decision.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 12:02PM

I think i might agree on rob on this one. Dont know what the polls say but wouldnt surprise me to learn that the public still broadly trusts the government despite being lied to on an almost daily basis. I suspect this is at least partly down to a stubborn reluctance from many people to accept that they are being lied to. Its a rubicon they still just cant cross, even with the evidence staring them right in the eye.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 12:13PM

S.M.B. wrote: »

I think it's a bit of a jump to say that anyone who's actions and words have been questionable were pushers of the herd immunity plan. However, the fact that all these figures continue to simply justify their actions by saying they are 'following the scientific advice' is either naive or downright disingenuous.

I never want to hear the term 'the science' ever again, acting as if it's some singular truth that will lead us out of this horrible situation. The way they talk about it you'd swear it's a magic eight ball that they ask questions like "Should we close the schools this week?" to get a decision.

It seems to me that they think that repeating this phrase will somehow shield them from criticism of the decisions they made. It is being used as a get out of jail free card and a way to avoid critique, especially if you don't release the science you based your decision on either. Who could argue against the science when only those scientists get to see it?

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-04-2020 12:35PM

Scotland:
In hospital: 1,748 (-28)
In ICU: 147 (-7)
Total confirmed cases: 9,409 (+371)
Total deaths with confirmed COVID-19: 1,120 (+58)

Therefore as it stands, there are a minimum of 1,821 (1,120+701) deaths in Scotland (confirmed and suspected)

theological · 23-04-2020 12:43PM

It's interesting to take a minute and take a look across Europe.

In Germany the Bundesländer are starting to ease lockdown measures . Merkel warns that it is probably too hasty.

France and the Netherlands are contemplating reopening schools. I think it is definitely the right call. School closures are the worst for the impact on the economy and have relatively little effect in terms of transmitting the virus. Some are even suggesting that children may be less infectious.

Czechs are permitted to travel abroad as long as they quarantine for 14 days on return. They are doing a phased easing of the measures until June.

Italy will end the lockdown on May 4th which is interesting.

Poland are opening parks and forests and easing restrictions on going to shops. Poland is probably only easing to the point where the UK is now because their measures were quite strict.

In any case I recommend the first link to you. I think there'll be another extension in the UK but things will probably need to be eased after this. Whitty warned that social distancing will likely be in place for the rest of this year.

S.M.B. · 23-04-2020 12:43PM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems to me that they think that repeating this phrase will somehow shield them from criticism of the decisions they made. It is being used as a get out of jail free card and a way to avoid critique, especially if you don't release the science you based your decision on either. Who could argue against the science when only those scientists get to see it?

100%, and it's continuous use in all these comms leads me to think that everybody has been briefed and trained to adhere to this strategy.

For a government to perpetuate this myth that there is a single correct way of handling this crisis at any given moment is downright dangerous in my opinion and makes it very apparent where their priorities lie, self preservation over the greater good.

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

Comments