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

A Dub in Glasgo · 23-04-2020 12:50PM

Sturgeon briefing was clear and spoke to the public like grown ups

https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/1253288591020654592

'Coronavirus (COVID-19): framework for decision making
Reflects on the ongoing period of lockdown and outlines how we will determine the steps required to constrain the spread of the virus while minimising overall harm to health, society and the economy.'

BonnieSituation · 23-04-2020 01:04PM

theological wrote: »

You can say it is guff when it doesn't happen. Until then I don't see any reason why I shouldn't trust Prof. Newton.

Of course you don't.

What's the difference now with him saying it and say Matt Hancock saying it on Tuesday?

theological · 23-04-2020 01:16PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Of course you don't.

What's the difference now with him saying it and say Matt Hancock saying it on Tuesday?

You can take it or leave it. I don't think it is a fruitful use of time to discuss why you aren't convinced of something. I thought it might be of interest. If it isn't super. You don't have to dwell on it.

theological · 23-04-2020 02:53PM

514 new deaths reported in England.
17 deaths in Wales.
57 deaths in Scotland.
= 588 deaths

This seems much lower. Let's hope this trend continues.

theological · 23-04-2020 03:09PM

Correction. Official tally is 616. This is still a big step in the right direction.

robinph · 23-04-2020 03:24PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The figures for Britain are encouraging but Monday is always low due to lack of admin staff for reporting. But here's hoping.

It's very right for France. France reported decreasing numbers as per the graph. Past three days: 761, 642, 395. Which is consistent with a trend of 800 down to 300.

So now a couple of days further on and the 395 that France actually reported on the day they were predicting a low 300 number just appears to be a fluke as the following two days France reported 550'ish where their predictions a few days ago were then in the low 200's.

Not seeing a whole lot in their predictions to suggest they are in anyway more accurate than just hitting a random number generator. Other than their prediction for Sweden which has a big peak in a months time, they are probably expecting too sudden a slope back down towards zero as well. I don't think any of the down slopes are going to be as steep as they were on the way up.

Indestructable · 23-04-2020 04:45PM

What the actual **** is after happening to this thread.

Tokyo · 23-04-2020 05:03PM

Indestructable wrote: »

What the actual **** is after happening to this thread.

Mod: Fair point. I've just tried to unravel two pages of sniping and waffle about the BBC. I'm going to start thread banning posters who deliberately steer the thread off course after this. Stick to the topic at hand.

theological · 23-04-2020 05:36PM

I'm hugely encouraged by this briefing.

Hospital admissions nearly at 3,000 in London.

Deaths are on the decline.

Testing capacity is at 51,000 and key workers and their families will be able to be tested from tomorrow. Mobile testing centres manned by the army will help with this.

18,000 people are being hired for contact tracing purposes.

It looks like the government are getting a grip on this.

dfx- · 23-04-2020 05:49PM

testing capacity of 50,000 but only a portion of that actually being tested. They haven't explained the discrepancy and nobody has asked them. He seems to have converted the plan to test 100,000 a day into capacity to do 100,000.

31 drive through test centres, but only about three for the west and east midlands, one in the entirety of Devon and Cornwall and three in Scotland, only one further north than Glasgow, likely Aberdeen.

Poor stuff tbh.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 05:55PM

Yeah at one stage Newton says we're on target for 100,000 tests a day. Bout a minute later he says we're on target to have 100,000 capacity. Very loose use of language for a scientist.

Hancocks contact trace measures sound good but did he give a clear sense of when it might be up and running? Didnt get one anyway.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 06:02PM

The UK Government will change the 100 000 tests per day to 100 000 capacity, or at least try to do that. You cannot fault the journalists really because they haven't missed the target yet, I hope they would ask them next week if there isn't 100 000 tests per day being done and not just the capacity as that is what Hancock committed to.

theological · 23-04-2020 06:05PM

dfx- wrote: »

testing capacity of 50,000 but only a portion of that actually being tested. They haven't explained the discrepancy and nobody has asked them. He seems to have converted the plan to test 100,000 a day into capacity to do 100,000.

31 drive through test centres, but only about three for the west and east midlands, one in the entirety of Devon and Cornwall and three in Scotland, only one further north than Glasgow, likely Aberdeen.

Poor stuff tbh.

Of course it is about capacity because you can't guarantee uptake even if you have the capacity.

I thought the briefing was pretty informative. Another thing I thought was helpful was when Matt Hancock explained that the priority before easing the measures is not just that the death figures go down, but that the number of new cases begin to drop substantially. It gives us a clearer idea of what we should be looking for.

Dave0301 · 23-04-2020 06:06PM

theological wrote: »

I'm hugely encouraged by this briefing.

Hospital admissions nearly at 3,000 in London.

Deaths are on the decline.

Testing capacity is at 51,000 and key workers and their families will be able to be tested from tomorrow. Mobile testing centres manned by the army will help with this.

18,000 people are being hired for contact tracing purposes.

It looks like the government are getting a grip on this.

I guess it all depends on what standards you want to hold people to.

https://twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1253361619377229829

That is not me dismissing the good news about hospital admissions and what is hopefully a trend downwards in deaths.

It just highlights to me that they were behind the curve on this from the start and are only now getting a grip on it.

The news about ramping up community testing and contract testing is promising.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 06:11PM

They lost the first phase. They know that, we all know it. Asleep at the wheel. Everything they're doing is just getting past the peak and getting on top for second phase. Hope memories of early f ups begin to fade.

Am guessing too we're going to be seeing possibly more than a few deflection tactics as the big self imposed target date of April 30 looms.

dfx- · 23-04-2020 06:12PM

theological wrote: »

Of course it is about capacity because you can't guarantee uptake even if you have the capacity.

I thought the briefing was pretty informative. Another thing I thought was helpful was when Matt Hancock explained that the priority before easing the measures is not just that the death figures go down, but that the number of new cases begin to drop substantially. It gives us a clearer idea of what we should be looking for.

There is absolutely no point in having the capacity if it is not undertaken or the centres are too far apart or too far away or inaccessible.

It is all about the tests taken.

The 5 tests to judge when relaxation of restrictions should happen is another layer of process clouding the public from the information. You can just keep saying they haven't been met and that's it..

theological · 23-04-2020 06:16PM

dfx- wrote: »

There is absolutely no point in having the capacity if it is not undertaken or the centres are too far apart or too far away or inaccessible.

It is all about the tests taken.

The 5 tests to judge when relaxation of restrictions should happen is another layer of process clouding the public from the information. You can just keep saying they haven't been met and that's it..

It also depends on how many tests are actually required. It can't be guaranteed that 100,000 will actually be taken every day or even need to be taken everyday but making it possible for 100,000 tests a day is what actually matters.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 06:20PM

theological wrote: »

Of course it is about capacity because you can't guarantee uptake even if you have the capacity.

I thought the briefing was pretty informative. Another thing I thought was helpful was when Matt Hancock explained that the priority before easing the measures is not just that the death figures go down, but that the number of new cases begin to drop substantially. It gives us a clearer idea of what we should be looking for.

If you are able to test 100 000 people in London as that is where all the testers are and all the facilities, how does that help people in Scotland or northern England? If people from Newcastle has to drive down to London to get tested, because that is where the capacity is?

That is why capacity is great but the amount of tests being done is what you should look at.

The target was for 100,000 tests a day to be ‘carried out’, not ‘capacity’ to do 100,000 tests

At the beginning of April, Matt Hancock pledged that the UK would be carrying out 100,000 tests for coronavirus by the end of the April.

...

The target was set out in writing at the time and is still available on the UK government website:

Note the use of the words “carry out”.

At the press conference when the target was first announced on April 2, Mr Hancock said: “I am now setting the goal of 100,000 tests per day by the end of this month. That is the goal and I am determined that we will get there.”

The health secretary did not use the word “capacity” in relation to this target at the time.

I believe he was asked by a journalists, or someone in the press briefing was asked and they confirmed it was for tests and not capacity.

theological · 23-04-2020 06:22PM

Enzokk wrote: »

If you are able to test 100 000 people in London as that is where all the testers are and all the facilities, how does that help people in Scotland or northern England? If people from Newcastle has to drive down to London to get tested, because that is where the capacity is?

That is why capacity is great but the amount of tests being done is what you should look at.

The target was for 100,000 tests a day to be ‘carried out’, not ‘capacity’ to do 100,000 tests

I believe he was asked by a journalists, or someone in the press briefing was asked and they confirmed it was for tests and not capacity.

Your first point is irrelevant because there are testing centres all over the country and there will be mobile testing centres also.

I stand by what I say about capacity. Guaranteeing the capacity is there for when it is needed is what actually matters.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 06:23PM

theological wrote: »

It also depends on how many tests are actually required. It can't be guaranteed that 100,000 will actually be taken every day or even need to be taken everyday but making it possible for 100,000 tests a day is what actually matters.

No, you can test all NHS staff every day if you have the capacity, to ensure they don't work with vulnerable patients and is infected by the virus. You are trying hard to move the goalposts from capacity to tests. I don't think NHS staff is refusing to be tested and that is why they aren't reaching the capacity figure every day.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 06:26PM

theological wrote: »

Your first point is irrelevant because there are testing centres all over the country and there will be mobile testing centres also.

I stand by what I say about capacity. Guaranteeing the capacity is there for when it is needed is what actually matters.

That is great, they will increase the capacity. But it is useless if you cannot physically carry out the tests. I have the lung capacity to run a 5k tomorrow, but me doing it is a totally different proposition. I will struggle, likely vomit on the way and could end up in hospital, but I have the capacity. Do you see the difference yet?

I agree you cannot reach the number of tests before you have the capacity, but then they shouldn't have set the target at tests instead of capacity. It is not my fault the government set the target. Why are you trying to deflect away from tests to capacity?

Zubeneschamali · 23-04-2020 06:27PM

theological wrote: »

Guaranteeing the capacity is there for when it is needed is what actually matters.

When a government cheerleader says this it means they know they won't hit the stated goal of 100,000 actual tests.

theological · 23-04-2020 06:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When a government cheerleader says this it means they know they won't hit the stated goal of 100,000 actual tests.

I don't understand how you can't see the manifest absurdity in what you're requesting.

It's impossible to guarantee demand. What you can do is ensure that this demand can be met if required.

Harry Palmr · 23-04-2020 07:03PM

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.

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.

Just to drag this back up, the south east corner of Wales has a notable hot spot in Newport which is between Cardiff and the Severn Bridge. Newport is in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area with 213 dead, Cardiff and Vale health board area which has a bigger population and 146 dead. There could be something else that explains the difference or it could be Cheltenham.

edit just found this - as of April 8th Newport had the highest infection rate in the UK at 286 cases per 100,000 people.

Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/coronavirus-hotspots-across-uk-12528748/?ito=cbshare

RobMc59 · 23-04-2020 07:06PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When a government cheerleader says this it means they know they won't hit the stated goal of 100,000 actual tests.

Are you familiar with the saying:`it`s better to aim high and miss than to aim low and hit`...

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 07:07PM

theological wrote: »

I don't understand how you can't see the manifest absurdity in what you're requesting.

It's impossible to guarantee demand. What you can do is ensure that this demand can be met if required.

Right, you are telling us that people in the UK doesn't want to get tested. Not the NHS staff nor the care home staff either, they are in a conspiracy against the government so they will not reach their self imposed target. They also don't want to find out how bad the infections are in care homes so they are keeping the residents from being tested. Who are they? Who cares, its just done so the Government looks bad.

Enzokk · 23-04-2020 07:15PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

Are you familiar with the saying:`it`s better to aim high and miss than to aim low and hit`...

Like this you mean?

Government misses one of its Covid-19 test targets

Yesterday morning on BBC Breakfast, Labour leader Keir Starmer said that the government was missing its target of 25,000 Covid-19 tests a day by mid-April.

That’s correct. The government initially set a target for 25,000 tests a day within four weeks, four weeks ago, which it has missed. It did 18,665 tests yesterday and has not done more than 19,116 tests in a day.

It could still meet less ambitious targets which it subsequently set for 25,000 tests a day by “mid to late April.”

But they made the previous target, right?

At the daily coronavirus briefing yesterday, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the government had committed to 10,000 tests by the end of March, which it had hit. We don’t know if this was the case because data on the daily number of tests did not start to be published comprehensively until 6 April.

He also claimed that the government had met each of its targets on testing, though he did not mention the target referred to by Mr Starmer which has now been missed.

So they haven't even reached the mid April target yet as 22 814 tests were done on the 21st April. But let's pivot to capacity, right?

Professor Moriarty · 23-04-2020 07:20PM

From the Irish Times today:

International figures show that in other western countries, the percentage of all Covid-19 deaths arising in nursing homes, where the age of the residents, and type of care they require makes them very vulnerable to Covid-19, has been running at between 45 and 60 per cent.

Joe_ Public · 23-04-2020 07:33PM

God, i hope some of the tory spin as we approach April 30 is better than we're seeing here. Lamentable to put it mildly.

From today's Guardian. People being turned back after long drives to get tested. Why is this happening?

"What I’m hearing from the frontline is that nurses are driving up to two hours, feeling very unwell with possible symptoms of coronavirus, to testing stations, and sometimes if you haven’t got an appointment you’re turned away and told to come back another time,” Dame Donna Kinnair, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, told the health and social care select committee."

Zubeneschamali · 23-04-2020 08:02PM

theological wrote: »

It's impossible to guarantee demand.

The UK government seem sure there is a demand for 100,000 tests a day, why else would they set that target?

But as the deadline approaches and they are a mile short, their cheerleaders are trying to pivot to capacity for 2 reasons:

Firstly it's a theoretical number and can't easily be shown to be wrong, and secondly because it allows them to deflect from a lack of testing by pretending that they did their part, it is the fault of all the doctors, nurses and sickies that they didn't hitch 100 miles across country to their nearest test center.

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

Comments